Here I have 25 squares and 1 surface which I have Copied>InPlace to create dupes.
I enable the selection filter with just surfaces checked to select just the duplicate surface, and I get this report on the command line:
Command: SelDup
Found 26 duplicates. 1 surface added to selection.
Duplicate selection is from model space only.
It does correctly report that only one surface was added to the selection, but the “Found 26 duplicates” should not be reported IMO…
Hi Mitch - I guess, arguably, it could be considered wrong but it feels like a feature, to me… to get that information in that way, no?
-Pascal
Hi Pascal,
Yeah, I thought about that, but it still doesn’t ring right in my mind.
One example perhaps - you have 10 curves and 10 surfaces in a file and they are all red. You uncheck curves and run SelColor>Color and pick red. It does not tell you
Found 20 objects, 10 surfaces added to selection
Even though there are clearly 20 objects that match the selection tool’s criteria…
IMO, if the selection filter is enabled, it should not tell you anything more than what was actually selected, in order to avoid confusion…
OK.
I’m going to, mmmm, just go ahead and let that fester for a while…
I’m not yet convinced it is wrong.
-Pascal
Hi Pascal,
What is SelDup used for? I use it to check for duplicate curves or surfaces or solids or whatever that are lying on top of each other. In other words they are duplicates in that they share the same space too, not just identical constructions. Following the logic of “same construction where ever the location” should SelDup report the number of points?
Hello -
“The SelDup command selects objects that are geometrically identical with another object, visible, and in the same location regardless of other object properties.”
-Pascal
SelDup works fine. I just don’t want it informing me that the file contains duplicate objects that don’t meet he “same location” criteria, as I believe Mitch has reported.
Hello - if you have an example of this, please send it.
-Pascal
I don’t have an example of this. I am probably just misunderstanding what Mitch wrote.