@bonemap

Have you considered using the JSON Bundler and JSON Parser to bundle and unbundle the HSBA values for transportation through a single data line?

@armando said:

What about a control id assignment window with a search field that exposes on one side all the controls that have been put on the control window and on the right all the actors that have been put into the patching window. Both lists can be long but with the search filter we could say I want to see all the video in inputs or all the value inputs, the text inputs, etc. So it is easier to match control IDs.

 Hi Armando,

Great idea, but how would this work? for one, the actors in the scene editor have, by default, identical names - every Wave Generator is indistinguishable by name - unless they are renamed. Then, every parameter of each actor type has the same name. A list item would require a unique naming system for each instance of an actor and each parameter of each actor. Wave Generator 01/frequency, Wave Generator 02/phase etc. What might work is for each actor to be assigned a unique name instance when placed in the Scene Editor. Control IDs could then be matched to a pre-set ID naming system. Another possibility would be to expose the property inspector popup (that has the control assignment for each parameter) differently, such as an option toggle that appends a parameter's inspector properties with the same input port style of the parent actor - thus exposing control ID and Scale variables to programmatic linking. In essence, actors could incorporate an option to expand a parameter's properties with accessible ports. 

Best Wishes

Russell

@kazapp

Hi,

Eight years is a long time - so some incompatibility would be expected. I assume that some of the video codecs of your older files are no longer supported - this article might assist.

Fading between scenes can be problematic with some video codecs and with 3D Actors.

Best Wishes,

Russell

@jtsteph said:

Hi,

You said,

The issue with doing anything within the Layer user actor is that the 4 tracks are the same actor - when I update one of them, it updates all of them.

This is not the case with top-most Control IDs. You can apply Control IDs to the outputs of a User Actor that are exposed to the topmost scene editor window - these are not updated when you 'save and update all'. These topmost control IDs are copied and pasted with the User Actor, but you can modify them, and they will not update when you update the User Actor. A workaround exists for using them with your one user actor workflow.

Best Wishes

Russell

Took an 8 year hiatus from video design (don't ask lol) but am dipping my toes back in and as such went and downloaded the demo version of .izz. I do not have the latest Mac OS so i downloaded one of the 3 gen versions of the IZZ app. It's a delight to be back at it again, but as i'm refamiliarizing myself, i'm finding that more than just the save function don't appear to be working in the demo:

fading from cue to cue only works sporadically, and i can't figure out why. 

also when i open up old .izz projects, despite the fact that all the media still shows up in the project, but none seems to want to play. 

i'm wondering if this is simply a result of me only having the demo and the versions probably not being aligned? or if i'm missing something? 

any advice greatly appreciated! Happy to be back! 

@bonemap said:

User Outputs to the parameters within your layer User Actor and then manually assign Control ID’s to the User Actor outputs

 Thanks for your notes and for the confirmation that it is a manual process at this point. It is what I was afraid of. The issue with doing anything within the Layer user actor is that the 4 tracks are the same actor - when I update one of them, it updates all of them.

I am now considering a globals/broadcasters/listeners network in which the layer number and a csv lookup table will determine the global or broadcaster channels in the "layers" actors. The listeners / global out would be in a "layer monitoring actor" where I would assign the CTL#s. 

Most of the parameters will change very little as I tweak things - I could use globals for these. The "values" outputs will be 30fps data streams - i could use broadcasters/listeners for these. With all 4 tracks this would be about 120 30fps streams + 360 "tweaking" parameters. There are already about 12 30fps broadcaster/listeners in the project. My concern is that this would add system overhead.

The other thing I could think if is to extract the "tweaking parameters" separately from the JSONs in the "layer monitoring actor" and wire the "streaming parameters" in. This would be less pretty, but if it means less overhead it might be the way to go.

@armando said:

Both lists can be long but with the search filter we could say I want to see all the video in inputs or all the value inputs, the text inputs, etc. So it is easier to match control IDs.

Thanks for the idea. Yes, some kind of "routing" interface like this would be useful with perhaps the ability to group the inputs and outputs into folders - this way one could organize things that have a lot of parameters. I do love this idea.

Thanks again for your input. I'll let you know how I get on.

@sla247365 Please add in your signature details on your machine, os, etc. It helps the community a lot when asked for some help.

@bonemap I agree with Russel. Let's think about this feature request. What about a control id assignment window with a search field that exposes on one side all the controls that have been put on the control window and on the right all the actors that have been put into the patching window. Both lists can be long but with the search filter we could say I want to see all the video in inputs or all the value inputs, the text inputs, etc. So it is easier to match control IDs. Just an idea.

@jtsteph

Hi,

I can see why you would want to be able to assign control ID numbers programmatically within your system. However, there is currently no way to do it - that I know of. Exposing the control ID assignment to allow a wire input would be a good option in a large system. I am sure this has been a feature request previously.

The workaround is to deploy User Outputs from the parameters within your layer User Actor and then manually assign Control ID’s to the User Actor outputs - looking at your description that will be around 500 control ID’s to slog through.

It is worth a feature request to make the Control ID system in Isadora accessible to programming and automation. There would need to be some way to define sets of parameter ID’s within the Scene Editor and the Control panel. This could be considered spatial ie. a set of controls relates to an area or zone of actors in the Scene Editor. Therefore, something like a Background module in the Control Panel could correlate to a Background module in the Scene Editor and a set of control ID’s be recognised in association across the defined area. It is perhaps a complicated feature to manage and implement but definitely a worthy one.

Best wishes

Russell

@sla247365 Yeah we could definitely do with some more information here, please. A screenshot of your patch and settings please.