[Bf-committers] Joining objects and merging UV Layouts has Changed in Behaviour (2.69)
Brecht Van Lommel
brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Tue Oct 15 13:00:49 CEST 2013
The reason why not is that the index of layers is not supposed to have
any meaning, so there also should not be any option to join by index.
The question should not be "why not" but "why", I still don't see a
good argument to join by index? It's not because an option is simple
to add or can be useful in some possible case that we should add it,
this just leads to clutter.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Bastien Montagne
<montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Why not simply add a toggle to join cd layers either by name or by
> indices (with first option by default)? I think it can be useful. And we
> also use CustomData_merge in other contexts than join op, where we do
> not need name comparison. So as the change is pretty simple (will have a
> patch very soon)…
> On 15/10/2013 12:15, Brecht Van Lommel wrote:
>> Why not rename the UV layer before joining, so that it matches?
>> There's also vertex groups, shape keys, vertex colors, should all
>> those have options to join by index too? I think it's better if they
>> all just join by name instead of adding options here.
>> If you choose a UV layer in a material that is name based, not index
>> based, so the index should not be considered to have any meaning.
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Gaia<gaia.clary at machinimatrix.org> wrote:
>>> For 2.69 when joining objects, then the UV maps are joined
>>> by name instead of by index. While this sounds like a good
>>> change unfortunately this results in an unpleasant
>>> follow up issue:
>>> Assume you have 2 objects, each with one single UV Layer,
>>> but both UV Layers are named differently. Now, after joining
>>> the object has 2 UV Layers.
>>> The problem is: We do not (yet) have a Join UV Layers function.
>>> - The easiest fix would be to add an option to the Join operator, like:
>>> Join UVS by [Index|Name]
>>> - Or add a function for joining UV Layers
>>> Now the question is: Can this be fixed for 2.69 in one way or the other ?
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers