Fade in fade out transition

I’m trying to create a fade in fade out to the next complication. The formula for opacity is as follows
$(#VAR_1#%4)=0?(0+(interpAccel((#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#),0,1000,1)*100)):(100-(interpAccel((#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#),0,1000,1)*100))$
This isn’t quite doing it. As you can see, the transition isn’t quite right.

Tap the complication to see the transition. There are a total of four complications to display.
Any thoughts on how I might correct this would be greatly appreciated. It’s makin’ my head hurt!

$(#VAR_1#%4)==0?(interpAccel(#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#,0,1000,3)*100):0$

This is sort of what I’m already doing. I’m trying to get the current complication to fade out as the next one fades in. Hence the interpAccel in the last part of the statement. This is causing all the comps to appear then fade out to the next. Not really what I’m trying for…

$(#VAR_1#)==0?(interpAccel(#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#,0,1000,3)*100):(100-(interpAccel(#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#,0,1000,3)*100))$

Hi Andrei, Thanks for the response. I implemented your formula. I was hoping the ==, instead of just =, would make the difference, but, to no avail.(I was assuming that == means “absolutely equals”.) The problem isn’t really the current face transitioning to the next face. It’s the other faces that appear upon activation. What is happening is, when going from comp1 to comp2, comp1,comp3 and comp4 appear at 100% and fade to zero, while comp2 starts at zero and goes to 100%. Comp1 and comp2 are doing what we want, but comp3 and comp4 are being triggered as well.(fade 100% to 0%) My example shown above reflects the changes you suggested. As you can see its not quite doing what I wanted. Is this a construction problem? Is there some layering strategy I’m missing? Somehow I need to have only the relevant comps reacting to #VAR_1# activation. I’m not sure how to do that. Maybe, moving the offending comps off screen when not needed? Any thoughts you might have would be greatly appreciated. Ʀǔ§§

Maybe something like this, to control the onscreen X position?
$#VAR_1#%4==0||#VAR_1#%4==1?160:-100$
This would be used on comp1, with subsequent statements on the other comp elements.
Is all this necessary? Or am I just missing some really simple method here?

I will try to find some example to look at and understand how it works

Thanks, Andrei. This is a little puzzling for me, here is a model I created quickly to better illustrate the problem. It helps me to visualize what’s really happening.


Thanks for your help. And Happy New Year!

I think that’s what’s needed. Clicking changes the background of the watch face.
Happy New Year! :smile:

1 Like

I did not realize you could nest another complete conditional statement within the first!

$(#VAR_1#%6)==4?(interpAccel(#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#, 0, 1000, 3)* 100):$$(#VAR_1#%6)==5?(100-(interpAccel(#DNOW#-#VAR_1_T#, 0, 1000, 3)* 100)):0$

I do not have time at this moment to implement this, but this may work! I will try it later, thank you again for your help with this!

This doesn’t seem to work on all watches, you’ll have to check :slightly_smiling_face:

It seems to to work fine on my Tic Watch. The updated watch above shows the effect correctly. Thanks again for your help.

1 Like

@rmcewen63 Well done! Way to stick with it :smiley: It’s a nice smooth transition.

Thanks! It definitely took some trial and error. The real credit should go to @lucky.andrei for all his help on this problem. I was at my wits end, trying to make this thing function correctly. @lucky.andrei found a watch face that was doing exactly what I was looking for! The man has a real knack for this watch face math stuff! Thanks for your kind words on this project! Enjoy!

1 Like