Facer App doesn't load updated watchface

I’ve updated my watchface “Cleared to land (Premium)” (HuppiFluppi - Cleared to land (Premium) - watch face for Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S3, Huawei Watch, and more - Facer) and removed the fog for the misty weather (which caused an issue). But the app is still showing the fog on the watchface.

Hi @HuppiFluppi! We’re aware of the issue and one of our engineers is looking into this as we speak. Can you create a duplicate version of your watch face with the fog included so we can investigate on our side? No need to actually publish it, just send us the link.

If the fog still shows up on the published version of the watch face after you’ve removed it, it’s probably because it’s cached and will get updated shortly.

Hey there @HuppiFluppi,

I took some time to peel apart the layers of your watchface today (there’s quite a few!) and I think I’ve figured out where the issue is. In your thunder_flash.png layer, you have an equation that looks like this:


The problem here being the compound boolean expression “(rand(1,15))=3||(rand(1,15))=14)” which falls into something of a grey area in the current implementation of the renderer. Technically, this works on the web, but it will produce some unexpected results on the phone and watch. On my devices, and many others, this resolves as true for the whole expression and shows the lightning layer at 100% opacity. The reasons are pretty technical, but the underlying issue is that the mobile engine doesn’t support this kind of operation as of today. Bringing the web engine and mobile engine even closer in line with one another is something we’re constantly working on, so situations like this should become fewer and fewer as time goes on.

For now, my recommendation would be to do something like this:




Both of these have the same functionality as the original, but they evaluate slightly faster and neatly sidestep the inconsistency between the mobile and web renderers.

Alternatively, if you run into a case where you MUST use a compound expression, the supported way to deal with that is to do something like this (note: this is from memory, whereas the other two are tested and confirmed working):


This should be reserved as a last resort, though, as it is somewhat slower to calculate than my recommendations above and we can currently only support 3 levels of depth with this kind of equation. It’s there if you must use it, but a little creative math can probably circumvent it in most cases.

Hopefully that sheds a little light on the issue. If you still are having problems with that equation or with the mist layer, feel free to ping me. I’d be happy to take another look for you and see if its something we can fix.