dburns
Please don't answer any more of my questions in the future. 
 
Thank you.
 

Unfortunately he is probably the best qualified to answer your question .
He is a little rough around the edges but when it comes to this type of stuff, he is the one to ask.
 
I think ACT needs to be updated personally but it does what it should in most cases.
From one Lowell brotha to another (grew up in the highlands) just ask azslow for advise.
He will help you.
 
I don't always agree with him either, but I never doubt his intelligence when it comes to mapping control surfaces.
If I had an issue, he would be the first person I would ask.

dburns
Thank you for an unhelpful and snarky reply. You needn't have bothered writing this because i was asking  politely for HELP not a condescending bunch of words designed to show how smart you are.

In your question, there only known components was Sonar Platinum and Massive VSTi. Without concrete device and plug-in you are using it is impossible to reply something concrete.
 

* What are the three ways you mention to control Massive in Sonar? Or is that a mystery reserved for gurus like you?

1) Massive support "MIDI Learn" (in all DAWs). That is preferred way in case you want record parameter changes during performance since in this case the changes will be save into MIDI clips
2) Sonar has "Remote control". You can create knobs in the Sonar Rack (once undocked or in the multi-dock, for some reason not when in the "Browser" part of the interface). You can "Remote control" from here or from automation part of the track view.
3) ACT...
(2) and (3) are good if you want pre-modify parameters before recording or for writing Track automations (there are several pro/cons for Track automations vs MIDI CC in clips)
 

* What do you mean, "using ACT like approach?" My APC 40/Ableton software compiles and runs Python easily. I don't understand what these three sentences mean. Can you rewrite them in complete thoughts so I at least have a chance to understand you?

Each DAW has own API (programming interface) for controllers advanced integration. In Sonar it is called ACT and provided by CW in form of C++ SDK. In Ableton that is called Control Scripts and provided as Python SDK.
ACT40 producer have developed that controller with Ableton in mind, so they have written corresponding scripts (the development was included in the price you have paid). But that have not written corresponding code for Sonar.
 

* Your point three is unhelpful to me also. But i'm glad it just takes under one minute to do.

My point 3 was rather strait: once controller is properly ACT configured, default mapping for Massive is what you expect as default. But changing it is not a problem (technically very close to "MIDI Learn" withing plug-ins, the procedure is well described in Sonar Reference Guide, many Youtube videos and other places). 
 

I asked what I feel is a legitimate question, but your answer is mocking and a waste of our time. Please don't answer any more of my questions in the future.

The irony is that there are not so many people which know how ACT works... In practice, if I do not want read my answers on your questions, you can save time asking them. 
 
And that is the reason:

dburns
I'd like to use my APC40, but i also have a couple nano-Kontrols, a BR2000, ipad, Axiom Pro 49, and a Quija Board here. Can anyone suggest a way to use any of them with ACT? Can ACT be controlled by a virtual controller from inside Sonar platinum itself?

While you can make all these controllers somehow work with Sonar using "ACT MIDI" and "Generic Surface" plug-in, the only way to get most out of them is using my program...
If by "BR2000" you mean Behringer BCR2000, ready to use solution exists:
http://www.azslow.com/index.php/topic,301.0.html
 
Sorry, I had to "fight" with some people before they have accepted my help. Most of them was happy with the result, so I continue.
But sure, if you strictly against any help from me, no problem. I can keep silence
 

OK, I'll back off of criticism of azslow3. I just didn't see much help in his reply.
 
Thank you Chuck.
 

Peace man

Azslow3,
 
Please forgive my impatience and frustration. Judging from this thread, i have plenty of company.
 
Thank you for your second reply. it seemed much nicer and more helpful than the first.
 
I'll play around some more with ACT starting with MIDI learn in Massive.
 
Thank you for your help.
 

No problem from my side.
In fact my relatively harsh reply was triggered mostly by the forum software. My first version of it has disappeared, I have wasted quite some time typing it...
But the art of your first post has sounded like a set of statements for me, not as a question (especially in the first variation, before you have added the last sentence).
 
I have installed (demo) Massive and checked MIDI learn capability and ACT mapping before I have started typing.
Chuck is right in both parts, my IMHO statements can be questionable. But I always try to get as much as possible "truth" from the information available before I switch to IMHO
 
MIDI lean inside Massive is the simplest and most reliable way.
 
If you have BCR2000, you can try it (in addition). MarKo and Bassman have implement the best Sonar integration (at some aspects it is more advanced then VS700, the best official integration). Note that for reliable plug-in control throw ACT, since you have several devices, "AZ ACT Fix" approach is better then "MarKo ACT Editor" approach. Both are fighting against long standing Sonar bug in ACT mapping, mostly fixed in 2017.1
 
For other devices integration, you (and everyone else) are welcome to contact me (better on my forum). But finishing "Quick start" and reading "ACT MIDI Explained" can help to understand how the whole thing is working. Not only AZ Controller, but any ACT plug-in. Also general ideas are the same for all DAWs with exposed surface APIs (including Ableton) and Dynamic Plug-in Mapping concept use the same machinery in all related solutions (NI NKS, AKAI VIP, Novation Automap, CW ACT and Automation writing for all DAWs).
 

The year is 2017, soon to be 2018.
We can go onto a multitude of websites and download files that give us exquisitely detailed articulations of orchestral elements, grand pianos, and virtually anything/everything that makes a sound, all accessible at the touch of a key or a mouse. We can dial up wondrous plug-ins that make our guitars sound like they're playing through the best amps on the planet, or tame our dynamics and EQ's, or warp our wave files in any sort of way.
Digital cameras can do things unimagined just 15 years ago. Cell phones have leapt light-years ahead just in the last 10 years. We can spend 300 hundred dollars (give or take) for a hand-held pad that can vastly outperform massive computers that cost thousands of dollars in the 90's.
We've sent a satellite to the farthest reaches of the solar system to send us back vivid images of Pluto, and right now another satellite is doing a detailed mapping of the outer surface of Jupiter.
You can "Skype", or video chat with someone on the other side of the world for less money than a scratchy phone call to the same location would've cost in the year 2000.

And yet ... designing a midi software template that works easily, smoothly, and most importantly - INTUITIVELY - seems a feat beyond the reach of modern software designers.

Or am I the only one who notices this oddity?

VanessaJ
And yet ... designing a midi software template that works easily, smoothly, and most importantly - INTUITIVELY - seems a feat beyond the reach of modern software designers.

Or am I the only one who notices this oddity?

Nope. I'd say that's the exact way I see it too.

Seems that ACT is far more complex than rocket science. Actually only Rocket scientists attempt or accomplish sending rockets into space. There’s no accounting for the knowledge a musician has about the tools they are using.
Quite possibly in the hands of an expert, ACT can be tamed, something a rank amateur can’t.

VanessaJ
And yet ... designing a midi software template that works easily, smoothly, and most importantly - INTUITIVELY - seems a feat beyond the reach of modern software designers.

Or am I the only one who notices this oddity?

I guess you look at that from the wrong angle...
 
Can you control mentioned space shuttle from your MIDI controller? Or can you at least answer a phone call from your MIDI keyboard?  Have you already asked Google/Apple to give you a "template" to control your phone from arbitrary device?
 
In the music context:
* someone write/play/record/track/mix/master a song
* other listen the song
 
There are ready to USE ACT solutions for many devices. And they are reasonable easy to use.
But asking to give a user a "template" so he/she can (without any background) CREATE a new controlling solution is the same as asking DAW developers to give a "template" to create a perfect hit song.
Imagine you have never played any instrument, you have never heard about FXes and you have never seen any DAW. You open a DAW now... "How I create a song there? Why that is still not easy to do?"
 
PS Musicians are not alone thinking that controlling something is/should be easy, that is why I (engineer in automated data processing and controlling systems) have a job