microapp
I would prefer they ignore notation completely if it is not possible to produce a top-notch product and notation is NOT that easy.

 
Well...no promises, but as I mentioned in a different thread, I've been independently researching a possible way to add high-quality notation that would require minimum dev time (no, it doesn't involve my buying Sibelius from Avid). I've always been a strong and consistent advocate of improved notation, even while being a stronger advocate for making decisions that improve the overall health of the program and the company - a fact that seems lost on some people.
 
That's one reason why it's so frustrating to hear people b*tch and moan about Cakewalk not caring about notation, "not listening to the community," etc. Cakewalk cares very much about notation. They just don't care enough about it to upset the vast majority of the community because of all the other things that wouldn't happen if Cakewalk diverted its existing resources to doing notation. As you point out, it's not easy.
 
I realize the fans of Staff View don't believe this, but user surveys show that the customer base simply does not place a high priority on notation. Forum threads about notation with lots of posts, where over 40 posts are from a single user to give the illusion that there's a groundswell of support due to the high post count, are anecdotal compared to user surveys of the entire community, taking with proper sampling methodology. That's reality. One could make the argument that adding better notation would attract new users, but there is zero market data that supports that supposition; in fact, it shows the opposite when you consider that programs without notation are doing just fine, and some are doing extraordinarily well.
 
You also hit a very salient point with this comment (are you privy to internal discussions at Cakewalk?):
 

I would prefer they ignore notation completely if it is not possible to produce a top-notch product and notation is NOT that easy.

 
For Cakewalk, notation is either keep what's there, or go for something really good. The company has no interest in a half-baked solution, nor should they IMHO.

Still don't care, because. The above is not relevant, all the above is completely off topic.

Kamikaze
Still don't care, because. The above is not relevant, all the above is completely off topic.

 
Another intelligent, insightful statement. 
 
Your gratuitous comment about "And meanwhile brag about how they listened to us" was what steered the thread off-topic and had nothing to do with the OP. It's YOU who doubled down on your comment, and YOU who took me up on my offer to prove you wrong.
 
And now you're complaining that I took the time to address your comments in a meaningful manner. Point taken. I'm wasting my time. It is not possible to reason people out of positions they did not use reason to attain.

Been here done this, it's a waste of time. You'll deride my comments as 'snarky' or 'gratuitous', it's not called for.

Kamikaze
Been here done this, it's a waste of time. You'll deride my comments as 'snarky' or 'gratuitous', it's not called for.

 
It may not be called for, but I'm content to let others judge whether it's accurate or not.
 
I'm actively pursuing a solution. That's my contribution. Your contribution to this thread has been to insult Cakewalk.

Drama!

I just want triplets!

Grum

vmw
There is an argument most of us have seen pop up from time to time as to whether a staff view should be in a DAW. For once let us conduct this simple request without all the pros and cons and upvote Sonar so they can see it makes a good sales point and makes a number of users very happy. Give cake a little push to devote some serious coding to produce a decent usable staff editor.
 
Regardless of what you think of Protools I urge you to go to their sight and see the Lynda.com demo of Protools 11 Score Editor, which is already a version behing the current release. The layout and time saving processes in many ways gives the same flexibility and logical behaviour as the Sonar piano roll view.
Protools competes in the same marketing sector as Sonar (right down to a monthly sub) and sad to say Protools is winning the race, which is further embedding it as the the pro engineer's tool of choice. 

I along, I am sure, with others that don't have a need for some features in the Sonar DAW; but nonetheless will support a fellow Sonar user. Don't divide or fragment our efforts, instead we should be building a killer feature (if just to stick it to Protools smugness).

As I said at the start let us not use this issue as an excuse  to push some other agenda - 1 progression at a time so as to NOT overburden the code engineer's meetings. :-)
 
 
 
 

Only a small subset of all DAW owners (of any kind) use Staff View as the main entry point of information into the system.  
 
A staff view should be in a full featured DAW, who would argue otherwise?  Sonar has one, it just isn't exactly what you apparently want.  
 
If you think ProTools and Sonar have the same "subscription model" you might want to read the fine print.  And you mentioned "engineer" tool of choice.....audio engineering has nothing to do with a composition tool. 
 
I hope you find a tool that works for you, but I wouldn't wait around for Sonar to put in the development time to enhance a feature few people use.  

Anderton
I'd also love to see Tesla cars cost $30,000 ...

 
Well they say the $30,000 Tesla is coming so we can dream!
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a28653/tesla-model-3-everything-we-think-we-know/

It would be nice if CW fixes the snap-to function in the staff view, which has been broken for several versions.  I've submitted a bug report, but it hasn't helped...
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com