PDA

View Full Version : Send Individual Layers to Layout?



squarewulf
05-04-2016, 05:47 PM
I have an object with many layers and don't want to separate out any as an individual object. I know I can send the enitre object then delete the extraneous layers, but i'm tired and I don't want to. Any way to send over just one layer? Would be pretty neat...

UnCommonGrafx
05-04-2016, 06:09 PM
Press f7.
On layers you don't want to send to layout press the dot to the right, under the eye column.
You can do 'grouping', too, while you are there or see the hierarchy of your groups.

Give it a play.
Robert

squarewulf
05-04-2016, 06:20 PM
Press f7.
On layers you don't want to send to layout press the dot to the right, under the eye column.
You can do 'grouping', too, while you are there or see the hierarchy of your groups.

Give it a play.
Robert

So simple, thank you. Why didn't I know this?

erikals
05-05-2016, 12:13 AM
Send Individual Layers to Layout
there should be a "Send Visible Layers to Layout" function

jwiede
05-05-2016, 10:08 PM
there should be a "Send Visible Layers to Layout" function

The current Layout <-> Modeler relationship regarding layers is a mess. Hopefully the coming LWO update will finally fix that, resulting in Layout and Modeler both "understanding" layers to represent the same thing (sub-object layers).

js33
05-06-2016, 01:40 AM
You can also load a single layer from a multilayer object in Layout. File > Load > Load Object Layer.

erikals
05-06-2016, 01:49 AM
yes, but it's rather clumsy though.


The current Layout <-> Modeler relationship regarding layers is a mess.
an understatement... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/012.gif

Surrealist.
05-06-2016, 04:56 AM
Cleanest way is to simply copy the layer into a new LWO Object. I never like to delete my objects or layers when I am working on something so I usually have a lot of copies of it that reflect the progress I can always come back to. So when it comes time to commit it to a scene I take the finished result and copy to a new object or delete everything else and just use one layer. Depends. There might be instances where having layers around you are not using useful, but I'd say it is more the exception. I like keeping my object files lean. Just me.

UnCommonGrafx
05-06-2016, 05:06 AM
I politely disagree, Surrealist.
The cleanest way is to PULL it into layout instead of PUSHING as the op desires.
Said to the point: in layout, load the layer.
There is this way to do exactly as the op wants with the change in vocabulary/approach. As well,with this approach, you then get the updates as desired in layout as you work on the object.
The last part I would always agree with as it is good scene management. Haha, my scenes are never done so rarely do this. Or, don't do this enough.
Robert

Surrealist.
05-06-2016, 06:33 AM
Absolutely agree that if you want to keep, say one layer always being the live layer that layout sees then this is a good approach and I have done this many times. But I also have to admit I completely missed the part where he said he did not want to separate out the objects... lol my bad.

But that said, if your strongest point is that you get to keep Layout updated, I would not recommend keeping layers around for that. There are a few options that wold be better in my opinion. And that is also a potentially dangerous practice. Not a good idea to be saving the object over and over with one name. So you would be then having to save back up copies. Additionally it is a waste of space and a not very efficient way when working with a team or sending files around that could be unnecessarily large and bloated.

A much better practice for an individual or team would be to have one "dummy" file. This file gets saved over each time you want it updated. It is named something like "filename"... and the other files are named "filename_v001" etc. They can have as many layers as you want and could always be used as a source for updating the target dummy file that Layout is looking for. I do this all the time with vertex cache files.

Then there is replace object feature and probably a few scripts out there for dealing with this kind of thing.

As to the exceptions to this rule for some reason the OP does have a reason. Not sure what it is. Just giving my opinion on best practice. But of course, this technology is complex and there are a multitude or reasons for making workflow choices on a case by case basis. There are no absolutes.

05-06-2016, 08:45 AM
No argument.

Appreciate the conversation.

Scene management goes a long way when in production. I don't do much production nowadays but do need to make sure such ideas make it into my head to share with my students as to best practices.

(I am UncommonGrafx but at work)

The replace section has become a god-send and I try to make sure to use it or have students use it for scene management purposes. And mental memory that its there.
Robert

Surrealist.
05-06-2016, 10:14 AM
Interesting. Yeah from my experience working with artists in a production environment and training them is that this field is 90 percent or better, technical and discipline. The other 10 percent is talent. That does not mean you can be a .1 talented artist. That means even if you come to the table with talent that is out the roof, that talent only fits into 10 percent of what you have to know and/or interface with in order to be a successful generalist or team member. Working in this technical environment is extremely demanding and requires adherence to so many strict rules, pipeline practices and so on. If you don't your work is for not. And that is when everything is working as it should... lol. It is like we have to be artists and engineers... lol It is crazy. Rant over. :)

jeric_synergy
05-06-2016, 12:40 PM
:D A quick friendly correction:

"...your work is for NAUGHT." 'Naught' being a British-ism* for zero or nothing. "It was all for naught." "All our good works came to naught."

Sometimes spelled "nought": http://grammarist.com/usage/naught-nought/

Wow, the internet is FULL of word-nerds: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/naught/

Carry on! :)

+ I like the Roger Dean-esque typography on your website, Richard.

+++++++++++
* I was trying to think of American usage of 'naught', but only came up with 'ought', as in "thirty-ought-six" and "double-ought buckshot". How 'Murrikkkan is it that both are gun-related? I guess 'ought' is a devolved version of 'nought'.

jeric_synergy
05-06-2016, 12:53 PM
On the original topic: ADDING a new layer to an Object already in Layout, while working in Modeler, has often confused me also. SOMETIMES it appears in Layout on its own (wth?) sometimes it doesn't. It's PROBLEMATICAL in that many times I create Layers as references or boolean cutters and I don't want them to appear in Layout automatically. OTHER times I am forced to LOAD LAYER explicitly in Layout-- iirc (#aflw) the first time you do this it comes in as a new object, but on subsequent opens it appears as a regular Layer.

For my personal workflow, it would actually be easier if all Layers DEFAULTED to "eyeball-OFF/inactive", and only Layers that I explicitly WISHED to have auto-updated to Layout were made visible "eyeball-ON" were updated. I realize this would break many users' workflow and confuse the hell out of noobies, so I'd like that to be an option.

EG: feature-request: Checkbox of "New Layers start as ACTIVE? [_]".
Or as radio button: "New Layers start as (_)ACTIVE | (*)INACTIVE".

++++++
That is: All Layers start hidden, and the act of turning on the eyeball explicitly sends the Layer to Layout.