AWS Thinkbox Discussion Forums

The scene contains objects or groups with the same name as a camera!

Trying to submit job from max 2018 but I’m always getting this error in sanity check.
Looking in scene filtering and all and there is absolutely nothing that is named even close to camera name.
Any ideas what is going on?
Deadeline 10.0.9.4
Thank you

I took a look at the function checking for name duplication, and I don’t see an obvious issue with it (but I did not write it, so I could be missing something).
Basically it collects two arrays - all objects that are of a camera class, and all objects that are not.
Then it checks each name of each camera against the camera names behind it in the list, and against all other objects’ names in the other list. If the name of the camera matches any other camera or object, a flag is raised and the function returns true, otherwise it exits with false.

Can email me a sample scene that has the issue?
Alternatively, you could modify the Sanity Check function CheckForDuplicateCameraName() found inside SubmitMaxToDeadline_SanityCheck_General.ms inside the Repo\submission\3dsMax\Main\ folder to print out the offending names to the Listener… If it reports a problem, there must be some hidden object with a duplicated name.

Can you please provide me with email to send sample scene, I’m out of options.
Even renaming camera didn’t help.
Nor deleting camera and just creating an free camera for a test.
Same message. Seems a bit weird

Yup! Just e-mail support@thinkboxsoftware.com and we can forward it to Bobo. A link to this thread would be helpful too. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the scene file.
I added a simple print line to the test function, and it revealed that you have a camera and multiple geometry objects with the same name “interior”

$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [1992.109131,829.594666,106.109573] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [2907.827148,1525.666260,21.996124] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [2952.464355,849.661011,117.200928] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [476.787292,1260.113770,77.829803] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [1983.229492,368.587616,103.418648] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [1894.445557,372.606781,74.668037] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $Editable_Poly:interior @ [730.197632,-279.492554,73.251419] 
$Physical_Camera:interior @ [1436.324097,570.065979,115.536819] == $PolyMesh:interior @ [1431.967285,627.010925,93.327293] 

You should rename the camera “interior” to anything else, e.g. “interior_camera”, and then the test will pass even if you don’t rename all the meshes.

I will look into modifying that test to actually report the offending objects and names when the test fails. I could probably even look into offering a fix that renames the camera to a unique name that would not collide with scene objects’ names.

I will try but I tried even deleting camera and creating completely new one with default name and was still getting same error. But let me try this as well.
But I see now it seems to be completely different one so any changes to the one I was making didn’t had any effect :slight_smile:
Thanks!

We check EVERY camera in the scene against every object, because we collect camera names and make them part of the job submission. This allows you to select a camera later after the job was submitted from the Job Properties > 3dsmax tab, and switch which view is actually rendered. This test makes sure you don’t end up assigning a Mesh as the camera node and crashing Max.

Makes sense. Problem is when in scene like this that someone else worked on it is hard to find what exactly is making a problem. It would be great if that same script could point out to the objects that are issue as well.

I agree, and that is my plan. At least it could print the offending names to the MAXScript Listener. Btw, the original function bailed out the first time it encountered a duplicate, so I modified it to check them all before returning.

A better way would be to offer a function that lists all offending names, and allows the user to edit them or pick from suggested new names (e.g. “interior_camera001” would be a good candidate in your case).

Here is the updated General Sanity Check file for the latest build of Deadline 10.

To install, simply

  • navigate to your Repository
  • go into the folder \submission\3dsmax\main\
  • rename the existing file SubmitMaxToDeadline_SanityCheck_General.ms to SubmitMaxToDeadline_SanityCheck_General.BAK
  • copy the attached version into the folder.

The new version

  • Checks all cameras against all other cameras and objects in the scene (the old one exited after the first collision)

  • Prints all camera name collisions to the MAXScript Listener

  • Now provides a right-click Fix routine which offers the following options for each offending camera via a Yes/No/Cancel prompt:

    • [Yes] to Auto-rename to a unique name with _cameraXXX suffix, for example in your case “interior” would become “interior_camera001”
    • [No] to select the current camera in the scene and exit the fixer function to edit the camera and/or scene manually. You can rerun the fix if there are more cameras to fix after that.
    • [Cancel] to exit the fixer function without changes.

Please test with the original scene you sent me and let me know if this workflow feels better!

I have tested with your original scene where one camera collided with many mesh names, as well as with multiple clones of that “interior” camera to ensure they are all renamed correctly and the problem can be fixed semi-automatically or manually.

Thanks for the feedback!
SubmitMaxToDeadline_SanityCheck_General.zip (10.7 KB)

Works great!
Thank you for fast fix :slight_smile:

Privacy | Site terms | Cookie preferences