Sean Meighan
Welcome => Do You Need Help? Post it here => Topic started by: Phrog30 on July 20, 2015, 11:35:03 AM
-
I am running into an issue. I have 12 RGB mini trees (50 pixels each) with stars (10 pixels each). I have created a group for the tree and star. This works well. I'm able to use a morph from bottom to top. I also have a group for all 12 trees and stars. I can also have a morph from bottom to top. This issue is when I have a morph on one or more of the individual tree/star groups and the entire 12 group at the same time. It looks like the group at the top of the list "wins". I tried setting to 1 reveals 2, 2 reveals 1, layers, etc. The only way I can get it to work is to add a layer for each of the 12 mini tree/stars and morph. So, one group morph turns into 12 individual. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the groups.
Is this a bug, or am I missing something?
James
-
The general best practice is when you have a model that is a member of a group or more than one group to have only one effect (but multiple layers is ok) on that model at a time.
I have found that in a sequence, the model /group that is lowest on the sequencer tab will take precedence as the rendering is done top to bottom. Is that what you are seeing?
-
The render order is set by the order in the Master View and its currently rendering Top to Bottom. So when you expand a model group that doesn't show you the render order. The rendering order of those groups is determined by how you arranged them in the Master View. So I always like to define my rendering order in the Master View and then work in a different view.
-
I changed the order and I didn't see a difference. The two effects are basically "fighting" each other. So, it's not possible to render them both and have them both execute?
James
-
The single tree group should only be able to affect those nodes. The other 11 trees should not be affected. You haven't shown any screenshots so I have no idea how you've defined the render order. Just keep in mind it's not only the ordering of the groups...the order of the individual models that makeup the group matter also.
-
Gil, sent you an email.
-
Yeah I think I figured out you wanted the effects on the two groups to alpha blend. It won't work that way. We currently have no way to define alpha blending except for blending multiple layers on the same model. A model group is treated as a different model so the last one rendered wins.
-
Gotcha, thanks.
-
Yeah I think I figured out you wanted the effects on the two groups to alpha blend. It won't work that way. We currently have no way to define alpha blending except for blending multiple layers on the same model. A model group is treated as a different model so the last one rendered wins.
I noticed you guys added the vamp plug-ins after seeing it in Vixen 3. Maybe you can do alpha blending as well since Vixen 3 can do it.;D
-
Alpha Blending has been there for several weeks. It's cleverly marked on the layers/timing blend mode as NORMAL. Give it a try.
-
Alpha Blending has been there for several weeks. It's cleverly marked on the layers/timing blend mode as NORMAL. Give it a try.
Me thinks you don't understand. The blending within layers works flawlessly.
Maybe it's too much time flying inverted. ;D
-
If your comment was comical or sarcastic, yep that zoomed on by me.
-
If your comment was comical or sarcastic, yep that zoomed on by me.
Yes, my attempt on sarcasm.
-
Yeah I think I figured out you wanted the effects on the two groups to alpha blend. It won't work that way. We currently have no way to define alpha blending except for blending multiple layers on the same model. A model group is treated as a different model so the last one rendered wins.
I noticed you guys added the vamp plug-ins after seeing it in Vixen 3. Maybe you can do alpha blending as well since Vixen 3 can do it.;D
I was planning on adding the Beat detection in because its built into LOR. Now I don't have to cause Dan did it. I don't think Vixen does the alpha blending you are asking for and if they do then don't let the door hit you in the butt...lol.
-
Yeah I think I figured out you wanted the effects on the two groups to alpha blend. It won't work that way. We currently have no way to define alpha blending except for blending multiple layers on the same model. A model group is treated as a different model so the last one rendered wins.
I noticed you guys added the vamp plug-ins after seeing it in Vixen 3. Maybe you can do alpha blending as well since Vixen 3 can do it.;D
I was planning on adding the Beat detection in because its built into LOR. Now I don't have to cause Dan did it. I don't think Vixen does the alpha blending you are asking for and if they do then don't let the door hit you in the butt...lol.
I don't technically know one way or the other. But, I do know that I can create multiple groups that are mapped to the same physical object and it works... I have tried it. So, if this is alpha blending, then yes, Vixen 3 does allow it.
To me, only allowing the last rendered object to work is a huge deal.
Are there any plans to allow this?
James
-
So how in Vixen are you telling it when you want it to do an overwrite versus a blend when multiple effects hit the same pixel? Because there are times when you want it to happen one way or the other.
-
To my knowledge, keeping in mind I'm new to Vixen and XL, there is not an option to blend or "overwrite". I think it will always blend.
Just like XL, Vixen can make groups pointing to the same pixel(s). For example, a minitree with star. I can make a group for all stars, then a group for all minis, then a group for all minis and stars combined. I can have effects on all of these and it will blend, while in XL only one is rendered. I just tested in Vixen with a wipe effect (which is morph in XL) on one group with color red. Another group, same effect at the same time with color green. I get yellow. I guess if I don't want blending, I only use one effect. The way my groups are arranged it's easy to tell.
By having the ability to have numerous groups means the possibilities are endless.
Hope my explanation made sense.