Digital Workshop

Hi,

Something in the help-topic on the SetLayer function seems quite incorrect:

The help-function states the following:

"This function will set the layer position of an Object. This function is useful for making Objects appear above and below other Objects on the screen, for example, if you want to move an object to the front of the screen, you could set the layer number to 0, which is the top layer."

In my version of Opus though, this is exactly the other way around:
the cloned objects with a higher SetLayer-value appear on top of the ones with a lower SetLayer-value.

My version of Opus: v6.00
I am running Opus on Windows Vista. There the problem appears, as well on the Windows XP system's where I run the published program.

It isn't really that big of an issue. It's not right though .

Gr,
Paul

I seem to recall an inconsistency in the explanation. Check all four resources... both helpfiles and user-guides for Opus and Opus Script.

The way I've come to understand it, at runtime all objects are "flattened" into one presentation level when a page is displayed (some obj may be hidden or partially blocked from view if they were lower in the organizer order). The SetLayer commands allow you to control that.... by moving them relative to that Zero level. It goes both + and -. ( -10 to -1 to 0 to +1 to +10 )

I hope that's a right explanation.

Ah right. I understand what you mean.
I think this has to be clearified in the helpfiles though.

Thanks for your reply .

I don't know about this particular case, but there are quite a few errors in the help files.

Sandy

The help guide also puzzled me for a while. It states "if you want to move an object to the front of the screen, you could set the layer number to 0, which is the top layer.", but I have definitely had to do the reverse to get the effect I am looking for. For me, 1 is at the back and 100 the front. I am working with clones, but I checked it with normal objects in the attached file.
Dan

PS. This needs moving to advanced

Wow, that's weird.
I have not proven it out heuristically, but I have had good success 'elevating to front' with values of +1 to +10, and 'moving back' with values of -1 to -10. Everything I've done has been with host objects and not clones however.

IMO, '0' layer is the normal layer where everything is displayed by default (and any perceived stacking is based on position in the Opus tree).

Hi

The other problem I am having with this is that even if you move something to the top layer, a mouse click still selects and drags the object that was originally on top, even if it is now completely masked by another. Plus a failed drag can cancel all the layer info (see attached).

I am dealing with up to 50 clones, so if long scripts are needed to check the present location of all other objects on each click, then it could slow everything to a crawl.

Anyone any experience of this?
Many thanks
Dan

Tricky one this. I thought Lar had started a discussion and some examples about layering, but cannot find them.

It certainly is possible to recreate this in script but as you say it's finding the least intensive method to handle fifty clones. Our shuffle example is locked at twelve clones, but that's because it's pulling images into each frame.

http://www.live.interaktiv.co.uk/index. ... Itemid=166

If I had three wishes, having 'physically' layering built in would be number two

Mack

Thanks Mack.

The attached should work with lots of clones and without too much processing. I've basically turned off the 'stop clicks passing through' so that every object in the pile registers when you click on it. The top one is moved, but others can be brought to the top instead. This may be a bit long-winded, but I had half an eye on the arrays I'm using in my project. The only problem now is that I did have an object covering the whole of the back of the screen picking up loose clicks. I'll have to think of another solution for that.

Cheers
Dan

Try Enable(false) and Enable(true).

Start a new thread if the scope of problem expands.

Mack wrote:
Maybe you are referring to this discussion...
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4102&hilit=setlayer
Topic was related to stacking buttons.

(there were a couple sample/test pubs there for download, but the last one posted was probably 'simplified' and so easier to pick-up on)

Hi

The solution in my attachment got me there thanks. It was more complicated than I had thought as when you click on a stack of objects, their mouse-click scripts seem to fire off in the original editor order starting from the top (ie. visual layering is again ignored). This all created a bit of a tangle re. the output. I got round the problem by running a small script from each object, staking claim to being the TopLayer of the objects clicked (their visual layers are stored in an array). My main scripts were then activated by the mouse click passing through to the background, which was always the last to trigger. These background scripts picked up and used the TopLayer (by now decided).

I'm not sure if that makes sense, or if this is the best solution, but it works.
Cheers
Dan