James they didn't need to plan it. PC modules are VSTs.

When the PC launched the literature said it was to be a fully customizable channel strip available on all tracks. They also mentioned that the architecture was such, that third party developers could develop modules for the PC. No limits, no constraints or caveats. Near as I can tell, this is exactly what we have, and exactly what happened. Some third party developers have made modules and Cakewalk provided the majority. Where is the argument?
 
Most plug in developers are not developing modules for the PC and Cakewalk has not made the PC a priority when developing its own plugs, recently. It seems that the PC simply didn't catch on like they thought it would when it was developed. This sort of thing happens all the time. We just have to use the thing as it sits, or not. The Quad Curve is great and I'm glad to have it there providing consistency between tracks and functions. 
 
So the PC is not dead, it's resting. It could make a big comeback should Cake develop a "killer plug" for it. Still not sure why this has become such a heated argument.

John
James they didn't need to plan it. PC modules are VSTs.

If so, then Cakewalk please make them available as VST's, so everybody has freedom to decide where they want to work: FX Bin or ProChannel.

Anderton
Regardless of what it suggests to you, mixer channel strips are fairly well-defined. Look at some mixers, or plug-in emulations of mixer channel strips, to see what the term "mixer channel strip" suggests to the majority of real-world users. The customizable aspect of the original ProChannel was that you could change dynamics and distortion processors, as well as choose different filter curves and highpass/lowpass slopes. This allowed you to emulate the channel strips in different mixers.
 

 
AGAIN! The Pro Channels are catagorised into one of 8 catagories;
Distortion
Frequency
Dynamic
Imaging
Modulation
Simulation
Time
Analysis
 
These go beyond just console emulation, and shows an intent by the Engineers that it would be more tha just Console Emulation. It's baked in to the format already, no matter what the blurb says.
 
 

John
James they didn't need to plan it. PC modules are VSTs.

Yes I know, they're just VST's in the wrapper of a PC module. But we can distinguish them from regular VST's based on that. 

ampfixer
Still not sure why this has become such a heated argument.

It only become a heated argument after the suggestion was floated that FX Chain modules are a waste of space when you only have one plugin in them, and that an improvement could be made in this regard. For some unknown reason it felt like we were arguing religion or politics after that 

I agree with ChazEd on being able to have the PC modules available as a VST. That would be nice. To me it is really a nice visual to see the plugins in the FX bin vs having to open the PC to see what is in use.  

I'm surprised there hasn't been much call for further FX chains shapes. When I set up one of the BlueTubes as an FX Chain, I needed 7 knobs, so had to sacrifice the least important, and some accessible functionality. I know FX chains are designed for stringing VSTs together, and as a general 'insert Vst' is just consequence of the design, but it would be cool if they came in some different sizes, 1x3, 2x3, 3x3 dials. Maybe some switch options, slider would be cool
 
Thinking it further, a modular FX chain dials/sliders/ switch option would be really useful, and a way to create you own vst PC modules

Kamikaze

Anderton
Regardless of what it suggests to you, mixer channel strips are fairly well-defined. Look at some mixers, or plug-in emulations of mixer channel strips, to see what the term "mixer channel strip" suggests to the majority of real-world users. The customizable aspect of the original ProChannel was that you could change dynamics and distortion processors, as well as choose different filter curves and highpass/lowpass slopes. This allowed you to emulate the channel strips in different mixers.
 

 
AGAIN! The Pro Channels are catagorised into one of 8 catagories;
Distortion
Frequency
Dynamic
Imaging
Modulation
Simulation
Time
Analysis
 
These go beyond just console emulation, and shows an intent by the Engineers that it would be more tha just Console Emulation. It's baked in to the format already, no matter what the blurb says.

 
Again...it didn't start out that way. Introducing something later on in product development doesn't qualify as original design intention. Check out the SONAR X1 documentation. 

 
It still shows an intention. and a vision for for it that goes beyond console emulation. To create icons for things that don't exist shows they wanted it to evolve further.
 
And what documentation are you referring to, I have never see the ProChannel catagories stated in any documentation? They did have these catagories back then, you can see the icons in place.
 
 
EDIT: I just checked the registry for X3 and these 8 catogories existed back then, but I don't have a machine wit the last version being X1 for me to check.