THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 03/10/2009 at 13:44, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Cinema 4D Version: 9.6-11.5
Platform: Windows ; Mac ;
Language(s) : C++ ;
I got a question about the display of Null-Objects.
I have a generator plugin that creates a virtual hierarchy of objects, including some nulls. Now as there's quite some null used, the display gets a little messy as there's 'null-dots' all over the place.
Is there a way to turn off the display of those null dots ?
I dont want to make the null invisible for editor, as i would have to do the opposite for all children, which might lead to complications.
Maybe there's a way to exclude null's in a virtual hierarchy from being drawn in the editor, like with the display menu in cinema ?
On 03/10/2009 at 14:50, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Try to use
in Virtual Hierarchy for your Null objects. Maybe this works.
On 03/10/2009 at 15:13, xxxxxxxx wrote:
i want to avoid doing it like that, because then I'd have to make the null's children visible explicitly, while i would prefer to have their editor mode undefined so that they inherit their editor mode from parent.
So im actually looking for another way then turning off editor mode.
On 04/10/2009 at 08:10, xxxxxxxx wrote:
You mean the View->Filter menu I assume.
I don't think there is another direct option to hide Null objects. How about adding it to a layer and changing its visible option? If the children are not added to the layer, they continue in their editor mode visibility. This option isn't available in R9.6 though - only R10 onward.
On 05/10/2009 at 03:33, xxxxxxxx wrote:
yeah layers are not an option cos it should work from 9.6 onwards. Maybe I'll just use another Object for grouping internally, like an empty instance, which has no dot displayed at its position afaik.
Or I'll just do my own 'null'-object, but i guess its not relly neccessary ;-)
On 05/10/2009 at 03:35, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Another possiblity is to write your own NULL object.
On 05/10/2009 at 05:23, xxxxxxxx wrote:
thanks everybody, I'll probably do it with the instances, as it probably makes no difference anyway and is less effort for me ;-)