Dots disappear at low zoom levels - obscure display bug

[John T]

Here's a thing that's been a niggle for a long time, but I've never got around to documenting.

So, among the things I do in Cakewalk is post production for audiobooks. And when dropping in pickups, I end up dealing with a lot of really tiny slivers of audio.

Anyway, here's a view of the dots showing up to the last sliver in the third track (just to the left of the Now Time Marker)

 

Now here's a slight zoom out from there. Notice how the sliver becomes invisible at a certain level of zoom. But more importantly, the dots now don't extend that far, and instead stop at a prior still-visible sliver.

 

I realise this is a fairly fringe case, but would be really handy for me if it got fixed.

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by John T

[ptheisen]

It appears that you are asking about the same thing as in the thread entitled Suspicious Points from September 11. Please check out that thread for more information.

[Will.]

26 minutes ago, John T said:

Here's a thing that's been a niggle for a long time, but I've never got around to documenting.

So, among the things I do in Cakewalk is post production for audiobooks. And when dropping in pickups, I end up dealing with a lot of really tiny slivers of audio.

Anyway, here's a view of the dots showing up to the last sliver in the third track (just to the left of the Now Time Marker)

 

Now here's a slight zoom out from there. Notice how the sliver becomes invisible at a certain level of zoom. But more importantly, the dots now don't extend that far, and instead stop at a prior still-visible sliver.

 

I realise this is a fairly fringe case, but would be really handy for me if it got fixed.

 

Those dots are there to tell you that theres information on that track. 

Its a helpful visual feature. 

[Byron Dickens]

45 minutes ago, John T said:

I realise this is a fairly fringe case, but would be really handy for me if it got fixed

There's nothing to fix. That is a design feature.

[John T]

I mustn't have explained very clearly. The dots are a good and useful feature, I agree,.

The issue is that in the second picture, they stop too early, even though there are clips to the right of them. This seems to be caused by the zoom level. Once you're zoomed out enough for the last clip to become invisible, the dots leading up to that clip also disappear.

[John T]

2 hours ago, ptheisen said:

It appears that you are asking about the same thing as in the thread entitled Suspicious Points from September 11. Please check out that thread for more information.

No, I know what the dots are, and I do want them to be displayed. This is about dots disappearing when they shouldn't.

[Will.]

56 minutes ago, John T said:

No, I know what the dots are, and I do want them to be displayed. This is about dots disappearing when they shouldn't.

Read everyones answers again. 

[user 905133]

3 hours ago, John T said:

No, I know what the dots are, and I do want them to be displayed. This is about dots disappearing when they shouldn't.

Are you trying to say the leading dots should be shown on the track even if the end clip is too small to be displayed given the zoom setting (kind of as a clue that there is a clip that isn't visible)?

Edited September 28, 2022 by User 905133
added ")"

[John T]

Yes. The dots are meant to show how far a given track extends, as I understand it. So if there's a zoom level where the clip is sub-pixel sized*, then ok, the clip disappears, but surely the dots should still be there? If they're not, then they're not serving their purpose.

* arguably, it would be good for clips to always display at least a pixel width line at any zoom level. But either / both solutions work.

Edited September 29, 2022 by John T

[John T]

4 hours ago, Will. said:

Read everyones answers again. 

Hey dude, read my answers again. Or, if you've nothing to contribute - which you don't - go and be rude and brusque elsewhere.

[sjoens]

I think thread title and OP misses the point of topic?

Maybe title should be: "Track Dots Disappear At Low Zoom Levels."

 

[John T]

That's a good point, and I'll see if I can edit it. But if someone wants to say "you're not reading closely enough", well, perhaps they should be reading further than the title themselves.

[Will.]

6 hours ago, John T said:

Hey dude, read my answers again. Or, if you've nothing to contribute - which you don't - go and be rude and brusque elsewhere.

Aw man! Do you need a box of kleenex? 

Crying over spil milk when you do not understand hour zoom levels! Best that you educate yourself on how resolutions work! 

Seeing that you think i was "RUDE." 

Go do an eye test. We cant repeat the same thing over and over to you. This is by design to tell you that there is information on the clip. These dots does not "disappear" with a higher resolution monitor at "low zoom."

"Hey dude . . ." Go and read everyones answers again. I've explained this now so that even a grade 1 kid would understand it. 

It was said and i will quote is for you

13 hours ago, bdickens said:

There's nothing to fix. That is a design feature.

This is not a BUG. It works just right here.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Will.

[Michael Vogel]

I’ve read the posts; I’m with John T.

If the dots’ purpose is to indicate that data exists at a zoom level where that data is not currently visible, then surely the dots themselves should not disappear at any reachable zoom level.

[Kalle Rantaaho]

50 minutes ago, Michael Vogel said:

I’ve read the posts; I’m with John T.

If the dots’ purpose is to indicate that data exists at a zoom level where that data is not currently visible, then surely the dots themselves should not disappear at any reachable zoom level.

I agree. John T has been misunderstood by some here. Then again, at first I had also difficulties understanding the actual nature of the problem.

One should read the posts carefully before getting presumptuous.

[user 905133]

1 hour ago, Kalle Rantaaho said:

I agree. John T has been misunderstood by some here. Then again, at first I had also difficulties understanding the actual nature of the problem.

One should read the posts carefully before getting presumptuous.

To me it seemed like John T knew what he was trying to get at, but due in part to the nature of internet forums (among other factors) it was not as clear as it later became.  

14 hours ago, User 905133 said:

Are you trying to say the leading dots should be shown on the track even if the end clip is too small to be displayed given the zoom setting (kind of as a clue that there is a clip that isn't visible)?

12 hours ago, John T said:

Yes.

Before that, it was not clear to me.

Further discussion of the issue itself:  Do we (everyday users) know if Cakewalk's draw functions (including zoom) is inherited from somewhere or is original, designed from scratch code?  

12 hours ago, John T said:

The dots are meant to show how far a given track extends, as I understand it. So if there's a zoom level where the clip is sub-pixel sized*, then ok, the clip disappears, but surely the dots should still be there? If they're not, then they're not serving their purpose.

* arguably, it would be good for clips to always display at least a pixel width line at any zoom level. But either / both solutions work.

I would think that only someone who has access to the code (or who is very familiar with it and knows what's "under the hood") can address this and can assess whether or not the code can be tweaked to have dots extend to an "invisible" [aka zoomed out too far to be seen] clip. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by User 905133
to get rid of extra CRs at the end

[user 905133]

So, just for the fun of it, I took a super small slice of a longer recording and tried pasting it in long after the project's audio ended and then zoomed in and out to watch for disappearing dots.  And I do mean long -- 2, 3, 5 hours after the recorded track ended.

Sometimes the clip showed up as a line** and there were dots in front of it (i.e., earlier), and sometimes the clip disappeared.

I have no desire to try to pinpoint the cause of the apparent discrepancy. However, I can understand if others get different results wrt the dots becoming invisible.  

**On second thought, the line seems to be the tiny clip's rectangle. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by User 905133
edit/clarification of line

[John T]

Yeah that's it. The clip rectangle will shrink as you zoom out until it's only a pixel wide. Then if you zoom out more than that, it disappears entirely.

I think two things would improve this; have the clip rectangles never vanish, and always be at least a pixel wide. And also, always have the dots extend to the last clip.

Of the two, I think the dots thing is more valuable.

Edited October 1, 2022 by John T

[John T]

On 9/29/2022 at 7:52 AM, Will. said:

<some silly and embarrassing internet tough guy foolishness, while doubling down on not understanding what he's reading, while saying others don't understand what they're reading; the universe cringed for him>

Whatever son.

[Will.]

5 hours ago, John T said:

Whatever son.

I will by you Kleenex boy.