[Importing a List of Classes from a Spreadsheet]

@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

[multiple rectangles / Different size]

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!

[multiple rectangles / Different size]

Here's the 2016 file.

 

I'll take a look at your example soon and see how I can help!

mulRects_v2016.vwx

[multiple rectangles / Different size]

@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

[Are marionette object nodes resource hogs?]

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.

[Railing/Fence Tool - textures don't display alphabetically]

Reported. VB-137039

[Marionette closet doors]

@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

[Selection Tool Solid]

@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.

[Applying and editing a texture map in marionette]

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!

[Railing/Fence Tool - textures don't display alphabetically]

I made sure my sort in RM was alphabetical.

[Railing/Fence Tool - textures don't display alphabetically]

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

[Compose/connect/combine lines and arcs within one single polyline]

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

[Compose/connect/combine lines and arcs within one single polyline]

AHHHH TYPE MISMATCH!

I definitely meant to query for polys, not groups.

 

My mistake! Thanks for catching it.

[Compose/connect/combine lines and arcs within one single polyline]

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

[Compose/connect/combine lines and arcs within one single polyline]

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

[Compose/connect/combine lines and arcs within one single polyline]

@Patrick Winkler, there's a workaround that can keep the object attached to the network.

 

The only issue I'm running into now is returning the object to pass out of the output port.

 

@RuudB, let me know if this helps at all. Right now, you just won't be able to manipulate the object after it's composed, until I can figure out how to find it...  

MarionetteCompose_WIP_MFarrell_v2016.vwx

[divide polyline into segments]

Here's a network that may be similar to what you're looking for. This one will divide the line by a dimension length, but there will be rounding involved, so the lengths may not be 100% accurate.

 

MarionetteDivideCurveByLength_MFarrell.vwx

[divide polyline into segments]

The Divide Curve node ships with our default content.

 

It's located in the Marionette Content under Objects > NURBS > Operations - NURBS.

[divide polyline into segments]

Here's the Marionette script.

Currently, if you name the poly you want to divide up 'test' and run the script, it will cut it up into as many segments as the 'int' node specifies in the Object Info Palette  equally by length.

In order to use the resulting poly, you can just ungroup the result object to detach it from the Marionette network.

 

Also, if you want your result to be a NURBS curve at the end, you can simply add a 'Convert to NURBS' node to the result of the Polygon 3D node. (I recommend unchecking the "Keep Original Object" checkbox in the Object Info Palette with the 'Convert to NURBS' node selected, just to keep your drawing clean.)

 

MarionetteDivideCurve_MFarrell.vwx

[divide polyline into segments]

If Jim's method fails, Marionette can surely help! I can write something up when I get into the office this morning

[Insert from Library not working]

1 hour ago, har said:

Say I generate a list using the GetFilesInFolder function - to find all jpg image files in a specific directory - and then pass that on to a popup that should also work. Or wont it?

 

In my experience, it could work, but likely not how you would want.

 

Unfortunately at this moment, OIP controls don't have the capability to dynamically update, so your list may not always be up to date. 

 

I think, although I'm not sure if it works every time, that if you modify your node script in some way any time you add/delete jpgs from your referenced directory that it may update to reflect those changes, although it's not documented to absolutely work. 

 

I'd be happy to go over the limitations and why it cannot do this the way that we all would need it to, if you'd like, and if you do end up giving it a try, please report back on your attempts. It's useful to see how users are trying to use Marionette and where it is lacking. Definitely helps when I go back to report enhancement requests to the backend stuff where I don't get to play around much!

[Insert from Library not working]

5 hours ago, har said:

And while I'm at it, someone could help me clean up my code:

....
type = Marionette.OIPControl( 'Panel Type', Marionette.WidgetType.Popup, 0, ['Blank','Vented','Security','Clamp'] )
....
type = self.Params.type.value #This only returns an Index value of the selected Popup Option

Is there any way to directly access the selected value, rather than only its index?

 

 

For the nodes I'm doing, it doesn't make a huge difference. But it is kind of unnerving...

 

Here's an example - if you define the list outside of your OIP control in the Params class, you can extract the information from it in the RunNode definition later.

Let me know if it's unclear, I can go into further detail if you'd like.

@Marionette.NodeDefinition
class Params(metaclass = Marionette.OrderedClass):
	this = Marionette.Node( "ReturnNameInsteadOfIndex" ) 
	this.SetDescription('')
	list = ['Add', 'Subtract', 'Intersect']
	op = Marionette.OIPControl( 'operation', Marionette.WidgetType.Popup, 0, list)
	op.SetDescription('')
	out = Marionette.PortOut()
	out.SetDescription('')
	

def RunNode(self):
	self.Params.out.value = self.Params.list[self.Params.op.value]

[Spotlight Instrument Y rotation broken in 2017]

@klinzey

 

*chanting* KEVIN! KEVIN! KEVIN!

[Insert from Library not working]

@har, 

I'll have to inquire about this. I'm seeing this both with the green symbol you've created as well as if I were to make a red symbol.

I think it MAY have to do with a naming conflict somewhere.

 

The best advice I can offer you for now would be to duplicate your Marionette Object on the drawing area rather than trying to always insert it from the RM, at least that could help to alleviate the extra clicks you're having to do with your current process...

I'll report back if I learn anything!

[Constrain Distance (and other Constrain Tools)]

 

Just now, Tom Klaber said:

They do not even work in 2D predictably.  I took a Revit course and was impressed by their constraint system - I requested on of our own - and was pointed to these tools.  At first I was happy but right away in my testing, I found these should NOT be used except for the simplest of circumstances.  I found that these constraints would resize and move objects in strange ways.

VW needs to start thinking about a 3D update to these.  I always hate saying this -but Revit has a nice constraint system and it would be a good model to use when thinking about the types of predictable functionality we need. 

I've never worked with Revit directly, but I was always a big fan of the constraints in Inventor, which I'm sure is similar enough. I've mentioned it here before, but my voice isn't nearly as big as our users, so the best I can do is back all of you up and share my knowledge of how they work elsewhere.