Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
280: ATTR_ directives written for hidden objects #514
Current if Landing Gear has some material properties or other ATTRs, Wheel will get them too. I'm not sure how I feel about this. After all, if you want some material effect to cascade down to effect the children, you'll need it across your split parent too, right? And it would be much too difficult and defeat the purpose if you had to manually figure out what material properties and other ATTR_s to copy and paste to Wheel.
I don't know though. The goal was that "animations would be split across the two OBJs." We never talked about material properties.
Just my opinion. I do not think there is a need to children objects materials needs to be inherited from a parent.
Gear and wheel are two separate objects and animations are linked but nothing else as far as material.
Of course I understand that others might like animations to be split across objects.
Thank you Ted for continuous fantastic work on the exporter!
On a side note, I am using 2.80 exported for my current project and all works great (minus particles system mentioned by Ted but I did not test it yet)
So, to be more specific about what the bug is - the WYISWYG promise that ATTRs should not be written for hidden Objects is broken in several places right now. This makes this bug actually related to #538 , #536 , and #423.
Although I couldn't figure out what Material Properties ATTR_s can be written for not visible Objects right now - I did figure out 1 case
I think the solution is to, during collection, set a "visible" flag - which takes into account subcollections it is contained in, default False and use that instead of complicated tests about export_animation_only and it's viewport status.
The rule, after all, is very simple.