"Start Random" option looks to be using the same random seed across multiple monitors

[wheee]

If you have two (or more monitors) set to the same file directory (think of a huge photo dump from your Google Photos) and have the "Start Random" turned ON, then both monitors will start at the same picture and proceed to show the same pictures in sequence. (To clarify, the issue is that they start on the same picture and not the same sequence as I'm guessing that's the point). The Shuffle Image Order does work as expected across multiple monitors)

I think it would make more sense to have the monitors - if configured to use the same file directory to start on a different picture and have the same sequence.

Also would be good to confirm that if multiple monitors are using the same directory - that it's able to leverage the same indexing. I haven't stress tested it but I would like to have thousands of pictures in a folder and have all 4 monitors puling different photos from there. If 4 monitors are pointing to the same directory but using 4 different indexes in memory or what not then that wouldn't be as performant.

Another alternative to not having random seeds is to maintain a count in the database/index of photos of how many time they were displayed... and trend towards showing pictures with a lower count first.

[GabZach]

If you have two (or more monitors) set to the same file directory (think of a huge photo dump from your Google Photos) and have the "Start Random" turned ON, then both monitors will start at the same picture and proceed to show the same pictures in sequence. I think it would make more sense to have the monitors - if configured to use the same file directory to start on a different picture and have a different sequence.

Yes, that makes sense! If you send me your email address, I can let you know when it is ready.

Also would be good to confirm that if multiple monitors are using the same directory - that it's able to leverage the same indexing. I haven't stress tested it but I would like to have thousands of pictures in

Even if you have tens of thousands of photos , that would be as efficient as when all instances share the index. (Agreed, in RAM it costs a bit more, but today, memory is cheap.)

a folder and have all 4 monitors puling different photos from there. If 4 monitors are pointing to the same directory but using 4 different indexes in memory or what not then that wouldn't be as performant. Another alternative to not having random seeds is to maintain a count in the database/index of photos of how many time they were displayed... and trend towards showing pictures with a lower count first.

I can put that on my to-do list, but don't hold your breath: there are many other features waiting .. Best regards, Gabriel

[wheee]

Hi,

Sure thing, my email is [email protected]