Page 1 of 1

Visibility and folder issue when launching Resonic

Posted: March 26th, 2019, 23:30
by Luke
Good evening!

I'm running into a close to tray issue with Resonic and a launch folder issue.

Whatever I do, I can't get Resonic to start minified, i.e. closed to tray. Adding the --no-activate option in the shell command, or enabling the "close to tray" + "minimize to tray" + disable "Activate window on shell play", Resonic keeps opening full window size. Some times it magically works, but the next time I launch Resonic it's back in full glory.

Secondly, when I try to launch Resonic with a command line option, I can't get it to start playing all content of a folder. The folder appears empty in Resonic, and only when navigating away to a different folder and going back to the original one, it shows the content in the folder. The command line command I use is:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Liqube\Resonic Player Beta\resonic.exe" "C:\MP3" (or "C:\MP3\" but that doesn't help either).

Could you help me troubleshoot these issues?

Looking forward to hearing back from you, keep on the great work you all do!


Posted: March 27th, 2019, 05:53
by Tom
I can confirm both issues. Thanks for bringing them to our attention, Luke.

Minimized startup via Windows shortcut options ("Start minimized") has clearly not been working in a while, but was never reported. I guess it's not a very popular feature :) The other settings you mentioned do not affect this. Close/minimize to tray makes Resonic into a tray icon, disabling activate on shell play means that Resonic won't be brought to the foreground when you open a file/folder via shell (Explorer/command-line.)

Direct folder playback via shell apparently stopped working in 0.9.3.

We're on it!

Posted: March 27th, 2019, 18:58
by Luke
Dear Tom,
Many thanks for your swift reply! Bear with me but is this something you think would be fix relatively soon, or would the next release take substantial time?


Posted: March 28th, 2019, 16:06
by Tom
We'll have to release it with 0.9.4, since we're not in a quick release cycle yet.

What this means is going from 0.9.3 -> 0.9.4, etc. is a bit of a problem, simply because of the announcements we've made for the release steps prior to and including 1.0.

An option would be to do more frequent releases though and go past 0.9.9 to 0.9.10, 0.9.11, etc. - what do you think? Would you rather prefer smaller updates while still in early access? I'll be asking around.