You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Sequential numbering could still cause collisions if different instances of the slicer are used - which is unlikely, but wouldn't fix the problem universally.
This might not be optimal for your needs, but you can use [timestamp] in your output filename to get output like 20210312-144503 (date and time), so it is at least still sortable like a serial number would be. Unless you're slicing multiple files per second, collisions are very unlikely even with multiple instances of slicer being used at the same time.
@murk-sy, this works well enough for the moment, I guess.
The issue I have with this is, that the timestamp is really long. When I choose my file on the display, it eats up almost the whole line (filename nearly not readable).
Sequential numbering could still cause collisions if different instances of the slicer are used - which is unlikely, but wouldn't fix the problem universally.
Possibly you're right. That's why the post processing script worked so good. It could've handled that, most likely ;-)
Behavior
Is this a new feature request?
Yes, please.
There's now way, I can think of, to achieve it with my post processing... any ideas are still appreciated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: