Converting Part Cues to Normal Cues

BECOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY - Sign up here

    Should it be possible to "convert" part cues to normal cues using the copy command?


    I tried the following incantation:

    Copy Seq 1 Cue 1 Part 1 thru Seq 1 Cue 1 Part 10 at Seq 2 Cue 1


    and I got something kind of unexpected.


    It copied Cue 1 and all of its parts into Sequence 2 but, also created empty (all purple values in the track sheet) cues 2 - 11 in the same sequence.


    Is there some way so convert parts to Normal Cues without rebuilding them?


    To my knowledge there is no good workflow for cue-part management yet.


    However, a macro that goes something like this seems do the job:

    (assumes your sequence is selected, your multipart cue is active, and your programmer is empty)


    Store Part 99

    Block Part 99 If Part Thru

    Move Part 99 At 0

    Delete Part 1 Thru

    Ahh, very interesting, thanks for that. Basically to get it out I have to move it to part "0" first; so to do the same without having to block I could do something like:


    Copy Cue 1 at 101

    Delete Cue 101 Part 1 Thru

    Copy Part 1 at 0

    Copy Cue 1 at 102

    Delete Cue 102 Part 1 Thru

    ..



    Kind of a mess but it seems to work. Perhaps another test LUA plugin I could try, I've got to figure out how to get object listings into LUA first.


    Thanks again!

    I was confused to how Block could be used for this.

    No doubt the Macro from Andreas works, but is it based on a bug with Block?


    Here's why I think so:


    1. I see no reason to insert block values as long as one of the parts has a value.

    If a part has a value then the cue has a value.

    2. It breaks the rule that a value can only exist in on part

    3. It can mess up the timing of the parts (One of the main reasons for using them)


    This is based on running Block on the whole cue



    I also notice that tracked values are put in parts even if higher numbered parts have actual values.

    Maybe no problem but doesn't seem necessary and clutters the sheet.


    When the parts are not shown you only see Part 0. It will show a tracked value even if the cue have actual values.

    Would it be an idea to distinguish such values when Parts are collapsed?

    You are right that Block currently ignores the "Allow Duplicates" property of the cue.


    Assuming a newer version has no better means for part management, but has refined the Block command, my workaround macro would probably need to include toggling this property at the beginning and end of the macro.

    I wrote my previous post based on the manual stating "A value can only be in one of the parts."
    With new knowledge about the "Allow Duplicates" property I agree my argument #2 isn't valid as it's not a rule but optional.


    However, my other arguments and comments are still valid in my opinion.

    Would anyone care to comment or enlighten me if I am wrong?


    To clarify:

    I see no use for tracking / blocking (in the old known sense) in Parts because inside the cue no attributes will loose their value anyway.

    The tracking/blocking assumes the Parts are triggered in the number order. This i not necessarily true and the look can change after blocking.

    regarding #1:

    I tried to answer this with my comment regarding "AllowDuplicates" being ignored by block in this version.

    As soon as Block respect the property, this issue should be solved


    Regarding #3:

    the OP was looking for a way to merged multiple parts into one.

    I think it is implicit the part timing cannot be preserved properly when parts are removed.


    Regarding "to Clarify":

    I believe that your assumption that timing of Parts (or Cues) would/should affect tracking state, is not correct (for MA consoles at least)


    Short Story Long:

    Label Sequence 1 "Boss", Label Fixture 1 "Joe"


    January 1st, Boss: Hey Joe, in 2 days I want you to travel to Paris

    Joe: OK I will go to Paris in 2 days, let me know if you change your mind

    January 4th, Boss: Hey Joe, in 3 days I want you to travel to Rome

    Joe: OK I am in Paris, I will leave for Rome in 3 days as you say


    Where is Joe at the end of the month? -> Rome


    again with different timing

    January 1st, Boss: Hey Joe, in 3 days I want you to travel to Paris

    Joe: OK I will go to Paris in 3 days, let me know if you change your mind

    January 4th, Boss: Hey Joe, in 1 day I want you to travel to Rome

    Joe: OK I am already on my way to Paris, so I leave for Rome tomorrow as you say


    Where is Joe at the end of the month? -> Rome


    again with different timing

    January 1st, Boss: Hey Joe, in 7 days I want you to travel to Paris

    Joe: OK I will go to Paris in 7 days, let me know if you change your mind

    January 4th, Boss: Hey Joe, in 1 day I want you to travel to Rome

    Joe: OK I will go to Rome instead of Paris, and I'll leave tomorrow as you ask me to


    Where is Joe at the end of the month? -> Rome


    I doesn't matter if the Boss' order comes days or nano-seconds apart, or if they are coming as cues or part cues (with duplicates).

    Unless Joe has started his travel to his next planned destination, he will consider any new instructions from his boss as a contra-message, replacing the old one. Otherwise he would have been a very unpredictable employee:

    Boss: Why the h*ll aren't you in Rome, as I told you when we last talked

    Joe: but, but, you said something about Paris a few months ago???

    Boss: Why are you already in Rome?, I told you to stay in Paris two more days.

    Joe: But.. Mr. Block told me to leave

    Boss: Who the h*ll is Mr. Block? I'm in charge here.


    As you can see the Boss gets mad if a guy named mr. Block suddenly gives other orders than the Boss :)



    My assumption is that applying a block should not change how the cue plays back.

    Even if 'Allow Duplicates' is set to YES.


    I can see how this can happen between cues if you run a blocked cue before the previous cue has finished.

    I fail to see why it should happen inside a single cue.

    There's not really any missing values that tracking needs to fill in, hence no need for blocked values.

    The parts either run at once or delayed. The number order should be irrelevant.



    Sorry about the confusion with OP's issue. I should have started a new thread called 'Block in Parts' to avoid that.

    All my concerns (including #3) is related to Block in Parts and not converting part cues to normal cues.

    You are right that Mr.Block could be more clever, and I am sure he will improve his skills in a not too distant future.


    BTW, Mr.Block just messes with the Boss' notebook, Mr.Block never talks to Joe or tells him to do anything. :)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login