forkol
I would generally agree with that, but IIRC, you've been a big cheerleader for tools like the new EQs and Vocal Align features, both of which were available through other means.

There's a difference between core features and plug-ins. Including those plug-ins make SONAR more of an all-in-one package precisely because new users don't have to acquire them through other means and be forced to spend extra money. They were also available for sale to Mac and Windows users, independently of inclusion in SONAR.
 
I had nothing to do with the decision to create them, but I'm glad I have them in SONAR and don't have to spend the money on something similar from a different company.

sharke
You gave [the OP] a solution which does not lend itself to convenient tweaking and experimentation, which most people will do in order to get a modulation effect to sound "just right."

 
Re-read what he asked for. He wanted to deep square tremolo to pan from left to right. I gave him what HE asked for, not the solution for a feature that YOU want. 
 

A short audio example is irrelevant.

 
That's all I need to know.
 
I've never said "OMG, an LFO is a horrible idea!" All I did was question how many people care about it. There will always be a vocal minority who are really passionate about a feature that no one else cares about. I don't know if this falls under this category or not, so I asked a question.
 
I offered a solution that did what the OP asked for, asked a question about the general importance, showed how to maintain a constant level when drawing periodic waveforms, took the time to make a video showing "corner case" ways to user drawing tools, and in the process, got issued "challenges" when all I offered to do was try to find a way to produce the same kind of MUSICAL result you wanted in SONAR. 
 

I'm not saying that the drawing tools don't have their place, or that there aren't edge cases in which the drawing tools are better...I get where you're coming from in that the drawing tools aren't completely useless.

 
Thank you. That was my entire point. 
 
I on the other hand never said that LFOs were "horrible." I said that I question how important they are to people. 
 
A convincing musical example of great sounds made possible only through the use of LFOs modulating mixer parameters would have helped, but I guess that's irrelevant.

To be fair though Craig, it seems that you didn't read the OP closely enough - he wasn't asking for a deep square pan, he said that his pad and power chord already have a deep square tremolo, and that he wants them to swim from right to left and vice versa (at least that's how I read it). So the deep square tremolo seems to be a superfluous detail that didn't really have anything to do with the LFO. And his wider point was that he would like some kind of LFO tool in Sonar. He wasn't asking how to do it with an envelope, in fact he stated that he knows he can do it like that. He didn't even mention drawing tools - Sanderxpander brought that up. So the discussion, as directed by the OP's request (and the title of the thread) was about whether or not Sonar should have an LFO tool built in. 
 
So then the question became "would an LFO tool be useful in Sonar." Which led me to point out that proper LFO tools are far easier to use, much easier to tweak on the fly and therefore more useful in a creative sense than automation drawing tools. That's why I issued the "challenge" FWIW. It was to show that periodic modulation as a creative tool is much more convenient when you have proper LFO controls. And I stand by that. When using LFO modulation in The Drop, I will sit for ages getting just the right amplitudes and phase settings for the musical effect I'm after. And it's not always "quantized" values either - oftentimes I will find that a phase value of something like 68 or 147 degrees is the value that "hits the spot." And if I want to ramp up an LFO's amplitude over time, I can do that with straight line in the automation lane applied to the amplitude control in the plugin. 
 

I on the other hand never said that LFOs were "horrible." I said that I question how important they are to people.

 
And herein lies part of Cakewalk's problem. Its user base is aging, and I don't see a lot of young folk picking it up. LFO's are a huge part of modern production, especially in the electronic styles, and this is where DAW's are picking up their new user base. The young bedroom producer. I pay close attention to those communities, and Sonar is not seen as an option by kids who want to start making electronic music in their bedrooms. Other DAW's are tapping into that market successfully, and I've always held that Cakewalk needs to do a lot more to rectify this. Even the young "real bands" are utilizing these modern production techniques in their music. It's not uncommon to hear electronic/synth elements mixed with real instruments these days. 
 
I browse the Sonar user group on Facebook sometimes. It seems to be mainly guys of my age (40's) and over. That's just an observation. Which is fine, as someone who's obviously no spring chicken I'm not going to knock Cakewalk's older meat and potatoes user base - I just think that questioning how important LFO modulation is to Sonar's existing user base loses sight of the fact that an injection of revenue from new young producers is going to benefit everyone in the long run. It would be prudent for Cakewalk to pay more attention to features like this even if most of the older guys here on the forum don't see a use for them. 

the tremolo was just one example.  i know there are multiple ways of doing that. 
 
I hate the draw tool.  And if I wanted to sync two LFOs to MIDI, i am guessing the draw tool would require calculations (bars to time) to do. 
 
All I want is a small LFO tool, with maybe 3-4 waveforms and the ability to route it anywhere in a track.  Filter, pan, volume (for an extreme on off tremolo), ...

Thanks James - you seem to understand.
 

Handed over my degree yesterday as part of a work permit application. 1997, flippin' 1997. 20 years ago. I am that 40 year old Sharke now describes. The music I listen and play to now, isn't the dance music I made back then. I liked DnB for a good while (still) do, and dubstep sprang from that. Just hearing those bassline now, I can see Sharke's point completely. I can't see why Craig is so resistant. A lot of small features I see demand for, Craig seems to digs his heels into. I see only one person arguing against in the thread, because he likes the way it works.
 
I seem to recall the same battle with recording synth outputs.

sharke
It's not uncommon to hear electronic/synth elements mixed with real instruments these days. 

And hasn't been for what, 45+ years now? Even Kraftwerk's early stuff (including Autobahn) mixed "real" instruments with ("real" hardware) synths. Most of the surviving psychedelic/electronica originators and pioneers are now in their 60s and 70s, and some are making a more electronic kind of music than ever before and appealing to a very wide age spectrum. That the people on stage might be old enough to be their grandparents doesn't seem to matter to lots of younger people now, though it did to the youth of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Maybe it's because some of the boomer generation have refused to grow old gracefully :-)

sharke
I just think that questioning how important LFO modulation is to Sonar's existing user base loses sight of the fact that an injection of revenue from new young producers is going to benefit everyone in the long run. It would be prudent for Cakewalk to pay more attention to features like this even if most of the older guys here on the forum don't see a use for them. 

Well, I'm in my mid 50s and I've wondered for many years why Sonar doesn't have a MIDI LFO plugin that sends CCs and can be routed to any function that can be MIDI controlled. It seems to me such an obvious thing to have, and some DAWs already do.

Kamikaze
I seem to recall the same battle with recording synth outputs.

I seem to recall the same battle with a request for a basic, integrated sampler. Coincidentally, Cubase 9 came out with a new Sampler Track a couple of months after that.
 
Cakewalk has given us a number of nice freebies this past year, so I'm not complaining. Plus, there's more on the way!

Kamikaze
Handed over my degree yesterday as part of a work permit application. 1997, flippin' 1997. 20 years ago. I am that 40 year old Sharke now describes. The music I listen and play to now, isn't the dance music I made back then. I liked DnB for a good while (still) do, and dubstep sprang from that. Just hearing those bassline now, I can see Sharke's point completely. I can't see why Craig is so resistant. A lot of small features I see demand for, Craig seems to digs his heels into. I see only one person arguing against in the thread, because he likes the way it works.
 
I seem to recall the same battle with recording synth outputs.

What you see as "so resistant" I see as Craig yet again looking for ways to do something with the tools within Sonar. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yes I'd like an LFO but there's a ton of things I'd rather have much sooner than an LFO. And in the meanwhile, I always learn something from Craig's posts. All good.
I think many see Craig as maybe having a bigger vote in how Sonar progresses than they do. "Oh no - Craig's against it - we'll never get an LFO (staff view, etc, .....)". Not the case as I understand it. Just an uber user trying his damnest to help the community.

Why is ANYONE assuming I'm against an LFO tool? I haven't said ANYTHING that would lead anyone to believe I am against an LFO tool. If I misinterpreted what the OP wanted and didn't solve his problem, then that's my error. What I am against is saying that tools that are useable and have value are "horrible," then posting a video that's intended to show how horrible they are when I've never experienced those kinds of problems drawing a periodic waveform.
 
I personally do not see an LFO tool as a huge priority compared to other feature requests that are relevant to ALL SONAR users of any age or musical inclination, like better controller support. This is why I ask questions about how relevant it is to people, instead of assuming that just because I consider something important, everyone else must think it's equally important. Also, not all newbies are interested only in beats, and people over 30 do know what beats are. Google "DJs over 40" sometime. I'm not into prejudice or stereotyping.
 
And yes, I was initially opposed to synth recording because I didn't see any arguments that made sense to me. Once it was implemented, I used it in a way that NO ONE had suggested as a reason to use it. I still don't use it for any of the reasons other people wanted it. If someone had suggested my particular application, I would have been onboard from the gitgo. 
 
And before someone says "Aha!! See? If you had an LFO tool, you'd use it!!" Well duh, when a tool is introduced I learn how to use it and if I can use it, great. I'm sure I would use it at some point. But is it vitally important for me to have it? No. I use plenty of synched modulation in my music, thank you.
 
Last time: I am not against having an LFO tool. I am for using any tool to its maximum potential, including those already bundled with SONAR.
 
This is all about priorities, so I'll let you guys argue with the people who want better controller support, an improved staff view, variable speed, better MP4 video support, more arranging tools, a mastering page, DDP export, track sampler, new MIDI effects, parallel effects in FX Chains, having clip waveforms follow clip gain, etc. as to which is more important. I suspect an LFO tool would be relatively low on the list, but if I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.