[Paul Roper]

That’s pretty much exactly what I did (if…then)!

I just thought it was kinda “untidy”. The whole point of the expression was to convert a value like this:

source value: -180 -90 0 90 180
output value: 0 -1 0 1 0

…in a linear way, not a sinusoidal way, before you say something like “sin(zR)!”! So I was wondering if there was any more elegant way to do it rather than:

zR=thisComp.layer("target").transform.zRotation;
if (zR >=0 && zR <=90)
{
linear(zR,0,90,0,1);
}
else if (zR > 90)
{
linear(zR,90,180,1,0);
}
else if (zR <0 && zR >= -90)
{
linear(zR,0,-90,-1,0);
}
else if (zR <-90)
{
linear(zR,-90,-180,0,-1);
}

[Paul Roper]

I gave that a try and it worked perfectly! I wonder if AE is storing the value 90 internally as something bizarre. Looks very much like a bug to me.

My next question is regarding the syntax of the case statement – if instead of, say, case being exactly 90, how would I make the case statement activate if I wanted it to do so when, for example, zR > 90? I tried:

case >90:

and

case zR >90:

(having first removed the “” + to convert the variable into a string, so it’s back to a number again)

..but AE gives an error saying that > does not have a value.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Paul

[Paul Roper]

Hello,

Following on from this 2008 thread, I’m trying to use the case statement, without success. Regardless of the value of zR (in the expression below), the outcome is ALWAYS “hello”. Even when zR = 90 (I have another text layer to verify this) or zR =0, it’s always the default value. I’ve tried removing the “break” statements and it makes no difference. I also tried sticking a .value on the end of the “zR=thisComp.layer(“X Axis”).transform.zRotation” to see if that had any effect, but no it didn’t.

The rotation (and therefore zR ranges from -180 to +180).

Any thoughts on where I’m gong wrong, anyone? Please?!

Thanks,

Paul

zR=thisComp.layer("X Axis").transform.zRotation;
switch (zR)

{

case 90:
1234567;
break;

case 0:
100000;
break;

default:
"hello";

}

[Paul Roper]

Thanks for that link I’ll take a look at it later.

Yes, I thought about doing a pre-comp and bringing it in as a 2D layer with an add or screen mode, but went with the cheating ‘copy & flip the text in the y-axis’ method instead. Not 100% accurate, but did the job.

– Paul

[Paul Roper]

Thanks for making me feel really old!

I remember the days when it was CoSA After Effects….none of this parenting or expressions, if we had 32K of RAM and half a floppy disk we were considered rich, had to lick road clean wi’tongue, blah blah blah blah…

Happily, After Effects IS my career! It used to be Quantel Henry and Editbox in the days when Macs just weren’t up to the task of running AE in client-attended sessions. I was very happy when the time came when the hardware caught up with the software.

I could reminisce for hours……

– Paul

[Paul Roper]

….via this link:

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Maybe one of the Adobe people (Todd maybe?) will see this thread.

– Paul

[Paul Roper]

We should all suggest to Adobe that they implement a ‘reflection only’ option in a future release.

– Paul

[Paul Roper]

I’ll add my vote to the “spend your money on RAM” camp – I have a pair of Quadro 4000s in my machine with 2GB RAM each, and After Effects is as slow as a slug when using them for Raytracing. Unless you’re a masochist, you’d be better off spending your money on 3D software such as Cinema 4D if you’re going to be doing raytraced animations rather than waiting aeons for AE to render out a couple of HD frames or raytracery. Whatever video card(s) you end up with, you’ll probably end up doing a lot less 3D in After Effects than you might anticipate – it really is only suited for very basic work unless you have a long, long time* to wait for redraws and renders.

*compared to dedicated 3D software.

Don’t get me wrong – the 3D capabilities in AE are fantastic for the occasional bit of extruded text and such things, but any thoughts of major projects with dozens of refracting elements with depth of field and motion blur should be laid to rest!

[Paul Roper]

Kevin, I think you might have missed out a link to the tutorial in your message!

[Paul Roper]

The flippiness is not ideal because instead of a mirror image, I’ve made a solid thing, so it picks up the highlights and shadows directly from the lights. In reality, a reflected letter O would be showing a lot of shadow in the reflection, because we’re seeing the underside of it, but because it’s a ‘real’ O, it’s got highlights on from the lights.

Ah well, nobody will notice!