Unable to zoom vertically in the motion editor

[15,360 GP]

I need to animate pos X in the motion editor, but can't see it because the value's line goes down out of vision. Pressing F only reframes it horizontally and ignores vertical zooming (expands timeline from left to right, ignoring up and down). selecting only pos X in the animation set editor THEN pressing F results in no vertical change, AKA, the same problem. If this were in the graph editor i would be able to hold ALT to zoom vertically or i could pan (ALT+middle mouse) to look down or up on the timeline, but the motion editor ignores ALT+scroll wheel and panning (ALT+middle mouse).
Am I missing some special keybind here? Do i just have a toolbar disabled for the motion editor?

[15,360 GP]

Holding CTRL + mouse wheel also does nothing in the motion editor

[Marco Skoll]

There is no zoom in the motion editor. The view automatically rescales (or at least should) to show the entire range.

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

There is no zoom in the motion editor. The view automatically rescales (or at least should) to show the entire range.

For some reason it does not... That would make sense because Y and Z are both near the top, but only selecting X then pressing F to reframe it changes nothing.
Enlarging the timeline to take up the entire screen also is not quite able to show it all and still results in a cut off at the bottom of the screen.

[bumpyeyez]

I don't understand. Why not just animate in the graph editor instead? It would be so much easier and clearly you understand how to pan up and down in that anyways.

[Marco Skoll]

Well, that's weird. Do you have a screenshot?

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by Bumpy Eyes:

I don't understand. Why not just animate in the graph editor instead? It would be so much easier and clearly you understand how to pan up and down in that anyways.

I would preffer not having to swap to graph editor any time a value goes out of range (wich if very often). also, graph editor seems very messy whenever i use it due to the nature of the keyframe modes, so i preffer to just use motion editor. Basically, it just seems like a simple controll that SHOULD be there

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

Well, that's weird. Do you have a screenshot?

Is there a way to post an image i got with Print Screen? F12 and steam overlay refuse to open in SFM even though i have them enabled

[bumpyeyez]

When you Print Screen it copies to the clipboard, so just paste that into any graphics program and export it, then upload it. It's probably best just to use gyazo though.

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

Well, that's weird. Do you have a screenshot?

Here we are, the problem is circled in green
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=802887414&fileuploadsuccess=1

[15,360 GP]

Well, i just realized that I actually need to be changing the value of Z for the motion i want, not X. However, the unframed curves mystery remains unsolved, and if we could figure it out im sure it would help in the future.

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by The Good King:

Well, i just realized that I actually need to be changing the value of Z for the motion i want, not X. However, the unframed curves mystery remains unsolved, and if we could figure it out im sure it would help in the future.

I renounce my previous renouncing statement. I need to change the X and Y values as well, not just the Z. I have been looking at this for far too long in one sitting...

[R234]

You sure it doesn't just stop there at the bottom? And why do you absolutely need to see the f-curves?

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by R234:

You sure it doesn't just stop there at the bottom? And why do you absolutely need to see the f-curves?

I know it goes dow farther because when I make the motion editor encompass the entire screen, I can see the curve continue until even then it goes off the screen. I need to be able to see it so I can edit the curve as the foot (these X,Y,Z cords are for a foot) moves in the animation. without being able to see it, I cant make the curve ease in or out without flying blind.
This may not be a problem if I was a motion editor veteran, but I just recently made the major switch from graph to motion.

[R234]

I don't get it. Why not just look at the foot if you need to know when it's moving?

[15,360 GP]

Originally posted by R234:

I don't get it. Why not just look at the foot if you need to know when it's moving?

Because I need to know more than IF it is moving. I need to know how fast it is moving, how gradually it eases in or out, or even if it eases in or out. You can see all this by simply looking at the foot, sure, but the problem is that the human eye ajusts itself too quickly. This makes gathering information by watching the animation play out very difficult.

Here's another way to understand it: It's like a math problem where you need to find out how much water is entering a tank per second. It would be easy if you were given the hard numbers: the tank size and the time it took to fill. It would be much harder if instead you had to gague the tank size yourself, then had to count how long it took to fill.

The problem is that because animation is done in such small segments (the foot only moves for about 6 frames), the very short animation must be watched over and over again to try to figure out what is exactly happening. then once you have watched it enough times, making a judgement call on if the animation looks "good" or not becomes impossible because your eye is so used to it.

Basically it's like trying to build a house when your ruler is missing. In the end, nothing is going to be quite the right length.
Or, if you understand the concept of swapping to the graph editor every time this problem arises,
Basically it's like trying to build a house when your ruler is tied to your car with a 3 foot rope. Either nothing is going to be quite the right length, or you will waste tons of time whenever you need to measure something not already marked.

[R234]

I understand why this would be needed to make things accurate, I just don't understand why it would need to be accurate in the first place. To me, "correct" values are unimportant, all that matters is how it looks on camera. But, eh, I'm a terrible animator, so what do I know ;P