Scaling up affects position of neighbor layers (avoid overlap)

[Mitch Mann]

You could probably do something like this with Newton 2.

https://motionboutique.com/newton/

Keyframing sounds like a good solution, the math sounds tricky. For starters, I guess the distance between any two objects would need to be something like:

Distance between Objects A & B = ( (Object A’s width / 2) * (Object A’s scale) ) + ( (Object B’s width / 2) * (Object B’s scale) )

[Jason Jantzen]

I know what you’re thinking with the distance joints and all that, but Newton doesn’t use animated scale. I tried just now to confirm my suspicions using aematic and kinematic, and even dynamic even though I knew it wouldn’t do anything.

I wish I could write a basic expression like you’re suggesting that works. I thought what you had written there was a functioning expression, but it doesn’t seem to work, just throws an error. Thanks tho 🙂

Jason Jantzen
vimeo.com/jasonj

[Mitch Mann]

If you used Newton I guess you’d link the scale to other attributes with an expression, rather than hoping Newton would do it all automatically. Yeah, my post was to help you to think through your creation of an expression that might work for you, I haven’t done all the work for you there.

[Dan Ebberts]

This may not be exactly what you’re looking for, but it should give you some ideas. It assumes that there are 5 layers participating, that they are the first 5 layers in the layer stack, there is a 10 pixel gap maintained between layers, and the result is centered on the comp’s center line:


numLayers = 5;
gap = 10;
totalWidth = 0;

for (var i = 1; i <= numLayers; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
totalWidth += L.width*L.scale[0]/100;
if (i < numLayers) totalWidth += gap;
}

myX = width*scale[0]/200;

for (var i = 1; i < index; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
myX += L.width*L.scale[0]/100 + gap;
}

[(thisComp.width - totalWidth)/2 + myX,value[1]]


Dan

[Jason Jantzen]

I knew you’d figure something out, Dan! Thanks a million. It works perfect!

Jason Jantzen
vimeo.com/jasonj

[Philip Ames]

this is a huge help, Mr Ebberts, and works like a charm. thank you.

i was wondering, though, if you’d have a moment (or the inclination) to break this apart. i’m trying to make this work on the Y axis and, eventually, on the X and Y together, and it might help if i understood better where the axis are controlled from.

many thanks in anticipation

[Dan Ebberts]

This should work for y:

numLayers = 5;
gap = 10;
totalHeight = 0;
for (var i = 1; i <= numLayers; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
totalHeight += L.height*L.scale[1]/100;
if (i < numLayers) totalHeight += gap;
}
myY = height*scale[1]/200;
for (var i = 1; i < index; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
myY += L.height*L.scale[1]/100 + gap;
}
[value[0], (thisComp.height - totalHeight)/2 + myY]


And this should work for both:


numLayers = 5;
gap = 10;
totalWidth = 0;
totalHeight = 0;
for (var i = 1; i <= numLayers; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
totalWidth += L.width*L.scale[0]/100;
totalHeight += L.height*L.scale[1]/100;
if (i < numLayers){
totalWidth += gap;
totalHeight += gap;
}
}
myX = width*scale[0]/200;
myY = height*scale[1]/200;
for (var i = 1; i < index; i++){
L = thisComp.layer(i);
myX += L.width*L.scale[0]/100 + gap;
myY += L.height*L.scale[1]/100 + gap;
}
[(thisComp.width - totalWidth)/2 + myX, (thisComp.height - totalHeight)/2 + myY]


Dan

[Philip Ames]

phenomenal, thank you. still poring over the X&Y version, as it’s currently setting up a 3×3 (*edited*) grid in a diagonal line. trying to figure out why. and trying by myself lol

can i ask, in the X vs Y set up, why the “value” difference in the last line? is the placement significant?

X axis version - [(thisComp.width - totalWidth)/2 + myX,value[1]]
Y axis version - [value[0], (thisComp.height - totalHeight)/2 + myY]

[Dan Ebberts]

In the x version, value[0] refers to the x component of the pre-expression position. In the y version value[1] refers to the y component. The final result is in the form [(new x value),(new y value)], so yes, placement does matter.

Dan

[Philip Ames]

ouch, that was so obvious it actually hurt. thank you.

i hope it isn’t a huge suck on your time if i ask you why the script might, when applied to my 3×3 grid (9 layers), it rearranges the 9 blocks into a diagonal line, starting at (-168 x,-448 y to 1448 x,1168 y)? in fact, if i just use 3 layers, it makes the blocks line up diagonally too.

thanks in advance