Nah, but I do agree that is is a sorry state of affairs when one does not bother to consult the knowledge base before reporting bugs to the vendor.

CakeAlexS


I call it a trivial bug with a documented workaround :). Change the terminology and behavior slightly, and this is what you get. Cheers... :).

Exactly. 


They're largely based on VST API's because..why reinvent the wheel? However, they are also customized to work in a specific fashion within the Sonar environment. They all fit perfectly within the strip. Likely, there's also some custom additions to it's API to take allow for optimal performance under Sonar, which wouldn't be possible if they stuck strictly to the VST standard. So - they're probably enough different that they can't be classified as compliant VST, even though they use a lot its mechanisms.

Scook you are becoming like a character in a dead parrot sketch. Please read the thread again, esp the first post whereby you would have read that I already had found the solution.
 
Note just because something is documented in a knowledge base does not make it any less a bug. IT IS A DOCUMENTED WORKAROUND.
 
Ever worked in a QA dept? No? I shall write you out a  test case.
 
STEPS
 
a) Start Cakewalk
b) Goto Edit Preferences
c) Goto VST Settings
 
Expected:

VST scan options should also contain the terminology "Pro channel". It should be labelled alongside labels that contains the words "VST".
 
Actual
 
VST terminology everwhere, no mention of pro channel.
 
Workaround
 
Assume VST settings and Pro channel settings are one and the same (as partially documented in knowledge base).
 
 
 
 
Now shhh it....

The OP is incorrect. There is no requirement to have the preferences set in any particular way. You failed to run the required VST scan to finish the installation. Call it a "DOCUMENTED WORKAROUND" if you wish.

As per my previous (edited) post Mr "This Parrot is still alive"...

All they need to do is either document the need for a scan in the add-on's papers, or have the install force a scan on the next run of Sonar, if that's possible.

Clever boy Alex. I gave more credit than I should have. Why so aggressively modify your posts? Don't you think they should stand on their own and add an additional post if necessary. Thanks anyway for the modified posting adding a test case. Not only generous, condescending too. What a great combination.

Read post 8 where it began. Why assume I'm editing after I read your posts. Whatever...

How is it a bug? They are VSTs. There is no work around needed. The problem is the OP did not know they were VSTs and didn't do a scan. If auto scan had been on the OP would have never known about then being VSTs and no post would have been made.  

The title is wrong. 

But are they VST's? 

That all depends on just how tightly or loosely you want to adhere to a definition. VSTs are nothing more than  .dlls with prescribed interfaces and behaviors in one view. And folks have been do run-time scanning to identify .dll based application plug-ins long before Steinberg came on the scene.

Might as well ask how many angels fit on the head of a pin.


"What we have here, is a failure to communicate"