As CW locked one of the most important and discussed thread I will continue here and now I dont ask about when will be implemented, but please explain to me what was difficult to implement in your crippled VST3 implementation? Name one function that cant be done in 2.5 you implement and name VST3 developers you implement this function for.
 
BTW locking important themes is not the best signal to your long time supporters and customers.

I do understand your desire to have this function now, but wouldn't you rather let a small team develop and make progress?   ...or do you want to engage their time in a discussion that won't get what you desire in X3 anyway?
 
I though Noel explained it in terms I even understand. There are a list of specs, they chose the main points to implement that would be what most folks would use, and made a roadmap to implement the rest next version.
 
Any more prodding is really making glue from the horse IMO.
 
Put in the feature request. Get others requesting it. Then you can have a strong case to vent if it is not implemented.

We tried to answer your question as best as we could and be as productive as possible. We know where you stand on this but what is gained by taking this approach? We try to engage with users and we've read your post and answered it. It's not going to change our answer in the short term. 

The thing is, Cakewalk should remove the claim that "VST3 support is now fully integrated across all versions of SONAR X3".
 
I realize it will take time to implement, but until then, there is only limited VST3 support.

jscomposer "fully integrated" DOES NOT MEAN "fully implemented".
"Integrated" and "implemented" are not the same word.
Half a record button could be "fully integrated" across all platforms for instance.
Half a record button could be "fully implemented" across all platforms for instance.
 
You should have used my quote in the other thread if you wanted to make a real song and dance about it.
 
They said VST3 improvements will come probably come with X4, so there is your answer live with it I suggest, it's not like they are being entirely unreasonable, their track record since X3 has been released has been exemplary. X3E is out very soon so there is your conciliation prize (a damn good one) as well. In the words of the Rolling Stones you can't always get what you want and Cake can't please everybody all of the time.
 
Frankly I'm quite bored of this topic now, it's not like the whole of the community is going potty about this, and I hope Cakewalk locks this thread as well, it's a waste of their resources.

I think the issue is the disconnect between these two sentences:
 
"VST3 support is now fully integrated across all versions of SONAR X3".
"I realize it will take time to implement, but until then, there is only limited VST3 support."
 
The claim is that all versions of SONAR X3 support VST3. This is true. If you load a VST3 plug-in, SONAR will recognize it.
 
The DEGREE of support of any spec varies according to manufacturer, unless that spec is a STANDARD (these are two different things and also factors into the confusion). A STANDARD sets out rigid, specific qualities that a piece of gear must address. For example with traffic lights, red = stop, green = go, and yellow = caution is a standard.
 
A specification is less rigorous. For example, in the United States, yellow is used only when transitioning from green to red. In Germany, yellow is used also when transitioning from red to green. Both support the use of color for traffic flow, but the way they support the use of color for traffic flow differs.
 
For music, the best-known and most common example of this is MIDI. The MIDI specification includes numerous features. No piece of gear in the entire universe implements all of them. None. Yet all MIDI gear claims to support MIDI. Whether they choose to support MIDI Show Control or polyphonic aftertouch is up to the manufacturer.
 
In the case of VST3, support is "bidirectional." For example SONAR might support an element in the VST3 spec that is not supported by a VST3 plug-in. Conversely, SONAR might not support an element in the VST3 spec that IS supported by a VST3 plug-in. Yet in both cases, SONAR and the plug-in support VST3. What is chosen to support or not support is up to the manufacturer.
 
This is why much MIDI gear includes a MIDI implementation chart that notates which functions are supported and which are not. I do not know whether such a standardized document has been released by Steinberg, who are the "keepers of the VST SDK," but if they had I think I would have seen it by now.
 
Keyboards are not referred to a "crippled" because they don't include, for example, polyphonic aftertouch or MIDI Show Control. To start choosing products selectively and decide that some are "crippled" because they don't support functions while other are not "crippled" even though they don't support the same functions is arbitrary at best. The question of supporting a specification, and the degree of supporting a specification, are different questions.
 
And the question of supporting a standard is a VERY different matter. This is why there are governing standards committees for organizations like the Audio Engineering Society and Consumer Electronics Association that define a standard with exceptional specificity, including which elements are optional because it is understood not all elements of a standard always have to be implemented. The same is true for specifications.

I find the OP a bit presumptuous and offensive (and I am laughing now since someone flagged it as spam as I was typing this).
 
First, you are most definitely NOT the only person who purchased X3, yet your needs outweigh everyone else?
Second, the development team invested time in explaining to you already, thereby distracting them from getting work done to entertain you, and now you want more?
 
Show a little respect and consideration for OTHERS... it actually goes a long way in life.

I noticed that the poster is from Slovakia and therefore English might not be his native language. So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; and as Alex noted, "implementation" and "integration" have very different meanings. Cakewalk phrased their statement properly, but that doesn't guarantee it can't be misinterpreted...especially when a non-native speaker needs to parse words that are not used in ordinary conversation. If I've explained these various words with sufficient clarity, that should end the reason for this thread.

Anderton, you got it all wrong!  (kidding)
 
+1 my brother used to translate things in Japan into English for a living, as some things just didn't come across well.  The Japanese interpretation of Batman comes out as Man With Bat Face, for example.
 
I am QUITE sure that improved VST3 support will show up at some point, but I am also quite sure that they are looking at a much larger pool of potential things to work on for a given release, and what may be super important to a set of users might not make the cut for X3e, due to resource constraint from only being able to do a certain amount of work for the upcoming maintenance release.  
 
They will choose the things that can be done in the allotted time, and will also choose the things that give the best return for investment of their limited resources.
 
Bob Bone
 

Anderton
So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; 

I dont blame CW for not implementing this standard function yet, but I wonder why they are not going to implement it in some of the next X3 update. As I stated before it is not fair to pay twice for something that should be in VST3 in the first place. Sorry for this link, but Steinberg developed VST3 standard and you can clearly see what functions are considered as standard of VST3. http://www.steinberg.net/...technologies/vst3.html