1 person found this helpful
Why are you using After Effects 12.0.0? That is several updates behind.
Note, for example, that the After Effects CC (12.1) update had improvements in Shift-parenting behavior:
"Improvements to Shift-parenting behavior when the target layer already has a parent layer."
That is in addition to many other bug fixes and improvements.
Thanks a lot for the advice, still with the latest version of After Effects CC 22.214.171.124 you will notice the same behaviour. If you asign a parent to a child you will notice 2 behaviours depending on what the parent layer is based on.
1. if the parent layer is based on a SOLID, then you will notice this strange behaviour of the Position property values.
2. if the parent is based on TEXT, SHAPE LAYER, NULL - everything works as I was expecting.
1. Eg. I have the first SOLID layer at position 100,100 and the second layer at position 500,500 and I decide to make the second layer the child of the first SOLID layer, I will end up with a value of 475, 475 for the child. Note also that the size of the solid parent (150/150px) is playing play a role in this 475/475 value. For instance if the parent is 100/100px then the child position value after simple parenting will be 450/450 ( all anchor points are centered on the layers). And if you Shift parent the same layers you will end up with a position value of 75/75 instead of 0/0.
2. Eg. I have the first TEXT/ SHAPE LAYER/ NULL layer at position 100,100 and the second layer at position 500,500 and I decide to make the second layer the child of the first layer, I will end up with a value of 400, 400 for the child. If you shift parent the same layers you will end up with 0/0.
I do not know if this is normal behaviour but I just stumbled upon it. Thanks a lot.
There isn't anything wrong here. You are simply not respecting the anchor point positions in your crooked math, which relative to the layer adds or subtracts half the weight/ height in your case. It's different for Nulls because they have the anchor point at [0,0] and shape layers and text layers are continuously rasterizing types which consider the comp dimensions as there layer size so any differences match the comp or zero out. Really, you simply have your math wrong.
Yes, now I got it! my mistake! It looks like i made a bull from a mosquito! Thanks for your time!
Well, at least you figured out your mistake and you are now running the latest version!
Don't forget to mark the right answer as correct so that those browsing the forum know that this one's been answered.