I have to explain this to people other than yourself.Originally Posted by litemover
You know whats going on.
Others dont.
Dont feel patronised.
I have to try and take a more general explanatory tone for those who dont understand.
----
This is for you:
The difference between a bug and functionality in this case is non-existent.
There is no 'correct' way for this function to operate.
There is no reason why it has to work the way it does.
I didnt 'change it back' - i added another colour fx that works the way you describe.
All these things are conventions that become established or changed through usage.
For me -- v1 is not the right way to do anything. It is not a standard or benchmark.
Software establishes its own conventions.
when i can incorporate differing operating conventions - i try to do so, but i have to also try and limit the confusion that arises from adding features.
For me - none of this is at all ideal.
DMX is such a limitation. Trying to do things with a handful of channels, and avoiding too many modal states is very hard.
I am a mediator between the users and the underlying technology.
Sometimes i have to tell users how it really is, sometimes i can hide all that from them.
And in this case the underlying technology is an rgb system.
I had wished that i could set the defaults on the fader to 128 and allow users to add or subtract colour like they can in photoshop -
but the underlying technology did not work on the last generation of graphics cards- and i could not do this - and it was a very low priority to make this work.
This is how it should have worked - you should have been able to do something like the colour balance function:
Reply With Quote