Moho Forum

...Am I missing something? Now it seems that I can't create a shape over a shape based in the same patch of points... And this is a technique that, I (and surely most of you) at least, used constantly in Moho for several purposes... Well, you ensured this is the SAME Moho 5.4 program, isn't? But now I can't avoid wonder if don't will have another umplesant surprises inside this Anime Studio that we should know now...

Any answer, very well...

You're correct.... this is... a bit stinky.

Have you tried opening any files that had "multiple" shapes before AS? Does it mess those up?

I even tried naming the shapes. If you name a shape and select the same points to create a new one... it just selects the previously named shape. No new shape.

-vern

Hi, luckly it seems that this not only worries to me... Efectively AS can import moho proyects with overlaping shapes without any problem and cause of this I thought at first that the changes could have been done only over the lua code of AS tools, but sadly seems that it is not the case... Well, now I'm very curious about what LM or/and e-frontier can say about this ugly issue cause I could asume that Anime Studio wouldn't include new features in this release, yes... but sorry if something for I was not prepared is for lost some (and very important) of they, it seems to me like the last straw

This is a biggy. I use multiple overlapping shapes quite often.

I am still using Moho primarily at this point so... not entirely effected by this. I do have AS on my PC but I'm not using it much there just yet.

-vern

I am also experiencing difficulties with the styles - I can manually fill a shape but I have hit a layer which has decided that it isn't interested in accepting a pre-set style colour/fill. It also won't allow me to remove a ketframe on that time line.

I'll email the scene to Mike for analysis.

From memory, wasn't there a similar fills bug in Moho 5.1 or thereabout?

Rhoel.

heyvern wrote:I am still using Moho primarily at this point so...

So... it seems that I'll have to do the same... Well, I only hope this issue doesn't finish in this way

Hey... this is the first version of a whole new application... it may be "Moho 5.4"... but still... new.

I bet we will see a "patch" update at some point down the road. I seem to recall a couple of those with the first release of Moho 5.0.

This is why I have not actually... switched yet. New versions like this always have some growing pains.

-vern

Yeah heyvern, yeah... it's only that I'm a little suspicious with this issue cause, as you said above, it sounds to me like "a bit stinky" too... Well, I don't know, and I'd really love LM or someone deny it, but it seems to me like if they want eliminate definitely this useful & essential feature in the pursuit of make more "easy" the use of that Paint Bucket tool... Of course I think this is a huge error and cause of that I'm SO worried... Well, I hope to be in a mistake, but the disappearance of that Altert Window saing...

Moho 5.4 wrote: You are about to create a new shape that sits on top of an older one.
Would you rather just modify the older shape's color, style, etc?
(Recommendation: Yes)

...makes me think this coudn't be a chance bug; and then we have the silence about the issue by the creators, hmmm... As I still said, you don't know how I'd desire be in a mistake...

One suggeston I have put forward as a future function is to be able to see the fills in the layer panel (as nested elements, just like layers within a group). Added to this is the request for a new timeline for all layer elements.

The reason for this is there are many occassions where an object starts as the lowest layer but finished as the highest: At present we have no way to set this during a scene.

If we have that option of veiwing where objects are, and having the ability to re-leveling fills and layers, many of the problems listed here will go away. I am sure that part of the problem is the object is there, but hidden behind another higher order object.

As far as I know, there is no script to do this at present.

Any-one have thoughts/input on this.

Rhoel.

Considering that many of us USED this "feature" quit a bit... I can't imagine it would be removed... at least I hope not.

To... workaround not having this capabilty... would require... duplicate vector shapes... icky...

No, I'm sticking with my original theory... it IS a "bug" and it WILL get fixed... got my fingers crossed.

I think that warning box should have been reworded...

You are about to create a new shape that sits on top of an older one. Do you want to do this?
Click Yes to create a new shape on top of the old one. Click No to modify the old shape.

Clicking YES in moho would... not create something... clicking NO would create something... I think this is contrary to proper... user interface guidelines... it didn't feel right to me anyway.

Programmers have no darn place reccomending how I use their application!

Just kidding... they can if they want to... I just won't listen.


-vern

heyvern wrote:got my fingers crossed.

I too, beliveme, I too...

...Anyway nobody has officialy pronunced yet about this issue and that seems to me like a curious thing... well, really all this issue, as you still know, it seems to me like curious thing... First of all why, if supposely the program is the "same", suddenly appers this curious "bug", and specially if supposely any changes had been made in the Moho code precisely to avoid this kind of unexpected Anime Studio bugs? I've read in this forum is several occasions the frase "if it works, why mend it?" (or something like that), and well, I can't explain me why to run that kind of risk... Then we have too the dissapeared "Alert Window" issue, well... "it's suspicious, it's peculiar, it's scary..."

Let's see, but I hope Anime Studio team be conscious about the importance of this special situation and I'd ask to them that, if possible, consider and clarify the facts, please... Well, thanks!

Here is my theory... it is just a theory...

I seem to recall... that error box had a discussion around it.

And.. as I mentioned... it is very confusing an opposite of logical use. Even when I knew what I wanted... I still got confused... "Do I hit yes? or no?"

Actually... I think there was a bug at some point with that whole "shape on a shape" thing depending on what you hit, yes or no.

My theory... they have temporarilly removed it until they decide how to revise that whole concept... it would come up CONSTANTLY for new users (I know... I was a confused new user). With introducing AS... they would want to eliminate if possible confusing things like this.

As I said... multiple shapes on one one vector mesh... is a powerful very useful and oft used feature. I don't see efrontier dumping it. This would not be something that they would do permantly. I think it is temporary... or a bug...

As far as not commenting... they are probably just very busy.

-vern

heyvern wrote:... they have temporarilly removed it until they decide how to revise that whole concept ...

Vern and Ramón,

I know you both use fills extensively. Doyou have any serious proposals for how this area can be developed, to make it more studio friendly/more flexible.

My thought is we should be able to see the fill stack order (what is going on), and to change the render order using a keyframe on the timeline. That is, a hand which on frame 1 is behind the body, can be reset to be in front of the body on frame 50.

If this keyframable option is a vailable for all layer and fills (groups, layers and fills), it will avoid much of the layer cloning we do now which is kind of clunky.

Is this the best way forward?

Rhoel

I suspect Vern has it right. The forum has seen plenty of new user problems with shape on a shape (funny edge colours, not being able to see if a shape is selected or not, transparency issues, not to mention the dialog box itself being rather frightening at first).

This is something they would not want new AS users to run into.

Maybe it will be re-implemented in the preferences section ?
L| Allow shape-on-shape fills

It might even be just a case of writing clear documentation (maybe even a tutorial) for the feature before putting it back?

Regards, Myles.