allow tag only on special kind of object



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 22/01/2010 at 01:10, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    User Information:
    Cinema 4D Version:    
    Platform:      
    Language(s) :

    ---------
    Is it possible, that my tag can only be added to a special kind of object (nullobject for example)?



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 22/01/2010 at 02:04, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    No, that's not possible.

    cheers,
    Matthias



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 24/01/2010 at 08:43, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Howdy,

    You could make your tag check for the type of object it is on, and if it's not a specific type of object, have the tag do nothing.

    For example you could add this at the top of your Execution() function:

      
    if(!op->IsInstanceOf(Onull)) return EXECUTION_RESULT_USERBREAK;   
    

    Adios,
    Cactus Dan



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 25/01/2010 at 01:02, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    I thought of something like that, but in this case, the tags are just placeholders for export information. I tried to simply disable the input boxes (in GetDDescription), but couldn't figure out how to get the objecttype of the object the tag is attached to.
    GeListeNode->GetUp/Down didn't do the trick.



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 09/01/2011 at 06:21, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    I Don't understand why it should not be possible.

    Which language ? In COFFEE i would do it like this:

    if(!instanceof(op,NullObject) {
    tagplugintag = op->GetFirstTag();
    while (tagplugintag && instanceof(tagplugintag,TAGPLUGIN_ID) {
        tagplugintag = tagplugintag->GetNext();
    }
    tagplugintag->Remove();
    }

    Why should this not work ? Just tipped this in a few seconds and couldnt test it.



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 09/01/2011 at 09:00, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    It can be done that way, nux95, but best from a SceneHook plugin (something to keep track of the scene).  In other words, it is impossible for the tag to remove itself unless you really like crashing C4D. :)

    If you go that route then it might also be worthwhile to open a dialog explaining that the tag was removed for that reason so that the user doesn't go batty wondering why the tag keeps disappearing on certain objects.

    Also, I would use a for loop and do it this way (assuming C++), especially if multiple instances of the tag are possible on an object:

    if (!op->IsInstanceOf(Onull))  
    {  
      BaseTag*    ntag =    NULL;  
      for(BaseTag* tag = op->GetFirstTag(); tag; tag = ntag)  
      {  
          ntag =    tag->GetNext();  
          if (tag->IsInstanceOf(MYPLUGINTAG_ID))  
          {  
              tag->Remove();  
              PluginTag::Free(tag);  
          }  
      }  
    }
    


  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 09/01/2011 at 09:14, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Hello,
    the cinema 4d crash is because you have to place the the op control in the right place.
    if you make it in init of your tag cinema crash because the tag is not yet inserted in the document and not attached on the op.
    if you place your control code in message on type MSG_MENUPREPARE you can do it very simply
    i used it in TakeTool To ensure the user to use taketool tags only on correct objects.

    here an example :
    Bool LookAtCamera::Message(GeListNode* node, LONG type, void* data)
    {
         if ( type == MSG_MENUPREPARE)
         {
              BaseObject * op = ((BaseTag* )node)->GetObject();
              if (op->GetType() != Ocamera) return FALSE;
         }
         return TRUE;
    }

    all the best
    Franz



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 17/02/2011 at 03:24, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Wow thanks very much, that's perfect :-)


Log in to reply