THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 28/08/2006 at 14:29, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Cinema 4D Version: 8.2+
Platform: Windows ;
Language(s) : C++ ;
Some questions/observations regarding GetUVPointSel()...
1. It appears that the BaseSelect returned by GetUVPointSel() (sometimes?) includes references to uv points that are within polygons that are currently 'hidden' in the editor... I have added code to remove those from the Polygon Selection that I make up, but I'm wondering why (or under which circumstances) these are included?
2. the definition of the TempUVHandle is in ...\_api\c4d_painter.h :
// not allowed to change
BaseSelect* GetUVPointSel(); // 4*polycnt!!! 0..3 = a,b,c,d
// allowed to change
Bool SetUVW(UVWStruct* uv);
...as you see above, the GetUVPointSel() call is within the "not allowed to change" section and in fact, I've tried changing that selection and nothing happens. When dealing with Polygons, I can just change the selection returned by op->GetPolygonS() and the changes are reflected within BodyPaint, but changing the selection returned by op->GetPointS() does not sync up the current uv point selection within BodyPaint - anywhere there's a seam-split (where one model vertex gets mapped to two or more uv vertices), it's just luck of the draw as to which one of those uv points gets selected.
Is there some way for me to adjust the current UV point selection within BodyPaint?
On 30/08/2006 at 13:36, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Any word on these questions?
On 01/09/2006 at 00:34, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Sorry i can't tell you definite answers. But i wouln't worry about 1. Just make it work. The BP api is pretty strange and limited anyways.
2. There is no way to set the UV pointselection. Well.. none that i know of. Perhaps it's stored in a secret tag. Might be worth to scan for unidentified selection tags
On 01/09/2006 at 01:03, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Thanks... I can get by with my work-around for #1 (even if they 'fix' that later, my code should still work), but I'm still/more interested in any info you might be able to dig up on #2.
I don't mind poking around, but that would be a fairly certain way to have my code stop working in the future when/if they change how that works... unless I could rely on some identifying aspect of such a selection not changing in the future.
If you hear anything, let me know... thanks.
On 01/09/2006 at 01:06, xxxxxxxx wrote:
...sorry, I get the Michaels mixed up - I was thinking you were the other one :). Thanks for the response.