87 Replies
Ken Cobbley

The frustration for me is a total lack of communication by developers on this subject. I mean, people have literally been asking for this feature for YEARS. Have we ever heard one peep from anyone saying "hey this just isn't possible and here's why" or "we are working on it" or even "it's never going to happen"?

It just feels like disrespect at this point.

Tim Neill

Keep going Ina! This simple functionaiity was first requested back in 2013. (here ... by others, including me). For the past 6 years I have assumed that it must be so complicated for Articulate to implement that it was never a seriously considered addition.

Ken - I agree with you - never once over all these years has the SL staff team attempted to explain WHY it hasn't been implemented, simply offering their empty appreciation for us 'reaching out' (that expression - aaaaargh!)

We don't have the SL3 code so who knows what would be involved in adding this functionality or what monstrous complications allowing seeking to anywhere on the timeline would create.

Maybe the problem is that if the program was to leap from 3 seconds to 48 seconds in, it would have to 'build' all the objects incrementally to get there? So please just tell us Articulate.

But common sense suggests that, since we already have playhead 'CUE POINTS', each must have an identity (ie: a name and a location on the timeline) with that data held in variables in the program. This must be true since we can use a Trigger to perform an action when a specific CUE POINT has been reached.

So why is it so difficult to move the playhead directly to a named CUE POINT?

PS: This request was on my (I thought) quite reasonable list of 'missing feature' presents to Father Christmas here.

Happy Christmas,

Tim