So with that schedule, it could be expected somewhere around New Year, +/- 1 month.
Since there were so many issues with version 7, it may be a little longer logically to version 8. Or not, money rules…
On the other side, version 7 was a very large release, the next one may not be quite that large.
I would guess jan/feb 2015.
When it comes my hope is that it constitutes a refinement of the project window as an enhancement the mixer was to previous version, with good multi-monitor and workspaces support.
Importantly for me I hope the export dialog is improved to provide a method for naming files that is independent of the project tracklist
i Hope they work on getting the Mac 32 and 64 bit plugin inauguration working better ether 64 bit DAW’s are not having a problem i’m on Cubase 5.5 and i wont update until you guy’s git it rite and stable and one more thing way is it so expensive for the updates i have Been using cubase since SX Man thats 20 years i can’t get a Bake Please get the 64 bit working Smooth and i’m still Mad about you stoping Phone Support
Because nuendo has (had) a exclusive feature-rich version. I can’t remember the differences anymore, but I bought meap to fill the gap created when I decommissioned Nuendo.
Yes, if you use cycle markers and/or the counter. You can follow your cycle marker name with other descriptors as well. The descriptors are Name, Mixer Index, Channel Type, Channel Name, Project Name, Counter, Cycle Marker Name, and Cycle Marker ID. This is from my N5 manual.
ADDED: If none of the above are sufficient and you need something more you really should check out MEAP. I couldn’t live without it and Phil is a very good developer of the tool. $65 bucks is a bargain to me considering it has saved me hours and hours of time. If you ever pick it up, I have an export trick so you don’t have to clear markers out of the marker track to export cycle markers. Also, be forewarned, the version I am on (have to check) will not grab the cycle marker name, but will use your chosen name and create numbered versions as it moves down the line. It is something I had mentioned to Phil and he said he couldn’t do anything about it as it was a limitation in cubase. That was about a year ago.
Sounds good but I think my Feature Request (FR) is reasonable in the circumstances considering that not so long ago Batch Export was introduced and this would seem a reasonable suggestion, at least in my view.
Currently I’m having to route via sends to get any sort of independent naming of stems, which is rather time consuming to say the least and really does not lend itself well to what I would consider to be powerful software.
Sounds like you may be able to benefit by streamlining your workflow and create templates, or incorporate your added groups for file naming into your current template until your feature request is heard.
In the meantime, have you created a feature request thread outlining how you would like the batch export to evolve?
That is pretty vague. How should it work. You may just get a “+1” outta me!