View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0001137 | DarkRadiant | Selection System | public | 18.09.2008 21:11 | 16.01.2014 18:10 |
Reporter | Komag | Assigned To | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | feedback | Resolution | open | ||
Product Version | 0.9.7 | ||||
Summary | 0001137: a func static can have some brushes in different layers, can lead to odd behavior | ||||
Description | Steps: - Make a few blocks - Move a couple to a new layer, such as "test1" layer - Move a couple more to a new layer like "test2" layer - Leave a couple just in the "Default" layer - Select all the blocks and right click an ortho and "Convert to func_static Now when you turn on and off different layers, the correct block disappear and reappear. But when you click on the layer names to select all the brushes from a layer, "test1" and "test2" correctly light up their couple blocks, but "Default" lights up all the blocks! This error doesn't happen before converting to func_static. It has to be more than just "if it's a func static with parts in other layers they will just get selected too" because only the correct blocks get selected when selecting all from the other layers. One approach is to deal more strictly with func_static creation and layers. If the brushes selected are in differing layers and "Convert to func_static" is selected, perhaps the brushes should then be forced to be on the same layer, or in every layer that any one of them was in, or perhaps a window pops up asking the author which layer he wants the func_static to be in since parts of it were in differing layers. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
related to | 0003653 | acknowledged | Can't deselect func_statics after selecting a layer |
From the description, I'd say the func_static entity itself (the "parent node") is in the Default layer. By selecting the func_static parent, DarkRadiant will treat all the child brushes as selected too, regardless which layer they're in. So from my point of view this is not a bug, rather a documentation issue? |
|