> > This seems like a very arbitrary limitation.
>
> If you take a sequence of pictures, do the call the initial picture in the
> sequence the 0th or the 1st picture?

Well, if you make an array, say a[], in C++, do you call a[0] the 0th or the
1st element? For that matter, does it even matter what you call it? I happen
to like zero-based counting. If you like one-based counting instead, that's
fine, but there's no reason at all that setting Initial_Frame=0 shouldn't
work.

> > Being someone who likes
> > zero-based counting, I use Initial_Frame=0 very often, and it has always
> > worked for me. Are you saying that it isn't going to work in the future?
>
> It hasn't been possible in any 3.5 beta

Huh? I just rendered this scene, and it worked fine in beta 12:
  // +kfi0 +kff4
  #debug concat(str(frame_number, 0, -1), "\n")

I've also rendered several animations (with 3.5 betas) which needed an
Initial_Frame of 0.

> Not to mention that it was never documented and the documentation strongly
> recommends to leave Initial_Frame at one...

It just says that you *can* leave Initial_Frame=1 if you want. It certainly
doesn't require or even "strongly recommend" that you leave it at 1.

Anders

Post a reply to this message