Partially Blank out effects on a pixel ribbon

[dwbarnett]

OK gang, I have 2 8x150 columns light setups.

However, the a portion of the column goes behind my juniper tree. I'm trying to blank off that portion of the ribbon, so nothing shows there.

I tried the sub-buffer thing, but it didn't seem to work properly.  When I clicked on the effect, then used the buffer to adjust the area, it showed OK on the model preview and layout screen.  However, when playing it back, the adjustment didn't stay. The ribbon column was the same size. I tried adding an Off layer, and using the buffer again. It did shorten, but after saving, then playing the sequence; the adjustment didn't stay.

Am I using the wrong tool?   I just need to blank off those areas so no effects play. What do I need to do to accomplish.

IS masking the way to go?

OK, was looking over the masking stuff. Not sure how I would use the mask either.

Thanks
David

[markrvp]

One way (and probably not the best way) is to create a custom model.  If I understand right, one column is 1200 nodes?  8x150=1200.   In your custom model layout it would look something like the attached pdf.  Put all the nodes in the model, and then delete the node numbers that aren't visible.  xLights won't output to node numbers that aren't defined in the model.   

[Gilrock]

This sounds like a rendering order problem.  Anything that you say "doesn't stay" is because you are changing the rendering order as you click around in the program.  You need to hit Render All and then play that section to see if it's really correct.  I'll bet the effect you are dropping is being overwritten by another effect later in the render process.  Gotta get the display element ordering correct in the master view.

[Phrog30]

There are basically two sub buffers.  One is per effect.  As Gil stated, if using this, it may not "stick" due to render order.  Two is the sub buffer on the new sub model.  This is "global" for the specific sub model.  I just tried the sub buffer on the sub model and it worked great.

To troubleshoot, create a new sequence and have only an effect on this specific model.  If it works then you know you have a render order issue.  If not, then we can go from there.

James

[dwbarnett]

Rich Renn helped me get it squared away. Thanks everyone
David

[markrvp]

It's polite to share a solution you've found rather than keeping it a secret 

[dwbarnett]

Hey Mark, we ended up using a layer above the effects, then masking and buffering.

Best,
David

[Phrog30]

Be careful with masking. Masking simply covers up. It doesn't "redefine" the effect. A sub buffer is a better choice as it will redefine the model and effects will use this new area.

James

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Phrog30]

I spoke with David over the weekend about this and I realized that I didn't give a clear enough explanation so I thought I would clarify in case it would help someone else.  Adding a mask did what David wanted, but I mentioned that it might not give the results he needed.  When adding a mask, think of it as masking tape.  It covers up, but it's still there.  So, if you add an effect and a mask, the effect is still there, you are simply covering up a portion.  Example, if I have a matrix and I place a picture effect over the entire model, then add a mask to cover up the bottom half of the model, you will only see half of the picture.  However, if you use a sub-buffer and select the top half of the matrix, the picture will show up in the entire top half section.  The model has basically been redefined.

If you are only using on effects, colorwashes, etc, then a mask will work just fine.  But other effects, like a vu meter, will not work well with masks.  A mask will cover up, but it will cover up part of the effect that you want to see.  The sub-buffer will be a better fit.

James