MSG_DESCRIPTION_POSTSETPARAMETER
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 03/01/2011 at 11:29, xxxxxxxx wrote:
User Information:
Cinema 4D Version: 12
Platform: Windows ; Mac OSX ;
Language(s) : C++ ;---------
Hi,I found this message type to be very useful in order react on changing resource parameters. But how can I get the corresponding resource ID from the DescriptionPostSetValue structure?
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 05/01/2011 at 13:26, xxxxxxxx wrote:
No way?
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 06/01/2011 at 09:04, xxxxxxxx wrote:
// NodeData.Message
//*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Bool GreeblerObj::Message(GeListNode* node, LONG type, void* data)
//*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
{
//GePrint(MsgToString(type));
if (!node) return FALSE;
if (type == MSG_DESCRIPTION_GETBITMAP)
return MsgGetBitmap(static_cast<DescriptionGetBitmap*>(data), static_cast<BaseObject*>(node));
else if (type == MSG_DESCRIPTION_COMMAND)
return MsgCommand(static_cast<DescriptionCommand*>(data), static_cast<BaseObject*>(node));
else if (type == MSG_DESCRIPTION_POSTSETPARAMETER)
return MsgPostSetParameter(static_cast<DescriptionPostSetValue*>(data), static_cast<BaseObject*>(node));
...
}//*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Bool GreeblerObj::MsgPostSetParameter(DescriptionPostSetValue* dpsv, BaseObject* op)
//*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
{
if (!(dpsv && op)) return TRUE;
BaseContainer* bc = op->GetDataInstance();
LONG id = (*(dpsv->descid))[0].id;
if ((id == GREEBLER_BASE_HEIGHT_MIN) || (id == GREEBLER_BASE_HEIGHT_MAX))
{
...
}
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 06/01/2011 at 09:29, xxxxxxxx wrote:
was already closed to :-)
thanks.