GetClone gets confused by Materials ?



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 RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 03/01/2003 at 13:35, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    User Information:
    Cinema 4D Version:   8.012 
    Platform:      
    Language(s) :   C.O.F.F.E.E  ;

    ---------
    Hi,
    I just finished my Bone to PLA converter Plugin and it works fine, as long as the obj has no TextureTag.if it has one ( or more) my plugin gets confused because the GetClone(NO_HERARCHY) generates not only one clone but another one ( a null-obj only with the clones Texturetags)witch has another clone as child!
    Can anyone help me?
    Greetings, Nico



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 RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 08/01/2003 at 00:58, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    I assume you mean that you call GetClone(CL_NO_HIERARCHY) on an object with a TextureTag. I cannot reproduce the error you describe. This, very dangerous, expression manages just fine to clone objects with TextureTags:

        
        
        var t;
        
        
        
        
        main(doc,op)  
        {  
          if (!t)  
         {  
            doc->InsertObject(op->GetClone(CL_NO_HIERARCHY), NULL, NULL);  
            GeEventAdd();  
            t = TRUE;  
          }  
        }
    

    Apply it to an object with a TextureTag, and a few children if you want, and see that it copies the object wihtout its children just fine.
    Could you post some of your code that triggers the error?



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 RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 08/01/2003 at 08:17, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    hi,
    my code is quite the same you wrote.
    I tested some different objects and as long as there is no TextureTag assigned. With a texturetag i always get the nullobj describet above.
    greetings,nico



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 RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/01/2003 at 06:34, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    I still cannot reproduce it. Can anyone else here get this behaviour?


Log in to reply