mdages
The video posted by the op don't really explain the integration to Studio One. It shows some features that still could be done be regular VST integration. I assume they integrate it with the new Mix-FX architecture of S1, that makes it unnecessary to put in the Console 1 plugin to each seperate channel. A Mix-FX plugin can automaticalle communicate with each channel and allows thinks like crosstalking.
This is really new and exclusive to Studio One 3.2.x.
 
I don't expect something similar to Sonar very soon. But maybe Cakewalk do a speach with Presonus to get the same new plugin architecture, like it was with ARA.
 
But, an integration of Console 1 to Sonar is still present. Not as easy to do like in S1, you have to put in the plugin on each channel manually, but overall it works the same.
 
If this one more seamless integration thing is a reason to leave Sonar and jump on to Studio One, ok, never stop travelers.
 
As a user working with both, Sonar (primary) and Studio-One, I can tell you will miss so many other of this nice Sonar things if you change over.
 
-Markus
 

It's simple an extension that allows a vst plugin to talk back to the host and set mixer states. Not that complicated. I'm trying to get more info if isn't proprietary well consider it.

John
... Personally I am not all hat enthused by analog modeling. They are talking about adding crosstalk and noise. These are things that were a huge problem in the analog world before digital came along. Now in order to "improve" the sound of digital developers are coming out with all sorts of retro analog characteristics that to me are something to be avoided and are only popular because many young people have no clue what the sound of analog really was.
 
So I am very skeptical about this trend. I see it as nowhere else to go thus they go back. Digital has reached a point where it is so good and the various hardware and software is so good there is very little room for improvement. Therefore why not model all the nasty things that analog had and call it the "great" analog sound to sell more digital gear and software.    

For sure that's a huge part of it, just the marketing. If I have one super clean, neutral, precise digital EQ, with an excellent UI, what is the motivation to buy 10 more of them? or 100 more? They will all sound pretty much exactly the same. But if each of those 100 claims to add another flavour of elusive 'magic' from some rare analog box from decades ago, then maybe I really do need as many as I can afford, or likely somewhat more. 
 
To an extent, OK, the analog modelling thing was an answer to having thrown out the baby with the bathwater with digital early on - yes it was clean and stable and the noise floor was negligible, at least once we got past the early teething problems of bad converters and aliasing and jitter and so on - but it was also kind of bland and boring, and there was a kind of 'vibe' that high-quality analog gear used to have (alongside its plethora of problems) that was genuinely missing. So it kind of made sense to say hey, maybe we could get back some of that warmth and tone, without the problems, through modelling. And yes, the early attempts were rough around the edges and they have gotten better over the years. 
 
But then it became a thousand-headed hydra of marketing to get us to believe that all we really need to turn our productions into million-selling masterpieces was the latest greatest compressor - not the last latest greatest one we bought last month but This Month's Model (see what I did there?). It's really not. If I can't make a track sound great with any of the 25 compressors I already have, 20 of which I never use and have more or less forgotten that I have, what are the odds that another one is going to turn a donkey into a unicorn? Maybe it's just not a great sounding track, and I should try again with another mic, or better placement, or (wait for it) better playing and/or singing... 

Digital has gotten so good that it exceeds the ability of the human ear already, and so clean that noise generators are created to sound more realistic. It is disconcerting that technology alone is considered the definitive good/bad discriminator (in so many things), but this marketing gimmick has gone on for decades already.

I don't agree with everything you are saying Tobias but I do agree with the vast majority of it. 

oh it only controls soft tube plugins not third party like waves

From what I have seen that is the way it works. Here's a quote from them. 
 
 
"The workflow 
Use one of the track selector buttons on the hardware to select the track you want to work on. Then use the physical knobs and buttons to adjust the included gate, EQ, compressor, high/low cut filters, transient shaper and emulated analog console distortion. Select a track, tweak the knobs. Select another track, tweak the knobs—that is essentially the workflow of Console 1.
Each parameter has a corresponding knob or button on the hardware. The track count is unlimited, parameter changes can be automated and all your settings are saved with the DAW project for total recall."

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Fun indeed. We wasted two days tracking down that one since we couldn't figure out what was causing the random crashing. It turned out that simply setting the application manifest to report windows 10 compatibility with no other changes causes PACE to through a fit. We needed that because in Windows 10 an app cannot query the windows version accurately without this. 

 
Yeah, Like that tune "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with you".
 
I've seen ways around that "depreciation" on CP but y'all have seen it no doubt.
 
I'm Hijacking this thread so I'll just see my way out.

Sweet, so all we need to do is throw a snit and put on our walkin' shoes and we can get a feature request through? Varispeed here I come! 
 
j/k, though my RapPro install is all messed up if you wanted to chime in. :-)

The trick on Softubes Console 1 is the combination of a track plugin to a hardware controller.
You put in the softtube console1 vst plugin to each track and you're ready to control the track and fx features with the Console-1 hardware controller. It's not to control any third party plugins.
 
I assume that the special integration to Studio One's Mix-FX architecture makes it unnecessary to put in the console-1 vst plugin to each track manually. One special Mix-FX plugin inserted to the master and you're ready to control each track with the console-1 hardware.
It's a huge timesaver to implement a channel strip on each track with only one mouse click. Thats imo the big difference to integration of Console-1 on other DAW's.
 
-Markus

mdages
The trick on Softubes Console 1 is the combination of a track plugin to a hardware controller.
You put in the softtube console1 vst plugin to each track and you're ready to control the track and fx features with the Console-1 hardware controller. It's not to control any third party plugins.
 
I assume that the special integration to Studio One's Mix-FX architecture makes it unnecessary to put in the console-1 vst plugin to each track manually. One special Mix-FX plugin inserted to the master and you're ready to control each track with the console-1 hardware.
It's a huge timesaver to implement a channel strip on each track with only one mouse click. Thats imo the big difference to integration of Console-1 on other DAW's.
 
-Markus

That wont work. With Mix FX things like saturation and noise apply to the buss as well as all the tracks feeding it. One wouldn't want that for EQ or compression.