I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here, but I sure love the ability to animate layer ordering now.
I work exclusively in 3/4 cutout style, so getting the upstage arm to cross in front of the body (like clasping the hands together) was such a PITA I never did it. But with animated layer ordering -- it's a snap!
I just tried a test, made an action of my character moving his upstage arm in front (had to have him raise it slightly to first clear the body) and with some minor point editing (to edit the upper arm so that it looks correct in front) the action came out terrific even with just a rough first pass. I can see all kinds of useful things I can now do with arms in front I could never do before (I could have duped layers and used visibility settings and/or rendered to separate files and combined, which I've done, but it's such a major pain I would never do it on a regular basis).
I'm now going to make actions for all my characters to put their upstage arms in front (at which point they can do lots). Just a minor use of the layer ordering, but a huge bonus for me!
Thanks Mike!!
Sure do love them animated layers order!
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
-
Lost Marble
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:02 pm
- Location: Scotts Valley, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Sure do love them animated layers order!
You're welcome! I'm glad it'll make your work easier.mkelley wrote:Thanks Mike!!
I need to animate layer ordering in a switch layer all the time. Within a switch layer, I have turn arounds of a character - front, side, back. Each view consists of a bone layer with layers of the head, arms, legs, body on different layers. Also, turn arounds of the head are switched between in a switch layer.
Also when creating scenes, I put elements of the scene into folders 01, 02, 03 etc and then put everything into a switch layer and then switch between the scenes. I use that a lot to avoid having every little scene in its own project. I learned to do that after seeing it being used in some of the demos with the software.
Also when creating scenes, I put elements of the scene into folders 01, 02, 03 etc and then put everything into a switch layer and then switch between the scenes. I use that a lot to avoid having every little scene in its own project. I learned to do that after seeing it being used in some of the demos with the software.
wouldn't do that.
it's just harder to change some things.
like you got a voice sample, but you client changes the sentence of the voice sample. now its 2 seconds longer. you need to redone ALL the animation, just because the delay of 2 seconds.
if you use more individual project-files, you can change the timing without problems.
it's just harder to change some things.
like you got a voice sample, but you client changes the sentence of the voice sample. now its 2 seconds longer. you need to redone ALL the animation, just because the delay of 2 seconds.
if you use more individual project-files, you can change the timing without problems.
Still doesn't make sense to me. Only one layer at a time can be activated in a switch.
A switch layer can only show ONE layer at a time, even a bone layer or group layer. There is no need to animate the order in a switch because there is no way two layers in a switch would ever be seen at the same time, do you understand?
Only ONE layer at a time can be seen in a switch layer. Order is irrelevant. A switch layer is really just ONE layer. It has multiple layers inside it but only one at a time can be seen.
That is why animated layer order is not needed for a switch layer. There is absolutely no point. If you have 5 layers of any type inside a switch layer and you key layer 2 on frame 10... then layer 2 is the only one visible. Layers 1,3,4,5, can't be seen. Layer order doesn't matter. This makes no sense.
You can animate layer order INSIDE those group layers in the switch. You can animate the order of multiple switch layer groups inside a bone layer. But only one layer can be seen from the switch.
Even switches inside switches wouldn't matter. If you had a switch inside a switch only one layer would ever be seen... the layer in the first top one and the layer inside the child switch.
There is never any situation that layer order would matter inside a switch layer. When I do my phonemes for lip sync I have the layers all over the place. Same with anything else. I use switch layers for changing scenes sometimes... layer order is irrelevant.
-vern
A switch layer can only show ONE layer at a time, even a bone layer or group layer. There is no need to animate the order in a switch because there is no way two layers in a switch would ever be seen at the same time, do you understand?
Only ONE layer at a time can be seen in a switch layer. Order is irrelevant. A switch layer is really just ONE layer. It has multiple layers inside it but only one at a time can be seen.
That is why animated layer order is not needed for a switch layer. There is absolutely no point. If you have 5 layers of any type inside a switch layer and you key layer 2 on frame 10... then layer 2 is the only one visible. Layers 1,3,4,5, can't be seen. Layer order doesn't matter. This makes no sense.
You can animate layer order INSIDE those group layers in the switch. You can animate the order of multiple switch layer groups inside a bone layer. But only one layer can be seen from the switch.
Even switches inside switches wouldn't matter. If you had a switch inside a switch only one layer would ever be seen... the layer in the first top one and the layer inside the child switch.
There is never any situation that layer order would matter inside a switch layer. When I do my phonemes for lip sync I have the layers all over the place. Same with anything else. I use switch layers for changing scenes sometimes... layer order is irrelevant.
-vern
Glad you said this, Vern -- I had been thinking this but I didn't want to write it because I thought I was missing something.
I do have switches within switches but, as you said, you can animate layer order further down inside if need be. But the bottom line is that the order of layers IN a switch don't matter.
Perhaps there is something both of us are missing -- maybe the poster can post an example of where this would actually matter.
I do have switches within switches but, as you said, you can animate layer order further down inside if need be. But the bottom line is that the order of layers IN a switch don't matter.
Perhaps there is something both of us are missing -- maybe the poster can post an example of where this would actually matter.
I've been over this and over this in my head. I even did some test files to see if I made a mistake. I can't find any situation where animated layer order in a switch would be needed. In every case there was always the option of animating layer order INSIDE the groups WITHIN the switch, or reordering the switch layers themselves.
I even considered a very complex multi-nested set of complex switch within switch within switch scenarios and I still can't see layer ordering being needed or even useful if it was possible.
Imagine you have a super complex switch layer with multiple bone or group layers as the internal switch layers each with different layers that can be switched, you still have the option of reordering the layers in the groups, but in the end the switch itself can only display... one "layer" or "group" of layers.
Ultimately at the end of the day... a switch layer represents ONE SINGLE LAYER. It's whole purpose is to make "switching" of layers the same as using visibility but much quicker and easier. If AS did not have switch layers the only other option in many situations would be to animate the visibility. If a layer is OFF and can't be seen then it's position in the layer order is irrelevant.
It could be the poster is talking about shape order within vector layers... but that is a guess and assumes a misunderstanding of the new feature.
-vern
I even considered a very complex multi-nested set of complex switch within switch within switch scenarios and I still can't see layer ordering being needed or even useful if it was possible.
Imagine you have a super complex switch layer with multiple bone or group layers as the internal switch layers each with different layers that can be switched, you still have the option of reordering the layers in the groups, but in the end the switch itself can only display... one "layer" or "group" of layers.
Ultimately at the end of the day... a switch layer represents ONE SINGLE LAYER. It's whole purpose is to make "switching" of layers the same as using visibility but much quicker and easier. If AS did not have switch layers the only other option in many situations would be to animate the visibility. If a layer is OFF and can't be seen then it's position in the layer order is irrelevant.
It could be the poster is talking about shape order within vector layers... but that is a guess and assumes a misunderstanding of the new feature.
-vern
Hi everyone. Perhaps I haven't explained very well. Here is the kind of setup i use:
*Character (switch)
- character front (bone parent)
- character side (bone parent)
- character back (bone parent)
Each of the bone layers are parenting a whole bunch of layers e.g. head, legs, arms, body. In order to switch between the different views of the character, I use the switch layer.
Only one layer can be seen at a time, that's what I want. But I can no longer use animating layer ordering in any of the character setups. e.g. if within the 'character front' setup I want to move an arm up the layers, it can't be done.
hope that is clear.
maybe i could post a typical setup but im not sure how to attach image files to these posts.
*Character (switch)
- character front (bone parent)
- character side (bone parent)
- character back (bone parent)
Each of the bone layers are parenting a whole bunch of layers e.g. head, legs, arms, body. In order to switch between the different views of the character, I use the switch layer.
Only one layer can be seen at a time, that's what I want. But I can no longer use animating layer ordering in any of the character setups. e.g. if within the 'character front' setup I want to move an arm up the layers, it can't be done.
hope that is clear.
maybe i could post a typical setup but im not sure how to attach image files to these posts.
Good grief!
My face is very red.
Sorry for being such an arrogant jerk. You are absolutely correct. There is a bug with the layer ordering with bone layers INSIDE a switch. The channel is there for layer order but IT DOESN'T WORK.
Please accept my humble apologies for just assuming it was working. I even moved layers around and saw the keys being created in the layer order channel in the time line but never really checked to see if the keys WERE ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING!
They don't do anything.
This appears to be a bug.
-vern
My face is very red.
Sorry for being such an arrogant jerk. You are absolutely correct. There is a bug with the layer ordering with bone layers INSIDE a switch. The channel is there for layer order but IT DOESN'T WORK.
Please accept my humble apologies for just assuming it was working. I even moved layers around and saw the keys being created in the layer order channel in the time line but never really checked to see if the keys WERE ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING!
They don't do anything.
This appears to be a bug.
-vern
There is already a recent thread about this:vicspec wrote:I have another question about textures in 5.6 where i keep getting very jagged results, whereas in version 5.5 the images were nice and smooth, but i might start another post about that.
viewtopic.php?t=11078