Skip to main content
BGPictures
Known Participant
March 2, 2022
Question

After Effects (Beta) error: Cached Preview needs 2 or more frames to playback

  • March 2, 2022
  • 2 replies
  • 4124 views

Hello. Loving the beta for the past few weeks. But when I upgraded today, I could only get ram previews to work new projects. Old projects yield:

 

"After Effects (Beta) error: Cached Preview needs 2 or more frames to playback"

 

This seems to be a very old bug wich has resurfaced. I purged all, increased cache size, trashed prefs... Restarted. No luck. Same project/comps ram preview correctly when I launch 22.2.0... even when current and beta AE are launched concurrently.

 

AE (beta) 22.3.0 build 90

Apple M1 Max, 64 GB RAM, MacOs 12.2.1

This topic has been closed for replies.

2 replies

Community Manager
March 2, 2022

Hi BGPictures,

 

What is your memory preference set to in Preferences -> Memory & Performance? We just made a change on Monday's beta build, version 22.3 build 89, where After Effetcts should honor this preference which we had been exceeding at times previously. First try increasing the amount of memory available to After Effects in this preference.

 

Thank you,

Jason

BGPictures
Known Participant
March 2, 2022

Hi Jason. Thanks for looking into this. After effects never had less than 52GB in all of my testing. I've attached a screenshot of my current settings in 22.2, but this is what 22.3 looked like as well. Please let me know if I can provide any further info. Cheers!

 

BGPictures
Known Participant
March 24, 2022

After Effects (Beta) error: Cached Preview needs 2 or more frames to playback still exists in the latest version of (Beta) After Effects.


System info
    Application: After Effects (Beta) v22.4.0.17
    OS: macOS v12.2.1, RAM: 64.00 GB GB, CPUs (logical): 10

BGPictures
Known Participant
March 2, 2022

Update: I reverted to AE 22.2.0 (Build 105) and can once again ram preview as expected -- without encountering bug. Project/comp & cache settings are identical.

BGPictures
Known Participant
March 2, 2022

I should have stated initially, that the workaround was using 22.2.0 non-beta, while today's workaround is using 22.2.0 (Beta). I assumed incorrectly that Beta and non-beta had different version numbers. Thanks!