Support for autoincrement in filename pattern

[Stefanoko]

Can anyone tell me how get sequential numbers?
Instead of using {Timestamp} what would I have to enter to have my fragments auto-numbered?

[bartekmotyl]

As of now there is no such possibility, but this sounds like a reasonable extension to be added in the future.

As I understand, you would be interested to make fragments contain a number/counter that is specific for current file?

[Stefanoko]

Yes, exactly. I don't need the timestamp. Removing/batch renaming my fragments is kind of awkward.
An automatic counter would be really helpful. To make each fragment file unique in the file system. Ideally, I could choose where to place the {counter}, as a prefix up front, or as a suffix at the end.

[bartekmotyl]

Yes, that sounds useful, indeed. The problem though may be to define scope of this counter. Imagine for example a situation you creates 5 fragments (counter 1 to 5) and closed to program. But later you open the program again with same video file and want to create yet another fragment, but the old fragments have been moved from the target location (or you changed target location). Should the counter start from 1 or from 6? I think there are pros and cons for both versions.
There are also many other border cases to handle - and I say that just to emphasize this would not be a trivial extension.
Anyway, I mark this issue as an idea for extension, thanks for reporting

[Stefanoko]

Thank you for taking it into consideration. I see the problems you point out. It would not matter to me, but ofc, I can only speak for myself. They way I see it, taking care of such mishaps would be the users' responsibility, just like it is now, if someone does NOT include the {Timestamp} placeholder in their output pattern.

It might help, if an error message came up, informing the user that the file already exists. Or if the files simply get ever more "_1" suffixes, which would increasingly lengthen the filename, but still better than overwriting without warning.

None of that is really necessary from my point of view. I'd be happy to just have a {Counter} placeholder at my disposal, no matter whether digits are padded or not, no matter whether it's smart enough to continue an existing number scheme or not.