I’m the same, I miss that and track versions in Reaper. One other thing is i’m so used to having my FX chans on the far right of the mixer in it’s bank, and you can’t do that in Reaper either as theres no zones.
Other than that, it’s a pretty good DAW, and I do approach things differently when using it which is a nice alternative - I use a lot of stock plugins in Cubase, whereas Reaper I (have to) use third party plugs.
I see your point but times change and there is a great demand for this feature. After all, Cubase added audio recording features when it was strictly midi when there was a demand for that no? Ripple editing is a basic feature in today’s workflow I would say.
Yes, love being able to pitch correct, auto align and process vocals with the great stock plugins all in one app. I too wish Reaper had zones.
I let my backups save those folders automatically, no need for a cloud sub by Steinberg. A offline+online backup is recommended anyway, so 
Why?
REAPER’s stock effects are amazingly good, just like Cubase. Or are you referring to instruments?
More the built in channel strips and EQs because they’re just sat ready to use, I’m always using the low/hi cut controls, bit of compression/saturation for example and the EQ curves show above each channel.
In Reaper I tend to bring in a channel strip plugin rather than all it’s individual components as I’m mainly composing so want something quick . Plus my sends are usually Steinberg reverbs/delays.
I really should try the stock effects in REAPER though, as it’s the interface that puts me off. I use the EQ plenty and that’s great and very flexible. I don’t think I’ve even tried any of the others.
Would be great, if you could theme everything inside Reaper. The plugins, the menus, etc.
Look, not to take this thread off topic, and not to criticize Reaper or to get into a silly, useless DAW argument, but Reaper’s stock effects are NOT “amazingly” good IMO, and they are NOT “just like” Cubase’s plugins. And I’m including the JSFX in there too.
Reaper’s plugins, to be fair, are objectively adequate in many cases for most core mixing and basic mastering tasks though, and you can use them for a professional production. So I’m not attacking them. And yes, there are a few “good” to “very good” gems buried in the JSFX library. But “amazing” is a really strong superlative word which is used way too often to describe “average” things these days. Spider Man would be amazing. Reaper’s stock effects are not.
That being said, don’t get me wrong, I like Reaper and I use it a lot – especially because of the flawless ripple editing (which perplexes me why Steinberg STILL hasn’t added a great ripple editing feature! Hopefully they listened for Cubase 13!).
And BTW most DAWs have decent to good to very good stock plugins now. But NO DAW has “amazing” stock plugins IMO. Steinberg’s are on the “better” end of the scale, but still not “amazing.” Reaper’s are definitely not “amazing.” But more broadly, you can do a LOT with whatever DAW you are using. The real limiting factor of any production is the skill and talent of the operator. So Reaper is just fine for some folks. Cubase is just fine for other folks. The limit is the artist.
Reaper’s real claim to fame with bundled plugins is actually the JSFX stuff, which is massively hit or miss IMO. There is huge potential there though, and that should be noted as a really cool feature of Reaper. Just not a lot of polish though. There are gems in there to be sure, worth some effort to explore the JSFX library. The UIs of those plugins are generally utilitarian to hideously ugly IMO, but workable. (Although there are a few exceptions with decent UIs if you look hard enough.)
Also, one can’t really compare the Reaper stock plugins with the Cubase Pro stock plugins in all fairness. To be more accurate, it’s apples to oranges. But in general, Steinberg’s are in a different class. And again, Steinberg’s stock plugins are also NOT amazing, yet they are still in a higher class IMO. But on the other hand, Reaper offers JSFX, which Steinberg does not, so Reaper has a really neat feature that allows a massive library of user-written JSFX plugins. Again, apples to oranges. (And please don’t remind me that some people have managed to get JSFX to work to some degree in other DAWs, it’s not great, and TBH JSFX works infinitely better in Reaper.)
BTW when you get into a direct comparison, objectively, you can’t compare something like Reaper’s ReaEQ to Steinberg’s Frequency 2 in Cubase Pro, for example. Frequency 2 is one of the better stock EQ plugins in any DAW today. When Steinberg added dynamic features and other quality of life functions, it stood out in terms of stock DAW plugins. I’m not saying it was the best or the first that did that, but when Frequency 2 was announced in Cubase 11, it was a very good improvement over the already good Frequency V1.
ReaEQ, on the other hand, is adequate for a lot of tasks though, and I’m not criticizing it. But Frequency 2 would have been a paid third-party plugin just 5 years ago IMO. It’s definitely a full level or two above ReaEQ. And Steinberg’s buddies over at Presonus followed suit and added dynamics in Studio One’s Pro EQ3. Steinberg was definitely helping to push the definition of “stock” plugins forward in a major DAW, and other DAW makers are matching that.
Now Reaper fans love to mention the user-contributed (and terribly-named) JSFX plugin called ReEQ, not to be confused with ReaEQ. And ReEQ is very good indeed, showcasing the capabilities of JSFX quite well, and borrowing massively from the design of Fabfilter. But once you use ReEQ, you realize you might as well buy Fabfilter Pro-Q 3 and use it in all your DAWs… or if you already use Cubase Pro, then you already have Frequency 2 (or if you have Studio One, you already have Pro EQ3), and you can probably live without Fabfilter. And as of my last testing, there was no comparison between the CPU efficiency of Frequency 2, Pro EQ3, and Pro-Q 3 vs the JSFX-based ReEQ BTW.
In any case, unless you are looking for a specific, unique JSFX plugin buried in the JSFX library that you can’t live without, Reaper’s “stock” plugins just don’t have the development man-hours behind them compared to the Cubase plugins. That should be obvious. Justin over at Cockos is a mostly one-man band (a very talented one-man band!) and Steinberg has a relatively big development team. That doesn’t mean you can’t use Reaper’s plugins for professional work. But in all fairness to the Cubase plugin developers, I suggest you take a moment to really go through the stock Cubase Pro plugins again. They cover a LOT of ground, are quite diverse, and have a lot of creativity in some cases, covering a lot of genres. And still, they are not “amazing.” There’s a reason why there’s a huge third-party market out there.
And for those on Reaper, take a moment to explore the JSFX collection, you might find some fun surprises in there.
In the end, there’s no real way to compare one DAW to another DAW anyway, since every user’s needs will be different.
Back to the topic, I guess. When will Cubase 13 come out, and the most important question of all is, will Cubase 13 FINALLY HAVE GREAT RIPPLE EDITING? 
Yeah, I get that. It’s a preference. I personally like the minimalist UI and no no-nonsense of them and wish all plugs would be like that. And then there are plugins other people find great that I can’t stand because of the interface. We are all victims of our aesthetics to some extent.
I find them extremely transparent, efficient and with really rich feature sets and they make for wonderful Swiss Army-knives. Unless you’re after a certain signature sound there is very little you can’t accomplish with them.
I’m not sure they make too much sense outside of REAPER though.
Off-topic though. So back to Cubase release: When?
Idle speculation, but to me it looks like Steinberg are clearing the decks for a release with this announcement:
This suggests to me that an imminent Cubase 13 will no longer feature VST Transit.
They announced the end of life for Transit a long time ago. Perhaps they did have a release plan driving that, but it wasn’t a recent decision.
Moreover, building Cubase without VST Transit support should be trivial. Nuendo is built from the same codebase as Cubase and has never had VST Transit support, so building VST Transit support is already conditional. All Steinberg will have to do is apply the same “do not build VST Transit” condition to Cubase.
I doubt that there will be a new release of Cubase 12 just to remove VST Transit support, though it is possible Steinberg will choose to release 12.0.71 with that as the sole change. However, it is clear that all Cubase releases after the end of this month will omit VST Transit support.
I can’t see them doing anything with C12 because of this. I think they are simply saying the next release will not have Transit and they are no longer fielding any support tickets for Transit. Plus, doesn’t Transit have a cloud component? If so, that probably goes dark.
I never used Transit. On the surface, it seems counter-intuitive to shut down such a capability when so many others are adding similar capabilities to extend collaboration and justify a subscription stream. My speculation is that Steinberg decided that Transit wasn’t flexible enough to be a foundation for the future. I predict that with C13, there will be a new cloud service to replace Transit with more competitive capabilities. This would be analogous to the new licensing platform that requires several years/releases to completely roll out.
I share your scepticism that there will be a Cubase 12 release to remove the useless VST Transit support, but such a release is possible. Indeed. it is possible that the VST Transit support in Cubase 12.0.70 is set to disappear from view when Cubase is started on or after 1 September 2023 or when the VST Transit servers are no longer online. There is a server component to VST Transit; it is not a peer-to-peer system.
However, I do not share your optimism that Cubase 13 will include a VST Transit replacement. The announcement is clear that VST Transit is being discontinued for economic reasons; Steinberg seems to believe in the technology but cannot make enough revenue from VST Transit once the server and support costs are taken into account. Whilst it might be possible to reimplement the server component of VST Transit in a way that reduces costs, the return on investment in the development and early-life support costs is doubtful if the current implementation is uneconomic to provide. Moreover, if Steinberg had plans to provide a replacement for VST Transit in the near future, surely the announcement would have been of an upcoming evolution in the VST Transit service, not that VST Transit is being discontinued with no indication of when or if a replacement will be provided.
Yes, it is an interesting scenario. Clearly, collaboration is important to many people. But it isn’t obvious exactly how to support the collaboration when talking about a DAW and/or notation software. VST Transit was a very limited capability, and I don’t doubt the economics were poor. I have trouble thinking that nobody at Steinberg/Yamaha sees an opportunity in collaboration features. Surely they must have some kind of a strategy here. I hope some of that appears with C13, but have not factual basis for any such hopes.
VST Connect provides a good collaboration platform, but in the engineer/artist paradigm, in other words, everyone needs to be online as if in a virtual recording studio, with someone acting as the recording engineer in a virtual control room.
VST Transit had the advantage off offline collaboration, in that you could “publish” a project, and others could contribute in their own time, without having to do the usual file sharing reconstructions.
interesting what is holding cubase 13 from release ?
probably its already on Beta testing.
but its already almost 1.5 years since C12 release , so maybe its a strategy from Steinberg or some issues it has with releasing …
but anyway its somehow builds high expectations for a “Mega 
” release.
hope this long time to release, sets Cubase in some needed modern and necessary features and some overhaul of the program
I wouldn’t read too much into the time since Cubase 12; Steinberg has been busy with many other projects, including porting many existing products to Steinberg Licensing and Apple Silicon, HALion 7, VST Live and, undoubtedly, developing Cubase/Nuendo 13.
It may be that Steinberg chooses to go back to the release schedule we had become accustomed to, releasing a new version of Cubase in late November or very early December. Maybe there is another plan. We will only know when the release happens!
hopefully the “other” products don’t take focus from Cubase development, probably Cubase is Steinberg’s most selling product and a flagship, taking resources from Cubase development seems odd if so.
on the contrary they should probably add some “new fresh brains” to the development team, maybe its just me, but Cubase seems little beat lagging in dev speed, and dev ideas compared to some other companies
“interesting what is holding cubase 13 from release ?”
They need to fix their new licensing security system which seems pretty weak.