Marissa Farrell

The Fixture Mode is used when exporting data to Vision. It doesn't really have a functionality within Vectorworks itself.

The disposeobj in this scenario is deleting the source objects, pretty much the same as when you had the original rectangles attached to the delete node. (In a sense, you doing that marked them to be deleted twice) The problem you were facing was that you wanted to delete one of the new objects generated by the planar boolean subtract node. The clipsurface function creates handles to two new objects, or more depending on how many objects you've attached to it, so in actuality the objects coming out of that node are the ones you need to pay attention to. That's what my planar boolean indexing example shows.

In the current shipped VW Versions (2017 Release & 2016), the Set Layer node is a little flaky. I've attached an updated Set Layer node that is much more user friendly and behaves more appropriately and aligned with the rest of the default content. I hope to have this updated with our shipped content soon. SetLayer_v2.vwx SetLayer_v2_v2016.vwx

Does this happen when you use one of the stock workspaces? What if you remove the Landscape Area tool from your migrated workspace and then re-add it? I do not see this issue with the shipped Landscape nor Designer workspaces.

Is this a custom workspace? Was it migrated from 2016?

@gorrunyo The Planar Boolean subtract mode works just like the Modify -> Clip Surface command, which doesn't delete the original items. The reason your 'delete' node isn't working when you attach it to the original rectangles is because those objects are no longer there. The Planar Boolean node itself is creating the new objects. There are two simple ways you can do this differently to avoid this. 1) Instead of planar boolean, you can use the solid boolean node. In this option, you would want to extrude your rectangles individually first and then subtract one from the other. 2) You can index from the output of the planar boolean node to delete the 'hole' object. I've attached both examples. picture_MFarrellEdit.vwx

I can try to get these updated, it could take me a bit. Also the files aren't available, but I can also try to remedy that... it may just take some time.

Is this list always going to be the same, or will it be changing often? One of the current limitations of OIP controls is that they cannot be dynamically updated. Because of this, it could be a little more work to make sure your object works as intended. If your list won't change, you can absolutely make this work without too much work. But if it will be changing, I can run you through the steps to *hopefully* make it at least somewhat reliable. As for attaching a spreadsheet/txt file, yes, this is possible, but will require slightly more work, and this will still be limited by the OIP not dynamically refreshing.

Here's the 2016 version of what I've included in 2017. It's the Popup List in its simplest form. This node will return an integer corresponding to the location in the list that is chosen, starting with 0. Without editing the script, this means that 'choice 1' returns 0, 'choice 2' returns 1, and 'choice 3' returns 2. There are many ways to modify the functionality of this node. If you're looking to just keep it simple, I would suggest only modifying the contents of the list and just returning the corresponding integers. If you'd like the node to perform a different action depending on the selection in the list instead of returning integers, I can help you with this if you get stuck. Just give me an idea of what you want to do and I can help you out. Hope this helps! marionettePopupListNode_v2016.vwx

@VerhoevenJ If you're using 2017, the dropdown node template exists in Input -> Intermediate, it is called 'Popup List' If you're using 2016, let me know, and I can attach a 2016 version for you to use. The template was not part of the default content in 2016.

@michaelk I'm attaching your files. I've also updated your post on the other thread to include them. classes_v2015.vwx classes_v2016.vwx

It may have to do something with page scale nodes. Some changes have been made with sizing, and sometimes they bounce around a little. We're working on solidifying it!

Here's the 2016 file. I'll take a look at your example soon and see how I can help! mulRects_v2016.vwx

@Jan verhoeven I've attached an example of creating multiple rectangles of different lengths. It would be helpful to also know what you would like to do with these rectangles after. The lengths can be defined however you'd like. In my example, I created a list of lengths with an equal step between them. It is also possible to just attach many dimensions to the "width" port of the rectangle. At the end, I moved the rectangles to show them individually. To use these rectangles outside of the Marionette network, select the resulting group and "ungroup" it. The rectangles will then be independent of the Marionette network. You can also further manipulate the rectangles with Marionette if you would like. mulRects.vwx

Depending on how many nodes make up your Marionette objects, it can increase the file size, which could also impact performance. There are a few ways to get past this, though. 1) If you aren't concerned about changing the objects any further, you can "ungroup" them from the contained Marionette network. This should reduce the file size, however the objects will no longer be parametric/editable. This is only suggested if you're certain you will not be making any further changes to the Marionette objects. 2) If you have many Marionette objects that contain the same script, but may have different parameters defined, you can actually store the script as a symbol within your Marionette object. This should reduce the overall number of nodes in your file which will reduce the overall file size. The objects themselves will still be independent of each other - you could have the same script defining a cabinet, but also have the ability to make all of the cabinets defined by this script have different dimensions. If you're interested in learning more about this, please let me know. 3) The most unlikely thing you would like to do, though you can do it, is to store the Marionette object itself as a symbol. This functionality has been a little slippery lately, at least when inserting the symbols, but it is still a potential solution. A note on Marionette objects in general: Once they are generated, they do not usually slow down any processes, however any time you make a change to a parameter, the entire contained script will run again, which depending on the complexity of the object could take some time.

Reported. VB-137039

@Nicolas, Would it be possible for you to attach the file with the door in question? Or if you'd rather not share it publicly, could you email it to me at --- so that I can take a closer look? I'd like to help you out with this! Thank you, Marissa

@mlancepro, can you attach a screenshot of what you're seeing? When I use the selection tool, all I see is border highlighting. I've never seen a solid shape over my selection.

With the current Marionette content, this is very hard/probably impossible to achieve. There were some changes made for texturing parts in plug-ins, however I haven't had the time to create a proper demonstration of how to do this yet, but those same changes will work on Marionette objects as well. (They will allow you to map textures to the individual parts of your plug-in object, very exciting!) As soon as I get a working understanding of what the process is and create a tutorial, I will report back here!

I made sure my sort in RM was alphabetical.

Mine shows in reverse order of when the texture was imported/created in the document.

I'm not seeing that here... Let me know if you see otherwise. If we find this to be the best working example, I will replace my previous files with this one. MarionetteCompose_WIP_MFarrellv3_v2016.vwx

AHHHH TYPE MISMATCH! I definitely meant to query for polys, not groups. My mistake! Thanks for catching it.

Already working on it! This does similar to how you did it. The only remaining issue is that it still returns handles to the lines prior to composing them. MarionetteCompose_WIP_MFarrellv2_v2016.vwx

I wrote a new compose node, it's in that file. Hopefully you can make sense of it and see what I did.