Scenario: I have many full screen graphics as variants of a “Placer with Transition” layer. Each variant has the same “In Transition” (a wipe) and the “Out Transition” is set to “Same as incoming”
Problem: if I click a variant to go live with the transition, I can see the new transition starting from scratch and the old graphic disappear with a cut. the result is an abrupt and very bad transition. It is impossible in this way to have e.g. a sequence of full screen graphics that need to appear with the same wipe one after another, because when I switch to each next one, the previous one is quickly cut with a “flash”.
Solution: when I click each variant, the layer should honour the order of the stack. So if I click a variant that is in an higher level than the previous one, the new transition should “appear over” the old variant, instead of substituting it.
Even better for me, I’d love the previous variant to support it’s OUT TRANSITION before allowing the incoming variant’s IN TRANSITION. That way I’d get a clean wipe, push or dissolve within a layer. You can do this between layers using a layer set but NOT within a layer.
exactly, there should be options for these behaviours, so many possibilities!
this is NOT fixed in 5.10 final release
I wonder how everyone can work with this behaviour on the layer variants.
am I missing something?
when I click/switch from a layer variant to another, the out transition is ignored.
this means I can’t have a proper x-dissolve between two layer variants.
the only workaround is to create a separate layer instead of a variant, but I would end up with 40 more layers… not practical!
this really need a urgent fix…
Still thinking this is a big problem for me… is there any fix on the horizon?
I’m experiencing something similar. It’s pretty annoying.
I’m sorry but I don’t get your idea.
the “below” you’re mentioning is exactly the reason I wrote this post.
This is a big bug and needs to be fixed by the devs.
(I still don’t understand how this is not a huge problem for everyone!)
Yes, but as you can read in the first lines of my original post, even with something very basic as graphic images, the problem is still there.
I understand your workaround "a on, b on… " but this is not a solution for me.
If I wanted to complicate things, then I can simply avoid using lavyer variants and using separate placer.
but that’s the whole point! I want to use variants!
And if you want this, use two of your layer. And follow the Z-pattern for switching to have a “below”.
exactly. but this is what we, as users, know as a problem.
I’m just saying that we need another way around.
I really appreciate that you are helping on this, but nothing will convince me that this is the correct way of having variants.
it’s about the user experience. if the user need a certain behaviour, everything should be done in order to accomplish that
This is why I hope that the developers will have to at least try to think “laterally” and come up with a solution.
Don’t worry about the language, I’m not an english speaking native as well
that can help in a few scenarios, but not an overall solution, I’m afraid…
(and I just posted another big bug about the slideshow! )
is there an official word on this?
and even if it’s as it should be… then why not simply having an option in the layer? or a “twin brother” layer? there are tons of scenarios in which it would make much more sense to have the behaviour I’m suggesting…
On the manual there is no mention of the “in transition, layer-loop, out-transition” behaviour that you mention.
Most importantly, there is no mention of the fact that it should be limited in that way.
The only mention of the transition is this part:
- The little “Live” button (below the big “Live” button) can be used to switch a certain variant live. If another variant is currently live this variant will be switched off (some layer has a transition between variants, most don’t)
and again, I don’t see why it shouldn’t work.
If you’re a developer from Boinx, then I can understand your position and I would ask for a bit of open-mindedness.
If you’re a mimolive user, then I don’t know why you think as a developer, and not as a user/designer
see? it was easy, now you got it
I posted many feature requests, and many bugs. To me, this one was a bit of both, to be honest.
And it’s not important how we call it, I just hope to find a solution.
thank you for helping
why do you say “unread”?
I have mimo open right now trying the PIP method you suggested… but it still don’t solve what I think it should solve.
I agree as you said that a new feature could be to have a new layer. let’s see what @Achim_Boinx thinks about it
I posted a z-pattern-demo, unfortunately to the wrong post: BUG: slideshow layer – many problems - #2 by JoPhi,
I can understand that you want to use layers and variants in different ways as we designed them. From a technical point of view there are some layers that are aware of changing the layer variant and do a transition (e.g. the PIP Window layer will move the window around to the new position). Many layers aren’t aware of a change so they are don’t react on it. For some layer it doesn’t make sense to have transitions (e.g. because the content is atomically e.g. the Sports Game Data layer) for others it totally make sense. I have to admit that for the Lower Third layer it would make sense to actually first do the out-transition of the previous variant and then come on with the new lower third graphics of the new variant made just live. Unfortunately this behaviour can’t be generalised because each layer may have its own context what it means to switch between variants. So please make a feature request on certain layers that needs a transition between variants.
Secondly: I don’t think that the order of the variant list is a good indicator to change behaviour because this is very unintuitive.
Thirdly: Its not possible to do fade transitions between different video sources for the same video input when switching variants. This will always be a cut thought because the newly selected variant defines which video source will be active. Currently there can’t be two video source active for one video input of a layer. (Thats why there is a Video Switcher layer that can do the transitions)
I hope this gives you a bit insight on how mimoLive treats layers and variants and why it behaves differently for different layers.
Based on your reply, I would formally like to make a feature request for the lower third layers. I desperately need to be able to fade in/out a variant. So when Variant #1 is live and I click Variant #2, I’d expect Variant #1 to perform its OUT transition (fade out) and then perform the Variant #2 IN transition (fade in.).
To follow the logic, this is just possible when you first switch your variant off, wait, and then switch your next variant on. This already exists.