Generic Remote - will it ever be updated?

Once you get the hang of it, Generic Remote is fairly easy to use. However, the fact that
-the window doesn’t scale, even when the dialog does
-you can’t easily cut, copy, duplicate commands
-has a midi monitor so you can check if your commands are being triggered, or if the right midi is coming in
-hasn’t been updated seemingly since Cubase 4
-has a ‘scroll to triggered command’ option

really means it needs some attention. There is a lot of potential here, but I’m amazed that it hasn’t been looked at for so long.

Is this going to get some TLC in the near future?


Generic Remote is invaluable for triggering commands with an iPad (Metagrid).

Bump SB…

Yep! It should be updated and that is way over-due. I have honestly lost interest in all of Cubase updates as they cannot realize how essential this is: there must be a way, for example, be able to select every track in your template. Most other DAWs allow this today via OSC.

Cubase still only has two options that don’t really work for a modern approaches: Mackie control and EUCON.
EUCON is actually great, but is a closed system, so it can only be used with avid hardware.

Mackie Control is only working decently with the hardware it was written for. It is al in midi data, so, you can hack it quite easily, but it is limited to its intended use.

Steinberg: if you would just enable users and developers with some kind of protocol, that sends out information about all tracks in a project and enables the user to select these track and let other devices or software know, which tracks are selected or record enabled! This would open the doors to unknown levels of control at the users fingertips.
I suppose, you are kind of waiting for midi 2.0, which will enable midi controllers to be aware of the properties of VSTs and VSTis. But that will be a long time until anything significant will materialize and by releasing that rather simple protocol, third parties could offer great ways of template control much quicker! I am waiting for this since lemur for the iPad has been released! It is such an obvious thing, I can’t understand why over all these years steinberg has not seen it …

There’s another nice protocol called SKI remote. But it’s kinda closed for common developers. I got some sudden remote of particular things in Nuendo when send NPRN midi messages to midi in port. But I don’t wanna spend my life to try to reveal at least some of them. So it would be very helpful if someday SKI remote will become opened for all.

It sounds like it’s two things really:
-The generic remote editor itself, which Imho needs a major GUI overhaul and should be integrated with key commands, macros and the PLE
-the remote control protocol - and as suggested, opening up SKI or something similar so that developers can take hold of it.

It seems every time SB dabbles in hardware controllers they get discontinued, or they are woefully underpowered, unless it’s Nuage of course, which is at a whole different level (and price point).

I can only imagine business wise it’s a tough nut to crack, finding the right balance between development/features and price point/market.
But if SB aren’t going to do it, at least open up your SDK so other people can!!!

Amen to that! This would be perfect and exactly what I want! I wrote Steinberg, if they would be willing to give me a documentation of SKI remote protocol, which they denied. I highly regret that they are not willing to give their users professional and complete means of customizing remote devices.

SKI or Generic Remote API access would be great! I have some ideas but not sure if I want to mess too much with OSC api.

Oh! I’ve been thinking about writing to SB)… C’mon devs! Give us ability to make remote tools as we need them to be! Nuendo users are different, their workflows are different so we all need different approaches to ease our work. It’s a serious thing. I’m stuck with this over and over again. And if you’re making so great DAW as Nuendo for listening to sound, please listen to us as well and don’t be deaf to our complaints and whimpers) What could be worse than deaf developers of audio software? :wink: