It's certainly on the Eli videos. I can't remember which one though, as I've watched all the Groove3 videos on Cakewalk products.

It looks like the main thing the OP is expecting is like lanes to behave like normal tracks where you can arbitrarily overlap data. It was a design decision NOT to do that in X3. The primary purpose of track lanes is to do comping -i.e. you have multiple takes and wish to create a final take out of multiple versions of the same part. For this reason it is not designed to behave the same way as tracks. The tools all work towards this common purpose.
This was the same intent even in 8.5's layers but the paradigm was far from effective (besides being buggy). Having clips overlap on a layer/lane is a fundamentally problematic paradigm since there is no way for the user to see and edit the data, since at any point of time clips are hidden. I think its fair to say that most of our users hated this aspect and were unable to comp effectively because of this, among other limitations of the tools. This is why we came up with the X3 comping approach.
 
Now I can see how the OP has adopted a technique using the basic 8.5 lanes as a scratchpad. He is essentially using layers like alternative versions of the track and expecting them to behave like normal tracks for the most part. That will not work in X3 since we have made lanes do what layers were actually intended to do - which is comp :)
Besides the fact that you cannot overlap data on a given lane pretty much everything else can be accomplished in X3's lanes. However if you want to use it as a scratchpad, use tracks in folders. They are much more powerful than lanes for that purpose since technically you are not comping here! I see your point about having all the fx on one track but it takes a few seconds to set up all the tracks to output to a bus if containing the fx you need. You have exactly the same functionality with solo/mute etc. Finally once you are done with the scratchpad phase just pick your final track and set it up the way you want it.
 
To summarize, "one size fits all" tools like what existed in 8.3 are problematic since they don't handle any workflow particularly well. The tools and workflow that we implemented in X1 and higher follow paradigms that focus on perfecting specific workflows (like comping) rather than the all in one approach. Please try and use folders and tracks with quickgrouping and sends and you will find that they are as usable once you invest a little time learning them. Once learned you don't have to think about it and it will become second nature and not interrupt you.

I have to say that I understand where the OP is coming from on this, as a number of other people have said since the replacement of layers came along.  I used to use layers for a lot of things, but mainly as a very immediate way to track a number of stacks of vocals for backgrounds.  Yes, I understand that there are other ways to do this with the new layers and I'm getting used to it, it just isn't as immediate somehow.  The ability to lay down tracks that all share the same effects together that don't require any extra busses to be setup that just work nearly instantly with no additional workflow to contend with. 
 
I'm not sure what the big deal really is, but I know that the layers functionality was much more obvious for experimenting and layering, regardless of what the bakers intended it to be used for.  It would be nice if they introduced that facility back in addition to the lanes - lanes for comping (which they are better at) and layers for other things like experimental arrangement and whatnot.
 
That said, I can understand that the ways that layers were used and the resulting bug reports due to their unexpected use - leading to bugs that couldn't be fixed because of the "too many variations" people were using them for that were just unsupportable - I know I certainly experienced a number of oddities in some of my experiments with clip effects and automations and such.
 
Just thought I'd weigh in - coming from the perspective of someone who uses Sonar infrequently enough that I have a hard time remembering how to do the "normal" things sometimes.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
It looks like the main thing the OP is expecting is like lanes to behave like normal tracks where you can arbitrarily overlap data. It was a design decision NOT to do that in X3. The primary purpose of track lanes is to do comping -i.e.

 
exactly my point since the begining of this thread! The ultra open, creative playground and multi-purpose tool that was Layers became a one trick poney no different than the one in cubase 7 or others.
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
you have multiple takes and wish to create a final take out of multiple versions of the same part. For this reason it is not designed to behave the same way as tracks. The tools all work towards this common purpose.
This was the same intent even in 8.5's layers but the paradigm was far from effective (besides being buggy).

 
With all due respect, who cares if it was not intended for comping?

Noel, even with the still present bugs, not only did it do the job for comping regardless of what you say & think, but it also CREATED a new approach to do some serious track mangling I'm not even showing on my videos, sound design, creative stuff, something completely new and UNIQUE that to this day you still can't do in any other daws and that you definitly can't do anymore in X's
 
I work with a lot of people, producers, musicians. Anybody who looks over my shoulder while I'm doing what I do is always amazed that they can't do this in their daw, it never misses. Logic users, Cubase or Protools you name it. The quick workflow to get an idea from "in your head" to "in your ears" = Layers.

We need the mess!

See it as a shapeless ball of clay you're able to mold into something more and more precise.
 
And the number of applications with layers was ridiculous. From sample acurate alignement of 2 elements in the same frame/space/window without any GUI extra design or graphics clogging or obstructing the view, to quick part switching, to double checking version a and versus b of this or that part through the fx bin just by dragging, to keeping a couple of variation QUICKLY ACCESSIBLE and visible in the same track visually speaking, same track height whatever the height, from mini to maxi, and a billion of other daily things I still do at the core of my workflow and can't do anymore, because of the absence of the layer system.
 
Please understand why with so much more to offer than comping, Layers are for me a difficult thing to give up. If you don't understand why, I'm passing by in boston for familly matters in a few month, I will gladdly show you. You might have programmed this beast, but users always find ways to use things for something else than they were intended for... and that one was the graal for some of us :/
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Having clips overlap on a layer/lane is a fundamentally problematic paradigm since there is no way for the user to see and edit the data, since at any point of time clips are hidden. I think its fair to say that most of our users hated this aspect and were unable to comp effectively because of this, among other limitations of the tools. This is why we came up with the X3 comping approach.

 
comping... here's that word again ;)
 
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Now I can see how the OP has adopted a technique using the basic 8.5 lanes as a scratchpad. He is essentially using layers like alternative versions of the track and expecting them to behave like normal tracks for the most part. That will not work in X3 since we have made lanes do what layers were actually intended to do - which is comp :)

 
here's that word again :) comping has been there for ages... it's not a novelty, this type of workflow was already possible and available back in the days of Ensoniq "Paris" remember...
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Besides the fact that you cannot overlap data on a given lane pretty much everything else can be accomplished in X3's lanes. However if you want to use it as a scratchpad, use tracks in folders. They are much more powerful than lanes for that purpose since technically you are not comping here!

 
maybe! but folders are way less powerfull than layers!  folder is too much management, too many things to set up and look at. it's impossible to be quick and intuitive and mess up and try again and have happy accidents QUICK.
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
I see your point about having all the fx on one track but it takes a few seconds to set up all the tracks to output to a bus if containing the fx you need. You have exactly the same functionality with solo/mute etc. Finally once you are done with the scratchpad phase just pick your final track and set it up the way you want it.

 
Not completely accurate Noel :
-I'm often "scratchpad-ing" on multiple tracks especially at the begining of a session. what if I am scratchpading on 20 tracks? 20 aux?  the goal is to remain in the creative zone, not go in track management hell.
 
-It's necessary to see the FXBIN right there where the track and layers I'm working are, and NOT down there with the auxes, what if you want to try different fx on the fly quick! or switch the order of 2 fx on the fly quick quick! Don't wanna go down there, don't want to look for the right aux amongst many other auxes... this slows down the creative vibe, need to be QUICK
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
To summarize, "one size fits all" tools like what existed in 8.3 are problematic since they don't handle any workflow particularly well. The tools and workflow that we implemented in X1 and higher follow paradigms that focus on perfecting specific workflows (like comping)

 

 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
rather than the all in one approach. Please try and use folders and tracks with quickgrouping and sends and you will find that they are as usable once you invest a little time learning them. Once learned you don't have to think about it and it will become second nature and not interrupt you.

This is where you lose me... you can't force a concept of what you think should be a valid workflow to someone who has spent years developping his skills and finding certain ways to do things with the tools you guys provided in the first place. The same as I would not dare to tell you how to program Sonar or what language to use when doing it. You do this all day! You know best.  If the intention had been to ADD comping to the tool box, it would have been a different matter! But by taking away layers you're forcing me and others to see it your way, your idea of what music creation is or should be. - Noel I've watched X1, X2 and now X3 pass by and it's not by CHOICE. Other guys who do what I do,  like me,  on a daily basis, are stuck as well, there is a reason for that! There's a ton cool stuff in X3 that I would love to have as part as my technical workflow. Smart grid, automation lanes, the browser, saving fx chains and more. But NOT at the expense of giving up the core of what I do creatively speaking.
 
So here's an idea.
 
You took away Layers.
 
maybe now, introduce "Scratchpad"?

Blades
I have to say that I understand where the OP is coming from on this, as a number of other people have said since the replacement of layers came along.  I used to use layers for a lot of things, but mainly as a very immediate way to track a number of stacks of vocals for backgrounds.  Yes, I understand that there are other ways to do this with the new layers and I'm getting used to it, it just isn't as immediate somehow.  The ability to lay down tracks that all share the same effects together that don't require any extra busses to be setup that just work nearly instantly with no additional workflow to contend with. 
 
I'm not sure what the big deal really is, but I know that the layers functionality was much more obvious for experimenting and layering, regardless of what the bakers intended it to be used for.  It would be nice if they introduced that facility back in addition to the lanes - lanes for comping (which they are better at) and layers for other things like experimental arrangement and whatnot.
 
That said, I can understand that the ways that layers were used and the resulting bug reports due to their unexpected use - leading to bugs that couldn't be fixed because of the "too many variations" people were using them for that were just unsupportable - I know I certainly experienced a number of oddities in some of my experiments with clip effects and automations and such.
 
Just thought I'd weigh in - coming from the perspective of someone who uses Sonar infrequently enough that I have a hard time remembering how to do the "normal" things sometimes.

may god hear you

The OP certainly does have a point, but this is where my sympathy gives way to irritation:

wanna love X3

maybe! but folders are way less powerfull than layers!  folder is too much management, too many things to set up and look at.

This just isn't the case. Select a bunch of tracks, right click, add to new folder. Then route output to a bus. Done. One set of channel controls to deal with, exactly the same as what he had before, only now the controls are on the bus (which is what will be displayed in the inspector while he works on the track). And there are a bunch of extras should he need them, but those extras can be completely ignored if he doesn't.
 
The OP would seemingly rather spend days on end arguing on the internet than the matter of seconds it would take to set that up, and the matter of half an hour it would take to give it a serious try.

John T
The OP certainly does have a point, but this is where my sympathy gives way to irritation:

wanna love X3

maybe! but folders are way less powerfull than layers!  folder is too much management, too many things to set up and look at.

This just isn't the case. Select a bunch of tracks, right click, add to new folder. Then route output to a bus. Done. One set of channel controls to deal with, exactly the same as what he had before, only now the controls are on the bus (which is what will be displayed in the inspector while he works on the track). And there are a bunch of extras should he need them, but those extras can be completely ignored if he doesn't.
 
The OP would seemingly rather spend days on end arguing on the internet than the matter of seconds it would take to set that up, and the matter of half an hour it would take to give it a serious try.

John, I can do the entire folder system workaround from grouping to puting tracks in a folder
to routing those in an aux in a matter of seconds like you say and starting to build a very complex session with too many auxes and too many folders and find myself in front of with a giant mess... in 8.5.3!! :/

Or do it with layers, and have them stay out of the way of the creative flow wich to me is crucial...

not a tough call!

Noel et al,
 
I understand the suggestion of routing all tracks to a bus and that the bus has a bunch of the features that the OP wants - Global Volume and Pan for all tracks in the folder, Single FX Bin for all Tracks in the folder - the ability to maximize it so he/she can see all tracks in the folder neatly.
 
It strikes me that this might be a feature that could be tacked on to the folder. Sort of an 'Auto Routing'. When you have a track folder where all tracks within the folder are routed to the same bus, that the bus FX Bin is available with the folder level data, along with a volume fader and pan. We've already got Mute, Solo and Record.
 
Maybe it's extra work without much value... just some extra complexity that will confuse some people. Idk. I thought I'd throw it out there and let people chew on it. It seems like there is a legitimate use case here, and perhaps an opportunity to flesh out Sonar to better meet that case.
 
It does look like track folders are the way to go for this use case. The question is, can some of the needs...
-- an easy way to maximize the folder to fit to screen with one click (like in layers)
-- at the folder view (without showing buses) access the FX bin of the target bus for all the tracks in the folder when all tracks are routed to a single bus
-- Volume and Pan for the related bus available on the track folder.
 
Just thoughts...

Yeah, a bit more functionality in the folder itself would be nice. I've always thought they have some kind of volume fader offset for all tracks within, for example.

wanna love X3
John, I can do the entire folder system workaround from grouping to puting tracks in a folder
to routing those in an aux in a matter of seconds like you say and starting to build a very complex session with too many auxes and too many folders and find myself in front of with a giant mess... in 8.5.3!! :/

Or do it with layers, and have them stay out of the way of the creative flow wich to me is crucial...

not a tough call!

 
When you say auxes, do you mean you'd use sends for it? That wouldn't be a good approach.