Ah to me the track order in MS wrong, I've had MS for 20yrs & the Vegas track order was a relief, Gimp layers are background at the bottom & in my mind that's right, if you were to place a big piece of paper on the desk as a background then scatter smaller photos on it that big piece of paper is at the bottom, to me that's logical. In MS I feel like I'm putting things under the background 😕. Also quite often, for me anyway, a background doesn't really change much once applied n edited, once I've got my timeline set up I then go back adding text, logos etc. So in MS with it being at the top it's just cluttering up the timeline, I'm quite happy if it disappears off beyond the bottom of the track window.

It's been mentioned on here that in Vegas you have to 'add tracks', that's not strictly true, in both MS & Vegas if you want another track at the top you have to Add Track, but in Vegas if you drag media onto the top of the timeline a track will be created for you,

In the second half of the vid I use right click & drag which gives these options, Across time adds media one after another horizontally , Across tracks adds media vertically on different tracks one above the other,

& slightly off topic Ms has no track 'grouping', you can't attach one track to another & move them together as one, Vegas has Grouping but also the Parent/Child option, multiple tracks (Child tracks) can be grouped within a Parent track, multiple Parent tracks can be created with their own children, Multiple Parent tracks (+children) can be grouped into another Parent track, multiple Parent - Parent tracks can be added to another Parent track etc. & can all be moved as one or each Parent or each Child can still be moved individually. Effects added to a parent track only affect the children within that Parent track. This is something that MS needs but (I know this track grouping & moving in unison has been mentioned on here before).

I guess it's all about what you're comfortable with, what suites your projects & what you're used to doing.

@Can-Dive was not advocating to have the track layout reversed, but that maybe it could be an option.

The entire "professional" world of video editing has always had "overlays" (and that is the correct terminology) placed over a track. Someone will ask "can you put this over the video in a corner..", that is exactly what overlaying in video editing is. Not under-lays.

"Intuitive" is purely subjective based on user experiences in the past. You start with top down, that will be intuitive. I started centuries ago with Premiere. Transitioning to Avid Liquid, Pinnacle Studio, Vegas Pro, Davinci Resolve is relatively easier for me since knowing overlays are just that. Titles are placed over a video, not under it.

It's the same why upscale video editing software don't mix audio on the same track with video. Organization. Pinnacle Studio allows you to put audio and video on the same track. But if I wanted to mute everything audio, well, if it's on video tracks too, you can see the problems that can arise. It can't in Resolve, Vegas, etc.. I think there is a reason why.

But it's all a matter of personal preference. It's like me learning nodes as opposed to layering. If I started in nodes, I might think that is more intuitive (and I've done object oriented programming in the past). But layering is what I prefer since that is what I started with and have been using for years.

Hi all,

@Reyfox

Pixelan (I am not familiar with it doing what Vegas AI can, but take your word on it), costs money. And since Vegas AI has already been developed and used for a couple of years, there is no programming effort other than porting it over.

Here is what I said:

AI Style Transfer - I can do much of that with other tools, like Pixelan.

You mean that Vegas already has this Style Transfer tool and it was likely ported over? If so, fine, if not, then why waste resources on it. In fact, why would the Vegas team waste resources on it?

As for Chroma, it's a much used feature. Maybe not by you, 

Of course I use it, often. My point was that Magix did not make any improvements, they just remodeled, or as they put it, "Streamlined" the interface and put it under "What's new." Well, nothing really.

For face detection in videos and images, I guess you aren't familiar with Davinci Resolve. It has been there for over 2 years already.

Facial recognition has been in Photo Manager for years. The current version is about 7 years old. Under Help, About, "FaceID and PhotoID technology licensed by Fraunhofer IDTM." This is a "Search for faces on pictures" feature developed by a university in Germany, IIRC. Magix had this technology long before it was a twinkle in the eye of most other software developers. The point I was trying to make is that Magix had this great tool and then did nothing further with it.

All the Magix music software is under a different group of programmers. This is where integration would be good with the video software. 

Absolutely! The silos problem. But, what I am proposing for most of the audio parts is just using what is already there but with the video editors. I mentioned Soundtrack Maker - this is actually Music Maker with an old version of Song Maker. It comes with the video editors. Take a look. Just change it out for the new Song Maker (ok, there is more involved, but it's not even close to having to develop something entirely new).

Vegas Prepare - I would be curious to know just what the Vegas team had in mind for this.

@Candive

My only small wish to add to your comprehensive list is adding a program setting option to place the overlay tracks over the main video track rather than under (similar to Vegas).

No, never! Why break a good thing.

Magix' tracks are set up like a spreadsheet. If you were to list the components of your movie on a spreadsheet, you would start with the background. Where would you put it, on line 1 or 10? Line 1, obviously.

Add an overlay with description. Where would you put it? Line 2 or would you insert a line above, moving the background to line 2 to put the overlay on line 1? No, you would put it on line 2. And so on.

In a spreadsheet, word processor, any webpage, do you start at the bottom with the main content and then scroll upwards to see the details? No, you start at the top and scroll downwards. Then why would having the background at the bottom and having to scroll upwards? That would not be intuitive.

In a spreadsheet, if you have a column of figures to add up, do you put the total at the bottom or the top? Normally, the bottom.

I could go on all day about this but I have some work to do in Photo Manager.

John CB

@browj2

Spreadsheets really? Spreadsheets could be considered to be working in 3D, xy & z, they ref anywhere on the sheet, up & down, left & right,, they also ref other sheets some of which could be online a 1000miles away on a different PC. That is a very poor analogy.

Add an overlay with description

Why would a picture/media with a description be classed as an overlay? it isn't overlayed it's simply above or below.

Overlay as has been mentioned is an over lay, you can't use that as an analogy, the overlay would be on top, it says so in the name, therefore whatever the 'overlay' you're talking about would be on top. the description would be on top of the overlay

Text Overlaid on a picture

Description below a picture

Description beside a picture

Description above a picture, should I go on..?

But going by your poor analogy here's your comments, which is the overlay, the description or the picture, I'l give you a clue it's the description,, because it's on top..

Online there's no fixed rule to where a description would be, you could be reading something & a picture could be further down or it could be at the top as in your's and a lot of posts on here are. So that argument goes out the window also.

@candve said "adding a program setting option", that's all, he suggested giving the user the option to choose.

@Former user

It took me a while to figure out what you were on about. By description, I mean typing in Overlay x + a description - in the spreadsheet, not some other description like a title in the video. An overlay is result of the action.

However, since you mention it, look closely at the names of the objects.

My argument holds.

Guys, different programs usually have different ways of doing things. Don't ask for something to be changed because program x does it differently and you are used to it another way. This is the way that it's done in this program, so get used to it.

It seems to me that about the only ones who have complained on this forum about the track protocol are those coming from other programs where they are used to scrolling upwards, where the background keeps changing tracks when an overlay is added, etc.

Like I said, I could go on all day about this.

BTW, Corel VideoStudio uses the same top down approach, but they don't even number the tracks.

EDIT: @Former user I see that you posted while I was writing. Everything is set up in VPX/MMS for top down track protocol, including templates, titles, collages, etc. I cannot see how a program setting switch could be implemented.

John CB

@browj2 wrote:

@Reyfox

Pixelan (I am not familiar with it doing what Vegas AI can, but take your word on it), costs money. And since Vegas AI has already been developed and used for a couple of years, there is no programming effort other than porting it over.

Here is what I said:

AI Style Transfer - I can do much of that with other tools, like Pixelan.

Since you only mentioned a paid 3rd party plugin as your reference, maybe include something that can be done natively in the software?

You mean that Vegas already has this Style Transfer tool and it was likely ported over? If so, fine, if not, then why waste resources on it. In fact, why would the Vegas team waste resources on it?

If you've followed Vegas Pro at all, you would have known about AI that is incorporated into Vegas since Vegas Pro 18. That is 3 years ago. I thought you would have known that since you have Vegas? You will see that it was ported over to VPX. As to why Vegas team would waste resources on it, you would have to ask them. Again, you might not find it useful, but others might. The world doesn't revolve around how I think unfortunately.

As for Chroma, it's a much used feature. Maybe not by you, 

Of course I use it, often. My point was that Magix did not make any improvements, they just remodeled, or as they put it, "Streamlined" the interface and put it under "What's new." Well, nothing really.

If that is your point, fine. State it. I have more "professional" options if I want to green screen. Boris FX Primatte Studio. But for the most part, even Vegas green screen worked wonderfully for me when needed.

For face detection in videos and images, I guess you aren't familiar with Davinci Resolve. It has been there for over 2 years already.

Facial recognition has been in Photo Manager for years. The current version is about 7 years old. Under Help, About, "FaceID and PhotoID technology licensed by Fraunhofer IDTM." This is a "Search for faces on pictures" feature developed by a university in Germany, IIRC. Magix had this technology long before it was a twinkle in the eye of most other software developers. The point I was trying to make is that Magix had this great tool and then did nothing further with it.

Davinci Resolve does it for both video and photos. A feature I have at the moment, zero need of. So why would BMD waste resources on this, is beyond me.

If Magix mismanaged a useful tool, it's on them. To me, software comes and goes. I just move on to something that will work with the needs I have.

All the Magix music software is under a different group of programmers. This is where integration would be good with the video software. 

Absolutely! The silos problem. But, what I am proposing for most of the audio parts is just using what is already there but with the video editors. I mentioned Soundtrack Maker - this is actually Music Maker with an old version of Song Maker. It comes with the video editors. Take a look. Just change it out for the new Song Maker (ok, there is more involved, but it's not even close to having to develop something entirely new).

Vegas Prepare - I would be curious to know just what the Vegas team had in mind for this.

You would have to ask the Vegas team what their thoughts were concerning Vegas Prepare. But I am sure thet they are under NDA's. If they don't say it in the public forum, you will never hear about it.

As for music software, again, I have zero interest in it. Zero. So to me, this too would be a waste of resources. I guess Magix feels the same as I on this. I have Soundforge Pro 17 and Acid Studio "something" and have not bothered to install it. The same with Steinberg's SpectraLayers. I have no need for it, nor see one. But that doesn't mean others won't have a need for it and Steinberg certainly feels that way as they continue to update it.

@Candive

My only small wish to add to your comprehensive list is adding a program setting option to place the overlay tracks over the main video track rather than under (similar to Vegas).

No, never! Why break a good thing.

It's a "good thing" for the few, not the many. It would be an option. And if it will bring more people to the software, so why not?

Magix' tracks are set up like a spreadsheet. If you were to list the components of your movie on a spreadsheet, you would start with the background. Where would you put it, on line 1 or 10? Line 1, obviously.

Add an overlay with description. Where would you put it? Line 2 or would you insert a line above, moving the background to line 2 to put the overlay on line 1? No, you would put it on line 2. And so on.

Notice your wording, "overlay". Deconstruct that word and tell me how it works in the real world.

In a spreadsheet, word processor, any webpage, do you start at the bottom with the main content and then scroll upwards to see the details? No, you start at the top and scroll downwards. Then why would having the background at the bottom and having to scroll upwards? That would not be intuitive.

In a spreadsheet, if you have a column of figures to add up, do you put the total at the bottom or the top? Normally, the bottom.

I could go on all day about this but I have some work to do in Photo Manager.

Videostudio Pro is finished. It ran it's course and is gone. It too edits upside down, the reason why I recommended it to those poor souls. So please stop it with the comparisons of "mine does this, and what about yours??". I don't care if the tracks don't contain numbers. We can go back and forth over what one software has that another doesn't. It's meaningless.

I am sure you can go on all day about this. But sadly, editing this way is in the minority in the editing world. It is for a reason. If it were so wonderful, then it would be the norm, but it isn't. It's niche way of editing that even PowerDirector understood, and did something to give a user the option to edit the way the rest of the world does. They too were an upside down only editor, but they've seen the "light" and understand they have to add this feature in order to attract new people who would not even consider it if it still edited upside down.

BTW, and I am not the originator of this thought, there are 3 of us who think that the option to change the way MMS/VPX edits represents a large percentage of people who've replied to this thread. Do the math....

@browj2 You're argument doesn't hold, you're clutching at straws there, that's just left to right reading order nothing to with 'overlays' as in this thread, & actually goes against what you were saying about putting the description on the line below, unless you can show me a spreadsheet formula that uses 'overlay' or does actually overlay in a spreadsheet some way...?

BTW here's a few of my spreadsheets,

My invoice page giving me dropdowns that ref to other sheets

A calc that helps me price doors I make & on the pic on the right the 438 lines of materials sizes & prices that these other pages ref to.

-----------

It seems to me that about the only ones who have complained on this forum about the track protocol are those coming from other programs where they are used to scrolling upwards, where the background keeps changing tracks when an overlay is added, etc.

What, ?! Now you are talking ..... & no don't go on about it, I've heard enough.

------------------

BTW, -

Guys, different programs usually have different ways of doing things. Don't ask for something to be changed because program x does it differently and you are used to it another way. This is the way that it's done in this program, so get used to it.

This post, your post is titled 'New Features and Bug Repairs', everything that has been discussed here is about hopes n wishes of poss New Features to improve MS/VPX, no one is bitchin or complaining, so don't get so defensive about people simply suggesting options that could improve this software.!

@Former user

I said that the timeline/tracks is like a spreadsheet. That is an analogy. You do not build your spreadsheets from the bottom up. What I show on the spreadsheet is pretty much identical to the image VPX timeline. 1 is the lowest number but it comes at the top of the spreadsheet and at the top of the tracks - because putting in background is the first thing and the main thing that we do. 2 is a higher number, 3 is higher, even though they are lower down on the sheet. 1 is background, 2 sits on top, 3 sits on top of the other two and so on. That is all that you have to remember - no inserting tracks above to add an overlay, thus moving the background to a higher numbered track.

Take a deck of cards, in numerical order. Put down the first card face up - 1 (ace) background, second card 2 (it overlays the background), third card 3 (it overlays 2 and 1)... where the numbers are the tracks.

The background is at the top of the track list and stays there. The most important thing is the background or main video - it is at the top of the window and stays there.

It is simple to understand and quick to use, but then, you already know that.

Think about how to describe what happens in Vegas when you start adding overlays. Does the background change to a different track number?

John CB

@browj2 

The only reason you do that in that spreadsheet is because that is how Magix works, this has nothing to do with how you would construct a spreadsheet or how one works, you can construct a spreadsheet in pretty much any order you want anywhere on the screen providing all the formulas are correct & have a relevant path. So spreadsheets can't be used as an analogy.

Take a deck of cards, in numerical order. Put down the first card face up - 1 (ace) background, second card 2 (it overlays the background), third card 3 (it overlays 2 and 1)...

So what you're saying is the background is at the bottom & everything else is on top overlaying the background 🤦‍♂️🤣

The background is at the top of the track list and stays there. The most important thing is the background or main video - it is at the top of the window and stays there.

Have you not read my post, who wants a background that after being loaded & edited is then stuck at the top of the timeline. You have to continuously work your way down the timeline to add more overlays, your background that is 'importantly' 'at the top of the window and stays there' then disappears up from view, you have to scroll up to find it, no difference to having it go scroll down the window to find it, so having it stuck up there is more of an issue then a benefit. As in my video adding new material at the top in Vegas is no problem & no 'tracks need to be added' as you keep saying as if it's a big issue. -

Think about how to describe what happens in Vegas when you start adding overlays. Does the background change to a different track number?

So what if it does, it makes absolutely no difference to the editing. This whole background importantly staying at the top or the background in Vegas changing to a lower track number is your personal gripe that you've constructed to try to use as a valid argument, It's a very weak & poor argument.

Anyone can create an analogy to fit whatever scenario they want. Why don't you edit right to left instead of left to right? There are languages that are read that way, so it must be the best way. I don't see painters working and painting under other painting. Painters add on top of the background, not under it. Builders don't work that way either, with the foundation on top and everything else under it. They lay a foundation and then build on top of it. So using analogies to try and bolster a position (at least the ones being used to justify video editing upside down) is nebulous at best. People will add effects to photos, add them on top of them, not under them. And we are discussing video editing. Not spreadsheets. Not playing cards. The terminology has been there before most people here ever edited a video.

Professional editors don't edit that way, period. As I wrote, deconstruct a word that was used, "overlay", and explain it to me. Are titles "overlays"? Yes or no. Are effects placed on top of a video or under it.

Now, does that mean someone can have a preference to the way things are done? Of course! It is personal preference! That's all it is. I have no gripes with that. But again, these analogies do not apply to video editing. Ask Adobe. Ask BMD. Ask Avid. Ask Lightworks. Ask.. cough...cough... Vegas Pro. Ask Final Cut Pro. Ask the film industry. Ask the indie people. And it seems that the overwhelming majority of editing software follow a certain way of editing, and have been doing it successfully, "forever".

@Former user I'd love to see how an Adjustment Clip (Davinci Resolve) or Adjustment event (Vegas Pro) would work in the Magix editing environment.

Hi Guys,
I certainly didn't expect or intend my suggestion of the option of adding video overlays on top of the main video track to be so controversial. I was not suggesting current MMS/VPX users to change their editing process/preference. It was simply a program option to help VPX attract new users. And that was the key point; new users. We all know Magix is under financial stress. I'm sure the company appreciates the loyalty and support of its current user base but this groups' financial contribution is not maintaining the company as a going concern. Magix could reduce costs but that usually has a direct or indirect impact on software development. 😟It could increase the price, but that is difficult when the competition is giving away its software.😞So the best strategy is to increase the user base and market share - with guys like me. 😇If tweaking the software to accommodate the editing preference of other users would directly increase the company's revenue - why wouldn't they do it? 🤑It's not as if my suggestion is unconventional - its actually the norm.

Years ago I learned to edit video using VideoStudio which uses the same top down approach as MMS and VPX. VideoStudio is easy to learn and very consumer oriented. This is probably the same reason why users love MMS. Corel took their software one step further to make it dummy proof; they practically hardcoded the tracks. The main video track is at the top and nothing can sit above it. Overlay tracks sit below the main track followed by the title track, voice track and finally the music track. Beginners love this structure and long term users would fiercely protest any changes. I remember controversy when they implemented a small change to the main video track; "gaps". Previously, only overlay tracks could have gaps. Anything added to the main video track would immediately connect to the next clip - no gaps. Some users didn't like the idea that the main track could now have gaps. What for? If you want gaps, just use an overlay track! Eventually this change was accepted...

A few years ago I decided to upgrade to VideoStudio's bigger brother (prosumer) Pinnacle Studio. Although their origins were different, under Corel, the two systems shared a number of features (similar to what Magix is now doing with VPX and Vegas) so the learning curve wasn't that great. I loved the flexibility Pinnacle offered - its structure wasn't as limited as VideoStudio. The problem with VideoStudio was, as you became more proficient and started to add more overlay tracks, the audio tracks are pushed down, further away from the main track. This can be an issue if you want to synchronise your main video with your music track. Pinnacle had a better (neater) structure. All audio tracks sat below the main video track and all video overlays and titles sat above the main track. You appreciate this clean structure if you are dealing with a lot of tracks; video above/audio below. Its the reason why all professional editors use this approach. In fact, all video editors follow this fundamental rule. Take a video clip and separate video from audio; video above/audio below. 

Actually, its not really a bottom-up approach; rather a "centre-out" approach. It appears bottom up because there are usually more video overlay tracks than audio tracks. Since we are using analogies, mine would be the process of making a simple hamburger.

The "meat" of your video project is your main video track. You spend time with it on the grill and once cooked you lay it on a bed of audio tracks and sound effects. On top of the meat paddy, you overlay video tracks (the cheese, onion, sauce etc) topping it all off with the title track (the pickle). The result is a nice looking delicious video (hamburger).  🍔😍

Hi,

@browj2

you say...The interface with Xara still exists, as "do the bugs". What exactly are these "other" bugs?

If you like VPX15, now with the unforgivable bug fixed, do you consider it advantageous to migrate to VPX16? If so, what would be the reason?

Launching a product without marketing is the same as shooting a blank! And ends up valuing the competitor more. Perhaps simply because they reissued a tutorial on the main features, logically with creativity, it would be great. Those characters that are always on the sales website must be tired! Or does Magix no longer have resources to invest in VPX advertising?

Is there a list of bug fixes somewhere?

The background is at the top of the track list and stays there. The most important thing is the background or main video - it is at the top of the window and stays there.

@browj2 Hi, I don't want to inflate this further but this bugged me a little, I know you mentioned video, we've discussed that but a 'background' can be anything, the green solid in this very rough mock up is the background, this 100% doesn't need to at the top of the track list & if it disappears from view down in the track window it doesn't matter. (I'd say the same goes for the 'main video' if that is the background & is finally edited)

-----------

& my 'Gid Joiner' logo is at the top because logo's are permanently on screen, they are normally always overlaid over everything & therefore always on top, that logo will prob never change throughout the vid so that track can be collapsed, or even 'Grouped' with something else & collapsed. I don't use this logo in my vids but if I did I'd prob put it on last so it doesn't inhibit editing in the preview window or get in the way on the timeline.

@Can-Dive, that burger...hmmm.... in the States, the lettuce, tomato, BACON or any other condiment goes on top of the burger!! 😁

@browj2, @Former user, @Reyfox, @Can-Dive

Hi everyone

I would like to add this to the discussion on 'top down' or vice versa.

There is no right or wrong order for track layout/usage, this is very much a personal preference.

Users who are from other programs eg Vegas, etc would prefer to continue working in a track order they are used too, as we have seen from users who have moved over to Movie Studio.

The option to switch layout, as @Can-Dive suggested, would be a good idea.

Hopefully we can conclude the 'which is the best' discussion.

John EB

@johnebaker Yep, in my view it was just a discussion about personal preference with thoughts on possible future feature options, & I think each's viewpoint has been made 👍

@Can-Dive, that burger...hmmm.... in the States, the lettuce, tomato, BACON or any other condiment goes on top of the burger!! 😁

That's because its a Canadian Burger from "White Spot" a restaurant chain which originated in Vancouver BC. We like to do things a little differently to our American friends. 😜 I hope this group doesn't go down the rabbit hole of arguing how to stack a burger but members from Quebec may want to have the last word!😂

@browj2, @Former user, @Reyfox, @Can-Dive

Hi everyone

I would like to add this to the discussion on 'top down' or vice versa.

There is no right or wrong order for track layout/usage, this is very much a personal preference.

Users who are from other programs eg Vegas, etc would prefer to continue working in a track order they are used too, as we have seen from users who have moved over to Movie Studio.

The option to switch layout, as @Can-Dive suggested, would be a good idea.

Hopefully we can conclude the 'which is the best' discussion.

John EB

Hi.
Switchable! Perhaps Magix will think about it. It's not that far-fetched.

@HJWolters 

My only small wish to add to your comprehensive list is adding a program setting option to place the overlay tracks over the main video track rather than under (similar to Vegas)

 Hi, as in the comment above made by @Can-Dive that @johnebaker is referring to is the suggested option that was made & is a big reason why this discussion about track order came about.

@johnebaker

Hi John EB,

Yes, but...

My last comments on this. Overlays, top to bottom, etc. - what we actually have is back to front, not top to bottom or bottom to top. So to explain Magix MMS/VPX method, an object with the lower number track, which happens to be at the top of the list, goes on the screen first. The object overlay with a higher number goes on the screen second - it goes in front of it, not on top of it, and so on.

The other point for @Former user about Vegas numbering, track numbers exist. If Vegas were to change the numbering from bottom to top, then it would make more sense.

@Can-Dive @HJWolters For VPX/MMS, it probably could work, but the track numbering would have to be from the bottom upwards. For example, if you take a lower third title template, it comes with 3 or 4 objects and for them to work, the objects would have to be placed in the correct order (meaning reversed on the screen) by track number - from a lower track number for the background and mask, to a higher track number for the title.

@Roberto-Goncalves

Hi Roberto,

Magix has been doing the marketing on the Magix.com site, but not here. Usually someone from the company posts under General and under Video whenever there is a new version or, for the last couple of years, a patch. Announcing on this forum should always be done. Of course, probably anyone who opens VPX will get the advert for the new version; I do - with the price in Euros, not $Can.

Magix has not patched VPX15. The Project Temp Folder bug was not corrected in VPX15, so I would have to get 16 to get the fix; I just have the trial version on my laptop. I haven't seen any list of what was fixed from 15 to 16; that would be nice to have. I don't consider the new features to be enough for me to pay for an upgrade but I expect for most users, having TTS/STT would be a big selling point. Bundling Mercalli V6 with VPX16 would have helped with selling the upgrade.

For anyone with VPX14 and before, I would say that going to VPX16 would be well worth the cost. One would get the combined the new features of 15 and 16.

That said, there is also the possibility to upgrade to VPX16 Ultimate for only 50$ more. That is definitely interesting for those who do not have many of the third party tools.

On the topic of TTS/STT, for @CubeAce, I finally managed to get going in Azure yesterday after watching several tutorials and I created some audio files from text in English and French. As I pointed out, you get a lot more for free through Azure than in VPX16 with or without a subscription, but it is much more convenient to use with VPX.

Travel Maps

I noticed a patch yesterday, but I didn't see any description of the changes/bug fixes. Anyone see something?

For @Reyfox, since you mentioned on another forum about Google Earth Studio, seemingly as alternative to Travel Maps, yes, I am well aware of it and I signed up when it first came out. It does not do the same thing as Travel Maps at all. It's a fly-over/around tool. The path that you put in is a flight path, not a path on the ground that shows an animated route. It is most spectacular when used for large cities for which Google has 3D imagery. London is a good example.

As for Travel Maps, I suggest that you try it out to see what it actually does.

John CB

The other point for @Gid about Vegas numbering, track numbers exist. If Vegas were to change the numbering from bottom to top, then it would make more sense.

As a VMS user for eight years I've never used or referred to the track numbers. I consider them redundant as they don't serve the same purpose as in MEP/MMS and VPX. Just looking at the Vegas timeline tells you how the tracks will behave, Just like in real life what's above covers up below.

The other point for @Former user about Vegas numbering, track numbers exist. If Vegas were to change the numbering from bottom to top, then it would make more sense.

@browj2 Eh, urm, what? I don't think so, that makes no sense at all & would go against the natural order of things, nowhere that I can think of do 'pages' start with the lowest number, I suspect that is your reverse point of view that's telling you that, In Vegas track numbering isn't hugely important, not that I know about or to me anyway, To you it seems that track one is the background, to everyone who uses Vegas etc. track 1 is just track 1, track 2 is just track 2, that's it.

There is an 'Edit details' window where tracks can be reordered etc. but again track no' doesn't exactly relate to what is on the timeline, the lowest track is the lowest event/clip (background), & everything on tracks above is on top (overlaid)

(I changed track 1 in the Edit details window to track 8 which moved it down in the track order, that's why the two pictures don't corelate exactly)

-----

I've no experience with Google Earth Studio, In the intro vid it shows a blue animated route track, does it not do that? Might have a play with t later.