I am the Senior AV Broadcast Technology Analyst at Loyalist College where I primarily design, install and maintain campus AV, Digital Signage and Broadcast systems and equipment. I have also do some teaching for Camera, VFX and Audio/Video editing as well; I love my job. My background includes Broadcast Television, Video Production and Technical work. My passions include traditional and digital drawing, fictional creative writing, VFX, and cinematic video projects. I have also recently rekindled my interest in robotics and have tinkered with Arduino and Raspberry Pi and a few programable robots.
I find I most comfortably find myself in the chaotic limbo between the artistically and technically creative, believing one can indeed excel at both. Which is probably why I am loving VUO! :)
OK, Jaymie... the first XML was working the way I expected however I was using the output of the first XML as an input for searching the second XML and ran into a stange issue where it's returning an empty list. I can't figure out why... it looks right to me. I've gone over it about 30x and made changes to the naming I was using in the XML to simplify things and everything and I can't figure it out. Any ideas what I am missing? It's probably simple.
I'm really confused because after your suggestion above about using quotes I had no trouble getting the first XML to work and the second one is even more basic than the first.
I may be misunderstanding how to use the Find Subtrees using XPath node. I've created an expression that I thought would allow me to find value code and it's sibling values fullname and school but it isn't working like I thought it would.
The way I want it to work is to search by the program code and return with the fullname and school values that are it's siblings.
@Jaymie, It's a little different than I was thinking, the Blender video link shows pretty much how I was thinking it could work. Functionally I guess the two methods might be the same. Will a composition-local sub composition like that also be precompiled the way a regular sub-composition is? If so, there is a potential performance improvement doing it your way over the way I was thinking.
I think my main concern with sub compositions stems from my experience so far with them. I've found they sometimes don't work how I think they are going to work. For instance I will take a specific set of nodes out of a working composition, make them into a sub composition and publish all the inputs and outputs I need to use, place my newly created sub-composition back in my main composition and it won't work anymore. However if I copy those same set of nodes and place them back in the main composition and reconnect them functionality returns. (Either I'm not understanding how they work or it may have something to do with how events flow... https://vuo.org/node/1281). I guess I was thinking that grouping a set of nodes the way Blender does it would be a simpler procedure than the process of making a sub composition and things would continue to work the way I expected them to.
Ideally the way I would LOVE to see it work would be to group them the way I was suggesting and once things are working correctly you could right click the group and save that as a sub-composition that could be also used in other projects. Maybe a right click menu with "Save Group as Sub-composition" and "Save and Replace Group as Sub-composition".