Would be nice if we could directly expose Booleans so we could add checkboxes like “Use Selection”
Right now the workaround is to add an InputValue, set it to Float, expose that, and add a GreaterOrEqual. And in the panel we have not a checkbox, but a spinner that the user has to know needs to be >= 1.0 or whatever.
Right now, you CAN expose an Integer as a checkbutton, but only if it is connected to the 3rd socket of a Switch.
I will think about a more general approach.
This is also part of Krakatoa MX 2.0.x, but it was inspired from the Genome development.
Really? How? It’s the Switch case that I was working on.
*Create a Switch.
*Add an Integer InputValue connected to the 3rd socket.
*Check “Exposed”
RESULT: It gets exposed as checkbutton in the command panel.
It must be DIRECTLY connected to the 3rd (Boolean) socket of the Switch. The name on the button is the name of the Integer node.
If it is connected to a Mux, it turns to a Listbox. The name of the List is the name of the Integer, and the entries on the list are the names of the nodes directly connected to the Mux’ inputs.
We posted this video for Krakatoa 2:
youtube.com/watch?v=iiU0YvdGcps
Ah, ok. I was checking “Exposed” and THEN changing it to Integer.
Thanks!
For the Mux, the names exposed in the listbox aren’t the names of the output, but of the node. So if I want to choose a component of a vector using a Breakout feeding X, Y, Z to the inputs of a Mux, they show in the listbox as “0:Breakout”, “1:Breakout”, and “2:Breakout”. It would be better if they showed as “0:X” or “0:Breakout X” or something like that.
Or am I missing how we override that?
EDIT: Elbow lets me override it.
Done!
The name of the output socket will be used if the explicit name is not defined. If you type in something in the Node Name text field, it will be used instead.
I also added handling for empty string “”, so both implicit name (no name defined == undefined) and explicit no name (name defined as “”) will be handled.
Genome_MagmaFlow_20120402b.zip (70.4 KB)
1 Switch controlled by the same Integer exposes as spinner, not button.
I want to have one button change multiple Switches to control flow.
Just change line 6969 to
(theUpstreamNode[1].count > 0 ...Currently it checks that there is exactly one node connected.
As long as the FIRST node connected is a Switch, the Integer will become a Checkbutton.
It is already fixed for Mux.
I will commit this internally, but don’t want to upload yet another build just for one character…
It would simplify some of my flows if this worked for LogicalAnd or similar. So I want to control flow with something like InVolume->LogicalAnd and then feed in an exposed InputInteger “Do Inside Volume Check” and output the LogicalAnd to a Switch.
I think the ideal case would be just to add an InputValue:Bool option that exposes as a boolean regardless of context. That’s simpler, adds features, and is less likely to have issues.
Yeah, that does sound like the best idea.