What matters is what organisational method is going to be used and followed across all products to have a consistent version and licensing scheme? First you decide to use the year.version sequence nr scheme to change that later to a version sequence nr scheme. Neither do I care if you want to call the next version 3.9, 2017.3, 2018.4 or 'Sunday Ap518 years after the Portuguese navigator Pedro Álvares Cabral lands in Brazil'. I wouldn't care if they changed it into Purple elephant or Flying hush puppies production. Avid I do not care if your marketing team wants to change the word 'Interplay' into MediaCentral.
Is this just a small typo? A human mistake? Or a new method of saying that all indivual components and their patches will all have the same name as the bundle in the download center?īut I believe this is another result of the slow but steady decline in lack of focus. Where it writes 2017.2.1 MediaCentral | Production Server the download provided is a new patched version of MediaCentral | Production Services also known in the past as Interplay production services or DMS Broker. The reason for this is found in the underneath picture. In this way I hope to express my urge to start bashing you again in a more 'friendly' way. On this very nice Sunday morning I'd like to introduce you to one of my favorite songs by two of my favorite artists Thom Yorke and PJ Harvey. So what's the deal here? It's either 'all' or what the compatibility matrix says. Which indicates that the supported version of media indexer depends on the media composer version, including when Interplay versions are 3.6 through 2017.2. Nothing complicated and from it you could conclude that no other compatibilty issues need to be considered.
MEDIACENTRAL 2.4 PATCH
This patch is recommended to be installed on all Media Indexer v3.6.x, v3.7.x, v3.8.x, and 2017.2.x.With every new Media indexer fix the readme contains this sentence: The development team is doing great work getting all the interplay/mediacentral media indexer related issues fixed.
MEDIACENTRAL 2.4 SOFTWARE
Seriously, when product managers and developers leave these 'third party software returns third party software returns DETPullv2' texts in for years and years it just shows nobody really cares about the end user experience. wise guy, but has nobody ever considered to wrap the text in these columns?Īnd even if this UI layout is 'good enough', can't the 'third party software returns third party software returns DETPullv2 PerformAction RestoreAsset failed' be truncated out and/or just be shown in the details?
MEDIACENTRAL 2.4 FULL
Please load ĭue to the UI layout the crucial information 'Please load ' is often outside of the users view, even when the 'status text' column is dragged left to be the first column, as widening the columns to be able to read all text will, on a full hd monitor, still require the user not to be able to read the information in other columns. Third party software returns third party software returns DETPullv2 PerformAction RestoreAsset failed.
MEDIACENTRAL 2.4 ARCHIVE
My main reason for asking is the way error reporting is functioning within the UI.Įxample: I perform a restore action of media which is not present in the LTO archive library. Since its DMS broker times the individual engines have had new options added but the production services and transfer status UI was left untouched. While Mediacentral production services engine is one of the oldest products in the Avid product line, rock solid and the interplay user base is probably totally used to its functionality, I would like to ask if the Production services and transfer status user interface can be updated.
0 kommentar(er)
