Thats good to hear. 

SilverBlueMedallion

gustabo
I did speak to your points, just not the answers that you wanted.
I think I got you figured out snowflake.
You are tech phone support (script reader) for the software development company you work for and you get yelled at a lot.
This is your way of venting! "lol"

Nope. But I am starting to consider you harassing. Personal insults and guessing my career is not what this forum is for.

I suggest you refrain from it.

Harassing? I went out of my way on fb to try to help you with something that was happening to you that no one else could reproduce and you say I'm harassing you?
Personal insults? What personal insults? If you are referring to "snowflake", isn't that an indian representation of a snowflake on your avatar?
Guessing your career? I bring that up because you infer a technical capacity yet you needed help finding three config files that I suggested you rename.
I'm done responding to you but I don't want to block you because the drama you create and how you alienate people is fun to watch...

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion

gustabo
I did speak to your points, just not the answers that you wanted.
I think I got you figured out snowflake.
You are tech phone support (script reader) for the software development company you work for and you get yelled at a lot.
This is your way of venting! "lol"

Nope. But I am starting to consider you harassing. Personal insults and guessing my career is not what this forum is for.

I suggest you refrain from it.

Harassing? I went out of my way on fb to try to help you with something that was happening to you that no one else could reproduce and you say I'm harassing you?
Personal insults? What personal insults? If you are referring to "snowflake", isn't that an indian representation of a snowflake on your avatar?
Guessing your career? I bring that up because you infer a technical capacity yet you needed help finding three config files that I suggested you rename.
I'm done responding to you but I don't want to block you because the drama you create and how you alienate people is fun to watch...

 
lets see... my posts are all technical, your posts are all emotional.  Infact you refused MANY times to watch the youtube video, until you finally did with stupid comments like 

"Just started watching it but you specifically state it's for "Anderton" so I'll leave it for him "lol"


or that its not worth your time.

Now cut the crap. Keep it technical or stop talking.  We are not here to evaluate ones personalities or careers.   

<<Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.>>
 
Well azslow3 I don't have you blocked, so I can answer. 
 
The reason why I think it is by design is because Noel said it was in his blog post on VST3 implementation (which actually contains a lot of useful information). He said:
 
Enhanced VST MIDI Out functionality
 
VST plugins that support VST MIDI out are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first. A MIDI out port is enabled automatically when a VST plugin supports MIDI output.
 
To me that sounds like a conscious design decision. This is why I maintain the OP is wrong in calling it a "bug," because it performs, repeatedly, as the developer designed and intended it to perform. The OP can say he disagrees with that design decision, but not that it is a bug. 
 
Few instruments support true MIDI out. Therefore, it was probably assumed users would appreciate that upon inserting an instrument that did have MIDI out, it would be automatically available. The OP doesn't want that to happen. Fair enough, but I doubt he represents the majority of users. 
 
This is why I keep saying that reporting it as a bug, or doubling down on claiming it's a bug, is wasting everyone's time. What Noel says above is unambiguous. SBM needs to submit a feature request. By insisting it is a bug, his bug report will be ignored (after wasting someone's time to look it over) because he has not identified a bug. 
 
I truly believe I have assessed the situation correctly, and offered useful advice about a potential way to resolve it: request that MIDI out not always be enabled automatically, and that the MIDI out check mark can override what happens automatically BEFORE inserting a VST3 plug-in with MIDI out.
 
Or he could just clear the check box after the VST3 is inserted, but apparently he finds that too onerous a task. 

Anderton
<<Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.>>
 
Well azslow3 I don't have you blocked, so I can answer. 
 
The reason why I think it is by design is because Noel said it was in his blog post on VST3 implementation (which actually contains a lot of useful information). He said:
 
Enhanced VST MIDI Out functionality
 
VST plugins that support VST MIDI out are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first. A MIDI out port is enabled automatically when a VST plugin supports MIDI output.
 
To me that sounds like a conscious design decision. This is why I maintain the OP is wrong in calling it a "bug," because it performs, repeatedly, as the developer designed and intended it to perform. The OP can say he disagrees with that design decision, but not that it is a bug. 
 
Few instruments support true MIDI out. Therefore, it was probably assumed users would appreciate that upon inserting an instrument that did have MIDI out, it would be automatically available. The OP doesn't want that to happen. Fair enough, but I doubt he represents the majority of users. 
 
This is why I keep saying that reporting it as a bug, or doubling down on claiming it's a bug, is wasting everyone's time. What Noel says above is unambiguous. SBM needs to submit a feature request. By insisting it is a bug, his bug report will be ignored (after wasting someone's time to look it over) because he has not identified a bug. 
 
I truly believe I have assessed the situation correctly, and offered useful advice about a potential way to resolve it: request that MIDI not always be enabled automatically, and that the MIDI out check mark can be override what happens automatically upon inserting a VST3 plug-in with MIDI out.
 
Or he could just clear the check box after the VST3 is inserted, but apparently he finds that too onerous a task. 

 
 
you realize this same behavior happens with VST2 instruments too, right?

Anderton, did you see this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9z1Lr2P5rQ&t=157s
 
My questions/concerns are very clear in here.   You will see where I feel there is a break in logic in the software.  I lay it out VERY simply.   

I call it a bug because the checkmark does NOTHING if you don't have it ask every time.  If you could watch the video, maybe you will understand. 
 
Thank You,
Adam

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.

Also, by design, it just takes two key presses to have it ask every time. As one poster pointed out, that's not a lot compared to the number of presses on mouse, keyboard or keypad needed to play/ program synth.

I would also point out that if you count the number of letters and spaces that you have typed in this thread and divide by two, you would have enough for a lifetime of clicking checkboxes...

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

Anderton
<<Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.>>
 
Well azslow3 I don't have you blocked, so I can answer. 

Thanks! I have not blocked you, so we can continue the discussion
 

The reason why I think it is by design is because Noel said it was in his blog post on VST3 implementation (which actually contains a lot of useful information). He said:
 
Enhanced VST MIDI Out functionality
 
VST plugins that support VST MIDI out are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first. A MIDI out port is enabled automatically when a VST plugin supports MIDI output.

May be for you (some other users here also claims so) this section of the blog is clear and strait. For me it is not.
Before I continue with the explanation, I want to add the next statement in the section, it can be relevant for the explanation:

A future update will allow MIDI input/output on such plugins to be toggled at will.

So, what for me makes that section "questionable"? The text I have marked bold.
 
Lets remember what was the subject of many questions in this forum, had the text I have marked as bold and WAS IMPLEMENTED in X3?
Was that questions about Audio->MIDI converters, presented themselves as FX? I do not remember many such discussions. What I remember are GuitarFX/Soft Pedal boards/etc., which are FXes but also have MIDI INPUT. To use them with MIDI input, users had to change the option in the plug-in manager to register them as "synth".
In X3 that was implemented. VST plug-ins that support VST MIDI IN are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first!
Was it a change which deserve a section in X2-X3 enhancements? I think yes. Do you see anything about it in the blog? I do not.
 
Now lets remember what was the change with VST MIDI OUTPUT between X2 and X3. The MIDI output was by default OFF and now by default ON. The users choice IS STILL NOT PERSISTENT. Does that deserve a separate section in the "enhancements"? Hm...
 
Then the quote I have added. CW was working with MIDI IN/OUTS, they have added input/output indication (and sometimes selection) to the "VST2/3" drop down menu. So they was touching the code also later. And it DOES mention that the user should be able to choose. There is NO explanation why the choice can not be persistent.
 
Also note that the whole change is NOT VST3 related, it was changed for all VST, including VST2. And I repeat, VST specification prescribe nothing about the use of inputs/outputs. VST3 has way more options to allow the plug-in EXPLAIN the host how it (plug-in) is using input/outputs. But still I do not see any words which describe how the host SHOULD use that information.
 
Now lets put all facts together:
1) in X3 was implemented many times requested feature to allow audio FXes also have MIDI Inputs. Real requested enhancement. Yet that change is not mentioned in the blog.
2) in X3 the default, (still) not persistent after users explicit choice, setting for MIDI Output is changed. And that change is represented as as separate section in the blog. Not as a "fix", not as "from users wishes", but as an enhancement.
That does not make sense for me.
 
And now my own SPECULATION: the blog has a typo! Replace "Output" with "Input", and everything makes perfect sense, including the text in bold!
 
May be Noel can comment who is right with the interpretation of his blog
 
 

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!