jb101
I think it has been explained, time and time again, why the check box has to be checked every time, and why it reverts if not.

I don't understand why you cannot see it.

I have just explained it to my eight year old, and he seems to grasp it, why can't you?

Read Noel's blog - it's not too technical. Read Craig's last response CAREFULLY (not shouting, just can't seem to bold on phone).

I truly hope you can understand.

 
If you watch my video, my question about the check box is, IF it has to be asked every time to get it to work, maybe it should be removed from the defaults dialog prompt since it does NOTHING.  Did you LISTEN to my video?   I am understanding the logic (if that is actually true), I am now talking about a checkbox that does nothing in the "Insert Synth Settings" window.

You seem like you didn't actually LISTEN to the video.

robert_e_bone
Would it work for you to create a number of Track Templates - one for each soft synth you regularly use, where the template contained an instance of that synth already inserted, WITH the check box for Enable MIDI Output cleared, and audio track(s) inserted and routed to pick up the output from that synth instance (either 1 stereo track or a left and right audio track), as well as a MIDI track already set to send data to that synth instance?
 
You could even get more granular and set up such a track template for each triggering keyboard/controller you use, with the differences noted in the template naming.  That would also take care of panning, and assignment of input device, as well as the audio and midi track insertions and associations/assignments for those tracks, not to mention always having that Enable MIDI Output cleared every time, through the template.
 
This would seem like other than some minor but simple work to create track templates per the above characteristics, it would for the long haul save you LOADS of keystrokes to do all of the above manually.
 
Just a thought,
 
Bob Bone

that is helpful.  Maybe I will do that.  I wanted to do that years ago, but there was a bug with automation lanes and track templates, but I believe that is fixed now.  I might do this. Thank you!

Viamichael
Like the guy who always tells people he is a very smart guy, we can only ascertain that he is either not that smart, unloved as a child, or dropped as a baby. Silver is always on the attack and the conversation is always about him. Classic signs of someone who needs some lovin' and a hug.

Unfortunately, he may have an issue here. Though, it isn't a bug. And since he stands on the "I'm right, you're wrong" podium, most of us end up wishing him a long fall off that podium instead of bringing clarity to an issue he raises.

Somewhere along the way my BFD plugin was sending whatever rhythm it was producing into whatever VST I was recording. I couldn't figure this out for months, and I'm still a bit confused about it.

I have been with Cakewalk since the floppy disk days of the early 1990s and Windows 3.0. I have learned time and again that the software development can easily progress past my point of comprehension. In my music world I spend the majority of my time and energy on composition which requires me to be creative. In my own mind this process or state of being does not always walk in step with using the analytical part of my brain that I use to understand how I use Sonar to capture, organize and record these creative thoughts.

It is frustrating at times, but it is highly rewarding to use my entire brain. It is a very big brain. Huge!

 
or classic signs that no one actually LISTENED to the video or is getting my point.  They keep answering WHY the dialog box must be set to "Ask Every Time", when I keep simply replying with... "OK, well then maybe the setting should be removed from the defaults page, if it doesn't work there anyway!, which is now CONFIRMED"

Now, why have a check mark in the "Insert Synth Properties" Dialog box that does nothing?

SilverBlueMedallion
Now, why have a check mark in the "Insert Synth Properties" Dialog box that does nothing?

Because fixing "critical" defects (crashes and bugs without workarounds) and providing enhancements provides a better return for a development team's time investment.  Every development team is under time and money pressures and that is a fact of life.
 
-- Ron

SquireBum

SilverBlueMedallion
Now, why have a check mark in the "Insert Synth Properties" Dialog box that does nothing?

Because fixing "critical" defects (crashes and bugs without workarounds) and providing enhancements provides a better return for a development team's time investment.  Every development team is under time and money pressures and that is a fact of life.
 
-- Ron

 
Sure, just looking for Anderton or other naysayers to tell me this isn't a bug or poor implementation, to have a check mark that does nothing.
 
But I will add this... I will still stand by this being a bug, here is why.

ANY MOUSE CLICK CAN BE AUTOMATED BY SOFTWARE!

(sorry not, yelling, just showing the point)
 
so... if you have to be asked every time to uncheck "Enable MIDI Output", what the logic SHOULD be and easily CAN be... instead of having a checkbox that does NOTHING, you can build a simple line of code that says... "If 'Enable MIDI Output' is unchecked in dialog prompt, disable it before inserting any softsynth' - this can be inserted after the Enable MIDI Output flag by the VST is being sent to the host!

This way, the "Enable MIDI Output" checkmark in the default dialog box will follow the logic that all the other checkmarks do, such as "Simple Instrument Track" or "Track Folder".  They don't need to be asked every time to work, they just follow the logic.  So should everything in that window if the product is interested in keeping logic consistent within its modules.

If a user never wants MIDI output enabled, they should be able to program it in with a simple line of code that follows this logic:

"If Enable MIDI Output is unchecked in the default dialog box, -> send a disable flag after VST sends an Enable MIDI output flag".

Hell, this logic already exists with the other checkmarks int he dialog box (track folder, simple instrument track, all stereo outputs, etc...)
 
 

SilverBlueMedallion

SquireBum

SilverBlueMedallion
Now, why have a check mark in the "Insert Synth Properties" Dialog box that does nothing?

Because fixing "critical" defects (crashes and bugs without workarounds) and providing enhancements provides a better return for a development team's time investment.  Every development team is under time and money pressures and that is a fact of life.
 
-- Ron

 
Sure, just looking for Anderton or other naysayers to tell me this isn't a bug or poor implementation, to have a check mark that does nothing.
 
But I will add this... I will still stand by this being a bug, here is why.

ANY MOUSE CLICK CAN BE AUTOMATED BY SOFTWARE!

(sorry not, yelling, just showing the point)
 
so... if you have to be asked every time to uncheck "Enable MIDI Output", what the logic SHOULD be and easily CAN be... instead of having a checkbox that does NOTHING, you can build a simple line of code that says... "If 'Enable MIDI Output' is unchecked in dialog prompt, disable it before inserting any softsynth' - this can be inserted after the Enable MIDI Output flag by the VST is being sent to the host!

This way, the "Enable MIDI Output" checkmark in the default dialog box will follow the logic that all the other checkmarks do, such as "Simple Instrument Track" or "Track Folder".  They don't need to be asked every time to work, they just follow the logic.  So should everything in that window if the product is interested in keeping logic consistent within its modules.

If a user never wants MIDI output enabled, they should be able to program it in with a simple line of code that follows this logic:

"If Enable MIDI Output is unchecked in the default dialog box, -> send a disable flag after VST sends an Enable MIDI output flag".

Hell, this logic already exists with the other checkmarks int he dialog box (track folder, simple instrument track, all stereo outputs, etc...)
 
 

Your response to my answer to your "why" question was inappropriate and offensive.  I never stated that the issue reported in the OP was not a bug, but implied that the issue is not a "Critical" bug and therefore has a very low priority.
 
Also your use of 4 letter expletives approaches a violation of the forum's terms of service.
 
Please take your anger out on someone other than me.
 
-- Ron