|
>Create a new model under the root,
call it ModelB. It becomes ModelB1.
I think it is the correct behaviour. This way it is impossible to get two models with the same name. Otherwise the system would be broken as Model_A under the scene root and Model_A under an other model could return children with the same name.
Cheers
Guillaume
On 7/3/06, kim aldis <kim(at)aldis.org.uk> wrote:
Create ModelA, ModelB, ModelC, each with a null, identical name
of the null in each model.
Put ModelB and ModelC under ModelA
But sorry, I'm a bit off tack on this. The nulls remain uniquely
named but the models under Model A won't be. Create a new model under the root,
call it ModelB. It becomes ModelB1.
Sorry to be misleading.
> Currently you have null1 under both ModelB and ModelC,
they'll be referenced as ModelA.null1.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean Kim.
I create a Model_A with null1 inside. Then Model_B with null1 inside. I drag
and drop Model_B in Model_A and when I select null1in Model_A its name is
"Model_A.null1" an in Model_B it is "Model_B.null1" ( in
5.0 and 5.1 ).
On 7/3/06, kim aldis <kim(at)aldis.org.uk> wrote:
You misunderstand me, I think.
Currently you have null1 under both ModelB and ModelC, they'll be referenced as
ModelA.null1. Both of them. They should be ModelA.ModelB.null1 and
ModelA.ModelC.null1.
>Consider ModelA with ModelB and ModelC
under it. What happens
>if both ModelA and ModelB have an object named 'null1' under them. That's
>going to screw all sorts of things up. I wouldn't go near them no matter
>what.
I think it is the correct behaviour otherwise it isn't possible to put a
"null1" under the scene root model and an other "null1"
under a model, and it would destroy a great "model feature".
Maybe we need a specific object type for "scene root model" with a
different behaviour than "standard models" ? But if you merge a
scene, the merged "scene root model" become a "standard
model"... It doesn't look so simple...
My useless 1/2 euro
Cheers
--
Guillaume Laforge
freelance TD | cg Artist
On 7/3/06, kim aldis < kim(at)aldis.org.uk> wrote:
The fact that they don't follow naming down the hierarchy is enough in
itself for me. Consider ModelA with ModelB and ModelC under it. What happens
if both ModelA and ModelB have an object named 'null1' under them. That's
going to screw all sorts of things up. I wouldn't go near them no matter
what.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
[mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM]
On
> Behalf Of Bernard Lebel
> Sent: 03 July 2006 05:21
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: constraints dropping off reference model components
>
> > > Also, when dealing with saving actions and the likes accross
nested
> > > models, I once or twice noticed that the "lowest"
Mixer (the one of
> > > ModelB for example) would "copy" itself onto all
parents that are
> > > models. Messy. Not sure if this is still the case in XSI 5.11
> though.
> > [kim aldis]
> >
> > In 5.1 and 5.11, any nested models don't have any of their objects
> > stored in the action. They're completely left out. AARRGGHH!!!!
>
> Oh, ouch....... one more reason not to use nested models.
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
Guillaume Laforge
freelance TD | cg Artist
|
