Probably somewhere between those two. I think Daniel has made it abundantly clear multiple times that he doesn’t intend for the Play mode to be more capable than what you could achieve in Cubase or another standalone DAW.
The ability to create a convincing mockup just in one product, is very compelling though. Convincing is a subjective term, it means different things to different people.
To me, it means convincing crescendos, support for playback of all the common articulations, ornaments, playing techniques, and considerable control over the tempos (rubato, fermata length, pause length, etc.)
Beyond those things, I’d much rather see the resources spent making it easy to transfer the project to Cubase, and in developing extensive playback technique libraries for the most common packages (Addictive Drums and Keys, Vienna, EastWest etc.)
I can see (and hope for) technique libraries for Iconica, a Steinberg product. As for the others, I think developing links to Dorico will be the responsibilities of the developers of those products.
Well, it is very much in the interests of both the Dorico and Cubase products to have the best support for the most popular libraries out there. I think Steinberg needs to take a leadership position on that. How the work actually gets done isn’t that important. There are many options:
Probably many other options as well. I’m just saying that something needs to happen in that area because many of us have some non-Steinberg VSTis that we prefer to use.
For my purposes, the combination of NP and Halion is pretty good. I do like to use Addictive Drums and Addictive Keys in pieces where the percussion or keyboards are prominent. If the performance techniques were fully available for all these VSTis, then it would be no big deal to replace the Halion drum set with an Addictive Drums kit. But I just don’t understand this well enough to develop those PT definitions myself.
Other people have larger investments in EastWest brass or Vienna Strings or other packages and would be more likely to adopt Cubase and Dorico if they knew that those products would be mostly seamless with their favorite VSTis.
Understand I am not criticizing anybody here. Until now, there have been much more basic priorities to deal with. But supporting these VSTis (consistently between Dorico and Cubase) is a big part of product maturity, IMHO.
Completely agree!
I find myself importing, saving and exporting every change on Dorico, to yet a new project on Cubase…only to find that half of the times, I cannot even get sound on both at the same time, even with a Steinberg Soundcard.
Imagine a group of sound engineers, working on a soundtrack, composing, creating sounds, with a group of classical musicians…how practical is that.
Ask any Cubase user, if they would have any objections to changing their Notation editor, to Dorico in their “Suite”, or ask any Dorico user if they would have any objections to swap the Player in Dorico for a “Cubase Player” integrated.
So far I haven´t read one comment on the subject against the “Suite Idea” that makes sense…I mean common sense.
Like I said before, if Steinberg moves to that next level, they would become the undisputed King of Music Software.
I´m 64, you learn from experience, that going slowly avoids mistakes, so what´s the hurry guys, I understand it´s a “Huge Endeavor”.
But life is for the brave, your success with Dorico proves it.
All the best.
I can’t believe that Steinberg still does not understand that composers need a notation software that can work as a sequencer as well. Whether you link them together or just develop Dorico to do both sequencing and notating at the same time, doesn’t matter, just do it already and stop fooling around. How can you be so out of touch with what the market needs and wants for so many years now. What are you guys thinking about in your work time over there at Steinberg, come on!!! I have been ready to switch from Sibelius for a long time since they have done very little to upgrade their software but they have no problem with their crazy price plan. If you do this , you will see a lot of people with jump ship to Steinberg. How can you not see that!!!
Sibelius is a great notating software, but Dorico can be so so so much better.
One thing you need to keep in mind is that Dorico needs to be able to transfer Xml file data cleanly to other notating softwares until it can become the industry leader, since there will be a transition period for the majority of people to switch to Dorico.
I don’t think implying that a company is stupid is a way to win friends and influence people.
The “because I want this, everyone must also want it” is not a proven concept.
One has to ask…
I’m pretty sure all these drawbacks have been mentioned or alluded to above. Even if Steinberg’s goal was eventually to unify the two products (which I don’t think it is or should be) the steps they are considering now, how to help the two programs cooperate more effectively, would be the logical starting point.
Of course you are welcome to express your contrary opinion. That is what discussion boards are for (among other things 
)
Ok, great but Steinberg ignored this call for way too long to do something about notation and sequencing. I can understand time and resources maybe limited on your end but fix a few more things and I am happy to pay$$. I’m not here to win friends either, just do something.
Speak for yourself, please! NOT all composers need that. I’m a composer and I’ve never touched a DAW. Don’t need a DAW. Don’t know how a DAW works. Don’t care.
I am sure some composers fit your generality, but I bristle when somebody tries to speak for everybody.
I realize, you didn’t use the word ALL. But you sort of implied it.
–L3B
Sorry, but I don’t need notation software at all to compose. Just a pencil and paper will do fine.
And I don’t need a sequencer (or any playback at all) to know if I’m writing sense or nonsense.
Of course using notation software saves time, but that’s not the same as needing notation with playback to do anything at all.
Yeah I don’t need a sequencer either. Basic playback is helpful, but I certainly have no interest in piddling with velocity curves or whatever.
“Piddling” on a computer is likely to short circuit it. 
You can discuss it until the end of time.
But put them together, with different levels, pro, lite, etc.
Then everybody will be happy, Cubase and Dorico users.
And the ones that use both intensively, will be dancing with the music too. 
And yes I understand it might be a lot of work…
Using both side by side, now is not ideal,like I mentioned, there´s sound problems, I was told they would be fixed soon, but both are still excellent.
All this seems a bit ironic really IMO.
If people were arguing for putting together Cubase + Finale or Cubase + Sibelius, that would be understandable, because people have got used to that level of technology after 20 years or more, and most people don’t have the vision to think past Henry Ford’s comment about “a customer survey about the future of transportation would get lots of votes for breeding faster horses”.
Dorico is quite different from Finale or Sibelius, but nobody seems to be making the inference that the best way to do “Dorico + advanced playback” isn’t likely to be “Dorico + the current technology and UI in Cubase”.
But then, Dorico 1.0 wasn’t designed by doing a customer survey of users’ ideas for improving Finale and Sibelius either.
Most likely a few dinosaur sample library producers will slow the pace of change for a while though, till the customer base catches up with the idea that “getting another terabyte of samples” isn’t the answer to “better playback” either 
It really points out the difference in how people use Dorico. If you’re using it for engraving, or using it to print out parts for live musicians to play, then it’s understandable that advanced Playback features may not be useful to you. However, if you’re a composer writing for TV and Film and need professional mockups that may be used as is, or want to produce a convincing mockup for other purposes, then you’ll likely require a lot of midi editing capability and high end sample libraries to create a convincing virtual performance. That’s why DAWs like Cubase and Logic along with sample libs like Spitfire or VSL are often used for this purpose. Steinberg needs to decide what the purpose of Dorico Playback should be, and who it’s intended for.
Completely agree…
Cubase was originally that, a complete Suite. Point is with Dorico, the Note Editor in Cubase is a joke.
In today’s music market, working as a composer, orchestrator and arranger, I need to produce jobs fast and efficiently and these days everybody wants a midi mock up. So when I am notating the score it would be great that the mock up is produced at the same time.That way, I can save so much time and have less pressure to meet deadlines. It will eliminate one large step in the delivery process if you can combine a notator and sequencer at the same time. Steinberg needs to decide to either develop Dorico or find a cost effective and practical way to combine Dorico and Cubase together. The sequencer notation dilemma has been going on for way too long, and I know so many people in the industry would be grateful to Steinberg if they find a solution. Wouldn’t it feel good to be king of the music technology market??
I guess a very simple way of describing by ideal Cubase and Dorico integration would be this:
In Dorico, when you switch to the Play mode, you are in a Cubase project.
In Cubase, when you open the score editor, you are in Dorico.
So simple to describe, yet not so simple to implement
I am impressed by your very concise and nice vision
It would be really great