I have posted this wish earlier, but I want to ask again since it would help me a lot.
When I have a named selection of grips/edges/faces/editpoints of an object, and I copy that object (mirror/scale/move etc. copy=yes), I wish the named selection also gets duplicated together with the object. So I can “name-select” the same part from the new object as I can from the original object. In Tsplines when duplicating an object that contains a selection set of elements, the duplicated elements of the selection set are added to the original selection set. That works for me, but it would even be better that when a named selection gets copied in this way,the copied elements get their own, new selection name.
this is a fantastic idea. I think this is it’s something that McNeel should consider as a global control for all things that you want to duplicate and that have dependencies that you also want to duplicate:
Saved selections
Surfaces/Objects with projected curves with history
Projecting curves with history
Objects with cages
named positions
Snapshots
These last two seems like a total headache, I know. Pascal came up with a pretty cool way to re-associate/match named position information with scripting.
Right now the only feature that propagates to a duplicate seems to be Mplane.
@PodoTools how do you see objects that are possibly part of the selection that are not copied being dealt with in the new copy?
For example when Sphere A gets copied, does the new named selection need to carry over Curves A and B that were also part of the selection but not copied or do those objects get ignored in the duplicated new selection?
Hi Travis,
I am not completly sure what you mean. What is in the named selection and what is duplicated in your example?
Do you mean that the named selection contains Sphere A + Curve A + Curve B? And that you only copy the sphere? In that case I see no reason for generating a new named selection.
What I need the most is that when some parts (grips or faces or edges etc.) of an object are grouped as a named selection, duplicating the object generates a new named selection that can be used to select the same parts of the duplicated object .
So when my object is a dog,and the faces of the tail are stored in the named selection “Tail”, duplicating the dog generates a named selection “Tail2”, that I can use to select the tail of the duplicated dog.
@PodoTools yes this is my exact example. Named selections are not limited to single objects. If we decide to duplicate selections on copy there needs to be a standardized way in which the selection duplicates. Is the trigger some objects? All objects? Kyle and I have been having this conversation for a while and haven’t really found an ideal solution. I was thinking that a possible “match” selection could possibly work as well.
Thanks for the reply. Now I see the problem.
I think the trigger should be “all the objects” of a
named sub-selection.
So when a selection contains curve A and B, and a part of the grips of a sphere S, the selection has 2 sub- selections, one containing the curves and the other the grips.
Duplicating the Sphere generates a new selection with the grips, duplicating both curves generates a new selection, duplicating one curve only does not generate a new selection. Duplicating A, B and S generates a new selection with 2 sub- selections.
Can you explain how this " match" selection would work?
Erik
@PodoTools I am trying to avoid fragmented “partial” recreation. I think if you duplicate all of the objects in the selection then the entire selection is duplicated otherwise it is not. So for your workflow where you have Selection 01 with Object A where the the recorded selections are sub-objects (faces, edges, verts) of Object A and you copy / paste Object A which now becomes Object B a Selection 02 could be recreated remapping all of Object A’s selections over to Selection 02 for Object B (wow thats a mouthful). If the recorded Selection is Object A + Object B + Object C then all 3 need to be copied for the selection to duplicate. Otherwise this is going to create mass confusion. The idea behind a “Match” button would be similar to how match works throughout the rest of Rhino where you select Object B click Match and then select Object A which is part of some selection. The selections from Object A now get Matched onto Object B (faces , edges , verts).
Thank you for diving into this. The “all or nothing” option seems a good solution, but the Match option sounds better. It gives you more grip on the collection of selections, and does not unneccesarely create lots of selections.
Next WIP?
