Rendering with layered Model Groups

[jediknight2]

Rendering with layered model groups isn't rendering based on whats on the time line.  I have model groups laid out as follows:

Pixel Tree - my pixel tree
Just House- JUST the outline of my roof
Whole House - Every pixel element I have

They are ordered as shown so my Pixel tree sequencing should take precedence over my Whole house and the Just House should take precedent over the WHole House.  If I hit render and then play, the tree reacts to the whole house sequencing.  In addition, the Just House group should be sparkling and it also follows the WHole House Group.  If I click on the pixel tree or just house effect in the sequencing grid it will show in the model view correctly.  In addition, when I hit play after that it works as expected.  However, hit render and play again and it reverts back to following just Whole House, again even though it's below.  Here is a video showing what I mean

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxq_KcnUwwu3OWt4dFVkX1VRWjg/view?usp=sharing

[jnealand]

In an other thread Gil has stated that the rendering is always by what is in the "master view"  Any changes you make in another view are ignored.

[jediknight2]

This is all in master view

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[Gilrock]

Your problem is you have the models arranged backwards from how you want them to render.  I know it's confusing because the Data Layer order renders bottom to top, Model layers render bottom to top, but the Models themselves render top to bottom.  I wanted it the other way around but I was a lone voice in the wilderness.  I didn't push it since I can just create another view that swaps the order to the way a graphic artist would expect things to render.

[jediknight2]

Let me make sure I understand.  Layers bottom to top, but within each model they render top to bottom...meaning the node layers underneath...

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[jediknight2]

I got it now....I have to side with you on this one Gil...top to bottom rendering is what makes sense...especially since internally each model does that anyway.  I'd be interested in seeing what you do there in another view...doesn't the order of the Master View take precedent?

[Gilrock]

That's not siding with me....Bottom to Top is what I think makes sense.  Have none of you ever worked in Photoshop or any graphics art program with layers?  Its like painting, the last brush strokes are on top.

[Phrog30]

That's not siding with me....Bottom to Top is what I think makes sense.  Have none of you ever worked in Photoshop or any graphics art program with layers?  Its like painting, the last brush strokes are on top.

Great example Gil.

[jediknight2]

But...the objects on the top layers overlay in Photoshop, objects in layers underneath are covered by objects on top....If you want a tree in your photo, you don't place it on the bottom layer in Photoshop, you put it on TOP so it takes precedent and is rendered above.  So top to bottom would make more sense   I'm fine with either way...I just need to know the rules

[Gilrock]

But...the objects on the top layers overlay in Photoshop, objects in layers underneath are covered by objects on top....If you want a tree in your photo, you don't place it on the bottom layer in Photoshop, you put it on TOP so it takes precedent and is rendered above.  So top to bottom would make more sense   I'm fine with either way...I just need to know the rules

I think you actually want it the same way as me you're just saying it backwards.  Remember if you want the layer on top to cover the layers below it you gotta render it last so that's why I call it bottom to top.  You render the bottom layer, then the next layer up, then the top layer is rendered last.  The issue we have now is we have different orders within the program.  The layers are done bottom to top like I like but the models themselves render the top line first and work their way down.

[Charles Belcher]

But...the objects on the top layers overlay in Photoshop, objects in layers underneath are covered by objects on top....If you want a tree in your photo, you don't place it on the bottom layer in Photoshop, you put it on TOP so it takes precedent and is rendered above.  So top to bottom would make more sense   I'm fine with either way...I just need to know the rules

I think you actually want it the same way as me you're just saying it backwards.  Remember if you want the layer on top to cover the layers below it you gotta render it last so that's why I call it bottom to top.  You render the bottom layer, then the next layer up, then the top layer is rendered last.  The issue we have now is we have different orders within the program.  The layers are done bottom to top like I like but the models themselves render the top line first and work their way down.

And...rendering a movie in Power Director 13 is bottom to top precedent.  You start with a background image on the top row; say a mountain scene, and add other images; perhaps an image of your kids, to render on top of the background image by placing the image of the kids in the lower rows.--Go figure.

Charles

[Gilrock]

So PowerDirector renders top to bottom so you call it bottom to top precedent....no wonder everyone gets confused.

[jediknight2]

Lol

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[Charles Belcher]

So PowerDirector renders top to bottom so you call it bottom to top precedent....no wonder everyone gets confused.

My point...to me which ever level is the anchor has precedent.  Can be confusing, but this is easy and still trying to get that piano working by making the entire matrix a solid dark blue color and laying out the keys via columns; pixel by pixel in two lighter colors only when the notes are played.  Quite the task.

[Gilrock]

I guess if you grew up in a bat cave PowerDirector seems perfectly logical.