[MeterL]
Meter=BitMap
MeasureName=MeasureL
X=5
Y=5
BitMapImage=#@#Images\LevelBitmap.png <- but here would be a call to a calc measure
BitMapFrames=15
BitmapZeroFrame=1
Just not sure if I am going in the right direction to use the calc measure to cycle through my audio level images which are 230 pixels square, numbering 1.png through 14.png.
There are many ways to be different - there is only one way to be yourself - be amazing at it
The law of averages says what it means; even if you get everything right, you will get something wrong. Therefore; self managing error trapping initiates another set of averages - amongst the errors, some of them will not be errors, instead those instances will appear to be "luck". One cannot complain of the 'appearance' of 'infinite regress of causation', even if it does not have a predictable pattern, only that it requires luck to achieve.
Mor3bane wrote:Just not sure if I am going in the right direction to use the calc measure to cycle through my audio level images which are 230 pixels square, numbering 1.png through 14.png.
If you're using a Bitmap meter, the [MeasureL] measure must return percentage values (also see below). This means you have to set the MinValue and MaxValue options on it. Not knowing exactly the code you have beside the posted bitmap meter, probably we can't tell much more.
On the other hand, I'm not sure why and how you would like to use a Calc measure into the BitmapImage option. It's not needed, unless you'd like to change the used bitmap, according to the value returned by the appropriate Calc measure. I never tried something like this and can't tell much about it.
And just two other minor things:
The bitmap image (LevelBitmap.png) is a square? The images used in the bitmap meters usually have to be not squares.
If the frames of the bitmap are numbered from 1 to 14, there are 14 frames, not 15, as you've set up in the BitmapFrames option.
Finally I'm completely confused: are you using a bitmap image (but in this case the image files don't have individual names - 1.png to 14.png) or distinct images (numbered as you've wrote - but in this case the Bitmap meter can't be used)?
