I’ve been using Padshop a lot lately, so I am disappointed to hear I’ll have to wait what sounds like 4-6 months for Padshop 2. I doubt Padshop 2 will require a special build for Nuendo, so it would be nice if VI not specifically tied to the app code itself were made available for Nuendo users. Just dreaming, I know, but it would be nice…
I received this on Facebook two days ago after enquiring about Nuendo updates.
So, no .5 updates on Nuendo (which has been mentioned above in a roundabout way).
Well, they could at least fix that damned eLicensor so it I can stop gritting my teeth every time I go to launch the program! THAT is the thing I miss most about Cubase - not having to deal with this copy-protection headache on a daily basis! 
Luis, I haven’t forgotten your acknowledgement of this frustrating issue back in the original Transparent Mode thread, but still, to hear it reinforced with more substance is reassuring.
Thanks!
Chewy
Hopefully, it will get to Nuendo “10” before Nuendo “11”.
Thats the thing. How much will the 11 upgrade be just to have transparent mode back?
UGH.
Wouldn’t it be possible to share the same code base for Nuendo and Cubase, so that the Dev team do not loose time on working on each release ?? And do not loose time to debug two times the same code ?
Then releasing Cubase could be a simple conditional compilation, with removed functions.
Those two softwares are now very similar, i do not see why it would not be possible.
This would allow for Nuendo users to get the latest functions at the same time as Cubase users.
It seems logical to me that Nuendo users should have the newest technology before or at the same time as Cubase users, simply because Nuendo is more expensive and higher end.
If this were the case, there would be another profit for Yamaha, they would sell more Nuendo licenses. Happier users, more money for Yamaha, and less development time.
Cuba se is probably the guineapig, then once they get it right, they add it to Nuendo, fully tested. 
Yeah, right 
This same old tired answer “ let Cubase do the testing” is just a whole bunch of BS.
Testing is done after the programmers implement the code, by competent testers.
Nuendo users pay more money, they should get the new features first, Cubase users should be second,
and not the way it is now.
As for Bugs, there will always be bugs. N10.2.1 crashes often on the same desktop as N4.3 that almost never crashes.
This is an old irritating story.
I feel the same way…
I feel the same way.
I have a license for Nuendo 10 and Cubase 10.5.
Using Cubase now because I love the Multi tool function as well as the fact that you can import Groups and FX channels from other projects.
Cubase seems snappier and more stable if you ask me… and the comparative EQ, that’s just what I need in my workflow.
I’m totally agreeing. That’s been one thing (probably the only one thing) I’ve always been missing when comparing PT to Nuendo. This is enhancing editing speed and workflow a lot.
I think there’s a limited amount of options when it comes to releasing these two softwares, and some of them don’t really make sense. Just saying we should get the new features first means Cubase users have to wait for a purely artificial reason; they paid less. And if it’s indeed possible to split the features into music/post in terms of integrating them into Nuendo we actually wouldn’t even get stuff sooner, just Cubase users would get their stuff later… and then we’d get more stuff (post).
And when you do that you also have to consider pricing ‘optics’; are we going to pay twice - once for the earlier music features and again later for the post features, or are our music features going to look as if they’re “free” and then the post features are going to look more expensive by comparison?.. not to mention that Cubase users will complain that they’ll pay for the music features and we don’t.
Lastly, all of this also assumes that the current way Steinberg have structured their workforce makes all of this efficient. It could very well be that doing it in some other ways actually adds development time to the process… and time is money so that’s less revenue for Steinberg which guaranteed will trickle down as a relatively higher cost for us customers.
So all-in-all I’m not really convinced that this is a big deal or even one with a reasonable and easy solution.
Steinberg got rid of the NEK, dropped upgrades to $200, and seem to have at least somewhat closed the gap between releases. If anything I think the emphasis should be on ‘finishing’ features that aren’t finished, and fixing what isn’t working correctly (bugs or design issues), key commands and VCAs and a few other things come to mind. If we want to make noise about things those are the things I think are valuable to make noise about.
PS: I think transparent events and a few other things are coming before the next paid release - but I could be wrong about it of course…
The NEK is why I opted to buy Nuendo, instead of Cubase; to get the music features of Cubase, while growing into the “post features” of Nuendo. Here I am, still lagging behind in music-related features. 
I haven’t received a response as yet, as to if there is a “cross-grade” from Nuendo to Cubase. Yes; I’m willing to pay for BOTH applications. SMH
It’s not a cross- grade if you own both, you’re looking for a discount, right?
You might be right, but if there were two ‘levels’ of Cubendo in one application wouldn’t it be seen the same way that Wavelab Pro and Wavelab-Elements are viewed? - essentially the same application but different featuresets depending on what the user needs and how much they want to pay. I don’t think a Cubase user would be upset that a Nuendo user also had the music features p!us some extra stuff that they paid more for.
I certainly agree with you about getting the existing problems fixed first.
Well, my first point was the timing, and that in one sense it’s not really reasonable for Cubase users to wait just because we “feel better” if they do. That was taking what someone else said quite literally of course.
The other thing was that people are just irrational. If we for example went from Cubase and Nuendo versions 11.1 to 11.5, and 11.5 was paid, then if you split up the feature additions so that the music stuff came out before the new post features but had Nuendo users pay just when those post features came out I bet you that Cubase users would say “Hey, I’m paying for these features for 11.5, but Nuendo users are getting them for free in 11.5” because they wouldn’t really see that we’d then pay far more for 11.6 or whatever when that finally comes out with the post features.
I’m not saying the above reaction makes sense, just that people are irrational.
I’m not sure I understand you.
I don’t own both; only Nuendo. I am asking, if there is a price for “cross-grading” from Nuendo to Cubase, the way you can do so from Pro Tools, Sonar Logic etc. It is indeed a discount, but they’re calling it a “cross-grade” price.
Mattias makes great points I think.
The only thing is that basic functions and Gui improvements (such as the much discussed transparent mode) or for me this of not automatically activating the next project, if you close the active one, which is a no-brainer functionality, would be a shame to wait a year to get 
Though I’m super excited to get Padshop 2.