| Hi Darrin,
The (current) necessity to create a template for FCP X adds a whole new layer of problems in terms of the things you try to do. Nothing is really transparent when the plugin runs inside a template under FCP X.
THE solution to all of this is (in my opinion) to make FCP X able to read FxPlugins natively without going through templates. Then we will be able to create parameters dynamically, have custom parameters, we could create labels (which I so badly need(!!!) for me newest plugins)... and much more.
Motion templates and native FxPlugs solve 2 different problems. We (and our users) want all FxPlugs to be able to work properly with Motion Templates. Some of the pieces that you mention above are missing at the moment, and that's unfortunate.
Also, the idea with templates is that they will not just contain a copy of every parameter in every plug-in, but that developers will think through specific tasks that users need to perform and will provide templates for those tasks rather than raw plug-ins with dozens of parameters that most users won't understand.
While I understand that users want to perform certain tasks easily, I also want to make my point about a native FxPlug interface for FCP X:
I have a morph plugin for FCP 7, Motion 4 and I also have one Motion 5. I don't have one for FCP X, because the way how my plugin works makes it currently impossible to get it wrapped up in a Motion template. The reason for that are some parameters that need to change when the user makes some selections of other parameters. The plugin has only a few parameters and still... all my attempts to get it to work with FCP X failed so far. If a user wants to use my plugin, then he needs to own Motion. This means that one of my best selling plugins for FCP 7 is a no-sell for FCP X.
If you think in "tasks", then what is the advantage of a Motion template? Let's say the task is "create a zigzag border". The plugin gives you like 3 parameters to perform the task. The plugin does not look or feel any different for the user if it is a native FxPlug plugin or a Motion template. This means that the necessity to create a template is in this case just an unnecessary additional step.
I agree that some tasks are better off as a template, where for example 10 filters are combined to a complex effect, which can be controlled with 1 simple parameter in a rig.
Some of the pieces that you mention above are missing at the moment, and that's unfortunate.
If you'd add the missing pieces (custom parameters, labels, dynamic manipulation of parameters,...) then the only difference between a native FxPlug interface and a Motion template is that with the native FxPlug interface we don't need to create a Motion template anymore. Right?
One more thought: I am thinking about creating plugins that can be extended in their functionality dynamically (for example) over the internet or depending on your hardware configuration. Let's say the plugin has the ability to update itself through a database that it can access from a server. This is a completely new thought and was never done before (at least not with FCP). In this case it is not at all predictable what kind of new features the plugin will show the user the next time. Such dynamic parameters are possible with native FxPlug plugins, but are almost completely impossible with Motion templates, even if you add dynamically changeable parameters to the Motion templates.
I'm not asking to get the Motion template functionality removed. Templates totally makes sense. I just want to make my point about the additional functionality for FCP X to be able to access natively FxPlug plugins.
Cheers and happy easter! Christoph
|