Ohh boy, thread got carried away a little, but fun read smile

Bob, cxp,
Since your posts are somewhat similar in nature...
"why are people reluctant to use RB?"
I will give a shot explaining my view. (Peter G. please forgive me). RB is not on par with any modern DAW and I do not see a dynamic evolution of this software. I tried it on several occasions... I know for a fact that I will not be using it as a DAW. It is easier for me to bounce tracks in BIAB and move them to DAW of choice rather than learn a piece of software just so I can have a few extra tracks. To be fair, I realize RB is a powerful tool...but not the one I would use. Same way that I would not use sledge hammer to drive 1" wall nails.
---
Charlie,
I get what you are referring to. But bouncing these RTs in performance track or similar will solidify them, meaning they will not respond to further chord changes (bar changes, shots, etc.) They will be mixed audio files "playing along". Correct? If yes, unfortunately it is not for me. I need all tracks to be "liquid". Re-bouncing them will take longer and be more painful than doing this in DAW.
---
What bothers me is that some folks responding to requested BIAB features and saying something like "BIAB is not a DAW, don't try to make it as one"

16 open channels, same type as 7 there now to be used for RT or MIDI in BIAB is NOT a DAW request. It is arranger request. Has nothing to do with DAW. Tricky to implement - probably. Do I really, REALLY want it? Absolutely! I would blindly trade 3-4 years of new features for 16 (or more) opened mixer tracks in BIAB. Would even trade it for "bar freeze" with exception that new mixer tracks could be copied one to another smile

I agree with pipeline that plugin could be the future, but also with a standalone BIAB! Standalone BIAB + Plugin sounds like a perfect duo to me. Plugin is still very young, so it is too early to make this assumption, but BIAB just needs relatively small push (compared to ALL the features it bears) to be ace.

Misha.