You might have missed the point. All the parameters you want to tweak are published up to the macro patch itself. The engine stays the same, you give each macro a different filename etc.
And, each to their own. Toby On 30 Apr 2010, at 01:54, George Toledo wrote: > Hmm, it would be really irritating if any macro that one duplicated in a qtz > did updates across that given macro if you changed it. > > So, if I had a macro that loaded a given 3D model, movie, or picture, > duplicated it, then edited the file path in the duplicate macro, the original > would change, or vice versa? In my mind, that would be horrible! I don't > think that makes much sense, and I would end up spending a ton of time > fighting with that kind of implementation. Doesn't sound like a time saver, > but the exact opposite, if that was a default behavior. Even if there was > some kind of prompting, that kind of workflow would lead to so much prompting > that I would feel like I was in Windows hell. > > Some kind of copy, with a "replace" instead of paste function, if all of a > macro's inputs and outputs were the same, would make sense. It would be a > little more manual, but it would only be a two click proposition. > > Many of my compositions tend to start from multiples of what were originally > the same macro, that are then tweaked individually, or at least incorporate > that workflow somewhere. Having to worry about things changing as I update > what was originally a duplicate would be tedious indeed. > > With all respect intended, if what I'm describing is what is intended, count > it in one of the worst ideas for QC ever, at least for anything I've ever > done (I definitely count myself as a power user). > > Best, > George > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM, li...@tobyz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:36, Christopher Wright wrote: > > >> Ok, I have to admit I'm confused about "copied macros are clones". This is > >> what happens with copy and paste already, no? Do you mean that Virtual > >> Patches should all be distinct and editable in each qtz without changing > >> the original virtual patch? > > > > I think what he means is this: You create Macro Foo. You then copy/paste > > it (so you have 2 Foos). If you edit _either_ Foo, _both_ are modified (so > > in essence, they're the "same" thing, instantiated in 2 places). > > Currently, if you modify a macro that has copies (Not a virtual macro), you > > modify that instance only. > > > > (if that's not the intent, please set us straight :) > > yes. imho this will make authoring in qc much much simpler and faster for > novices and power users alike. just make that the way qc works, and the > mental overhead currently required in thinking about these things drops to > zero. you wouldn't even need to provide the extra complexity of a 'break > link' command, as you could just select all, copy and paste the contents of > the macro into wherever else you want them (ie. an empty macro). > > and keep virtual macros the separate, largely hidden system-wide power user > feature they are already. > > > -- > > Christopher Wright > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/gtoledo3%40gmail.com > > This email sent to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
