i've been saying this for years, that not making notation somewhat of  priority is a big, long term mistake.  Technology is going to change, but notation is not.
 
Every year there are hundreds of thousands of kids who start band/orchestra around the world.  They all learn to read basic notation and that is their 1st experience producing music.  When I was a kid recording music was on tape, but I read music.  Now it's on a computer emulating analogue machines, and kids still learn how to read music on a staff.

BenMMusTech
...I think it's time Cakewalk put this bugbear to bed and just drop the 'notation' screen in Sonar. It does not work, and it is useless...

 
I disagree. Although I don't use it much for editing, I do use it for displaying multiple softsynth instrument parts. It's good for showing an overview of the arrangement. If you have 2 or more screens, PRV and SV displayed side by side, with one zoomed in and the other zoomed out, can be very useful.

I agree that the Sonar notation view can be useful for displaying the arrangement.  But also agree that using it for notation editing and composing is what most of the complaints are about.

Post #2 should have been crickets chirping, done.

I don't understand the argument "it's not meant as a notation program" when people complain about the triplet problem. The piano roll isn't meant as a notation program either, yet it understands triplets perfectly well. There is no credible argument to justify the staff view having problems with triplets or any other common rhythmic figure. 

I really wish Cakewalk would just fix what's broke and leave it at that.  Then we would probably see a lot less of these types of threads. 
 
I would probably even be willing to give up a few months of regular updates if they would just do it and be done with it!!!  I don't use notation view that often, but this situation has dragged on to the point it is ridiculous now.

sharke
I don't understand the argument "it's not meant as a notation program" when people complain about the triplet problem. The piano roll isn't meant as a notation program either, yet it understands triplets perfectly well. There is no credible argument to justify the staff view having problems with triplets or any other common rhythmic figure. 

All notation programs seem to have trouble with triplets (and then there's quadruplets, septuplets, nonuplets...I once did elevens, no idea what to even call that). Notation itself is apparently very challenging as software goes. I don't worry about how it looks in Sonar or other DAW, as long as it plays correctly. I fix it when I export to Notion, which is what I use for real notation.
 
My main comcern is workflow. Can you scroll in either direction easily? Can you zoom easily? Can you quickly select a group of notes of any length, over any number of measures, so you can copy, paste etc? Soanr and Reaper allow you to do all this. That's what I mean by using it as an editing tool.

Kev999

BenMMusTech
...I think it's time Cakewalk put this bugbear to bed and just drop the 'notation' screen in Sonar. It does not work, and it is useless...

 
I disagree. Although I don't use it much for editing, I do use it for displaying multiple softsynth instrument parts. It's good for showing an overview of the arrangement. If you have 2 or more screens, PRV and SV displayed side by side, with one zoomed in and the other zoomed out, can be very useful.

These days I find myself constantly morphing between Staff View and PRV
(It's just a quick keyboard command between the two)
The recent improvements to PRV have made things better, in my opinion, to switch constantly between Staff and PRV.
 
If they would only consult with Panup and bring back the note length settings and the triplet functionality we have all been pleading for, there would be total peace in Cakeland this Christmas season.

I don't think it's a matter of whether notation view is viable or not. While I agree that traditional notation is not going away ever, the way computers work doesn't lend well to it, which is why it's not great for a DAW. Notation has always been an approximation of the sound, operating under the "well, you know what I mean" paradigm. Baroque composers would put a squiggle over a note which meant "do some sort of trill thing" and just what that was was open to interpretation, by design. Computers are terrible guessers, they are strict literalists, so that every last thing has to be spelled out for them. Traditional notation just doesn't work like that, which poses three unsolvable problems: 1) Traditional notation doesn't contain all the information a computer needs to play the music correctly, 2) There is a lot of information in the music that notation can't communicate, and 3) the exactness of computers eliminates the "you know what I mean" aspect to notation, leading to things like whole notes tied to trailing 16th notes.
 
BUT... what notation does provide elegantly that any DAW would be capable of reproducing is a clear picture of what's going on in every instrument at any given time. Track View comes closest to this, by having each instrument on its own row, but it falls short because of how clips get made and rendered. (i.e. you can have clips with no notes in them, or a clip with a bunch of legato repeated 16th notes looks identical to a clip with one long note in it, etc., etc., etc.). PRV usually fails in this, because instruments all occupy the same vertical space, so there's a lot of overlap.
 
Combining PRV and Track View into a new view designed to solve this problem is totally possible. Imagine PRV with separate rows for visible tracks, and a dynamic Fit Content option which fits visible content and adjusts all the time, so that most or all notes are visible on-screen no matter where you are in the piece. Add to this a gradient background, so that low notes are displayed on a darker background than high notes (instead of having to look at "C3"). And the view would always show all tracks that currently have notes in them and hide those that don't. 

I've never used the staff view primarily because of the general consensus that it sucks and all of the problems people report put me off. But I think if I did use a staff view, it would be to get a solid "blueprint" of the music down, which I would then take off to the PRV for fine adjustment/ornamentation etc. That seems like a good workflow to me.