Component/instance same name?

@TIG, if the approach of using the equal instance names (instead of equal definition names which isn’t possible) is going to work with the exporter, wouldn’t it be necessary to have the different definitions in a selection getting one and the same instance name?

Frankly we really don’t know what the problem is !
My idea was that perhaps the exporter is using component-instance names rather than component-definition names ???
If the user want different component-definitions to have instances which share common names that is of course quite possible. BUT it requires manually adding instance-names to selected instances using Entity Info.

To recap on naming…
“defn1” can have instances named “”. “fred” and “defn1”
“defn2” can also have instances named “”. “fred” and “defn1” - or “defn2”
etc
An instance’s name is not necessarily linked to its definition name.

My snippet gives that name linking automatically, BUT if that solution is not required then don’t use it !

I’ve tried doing it as a group name and a instance name, and unfortunately it doesn’t work, it seems to be only the definition name works.

Could you share more info on what exporter/importer and intermediate file format you are using? It seems like these are oddly designed. There can be numerous different looking objects in Hammer all with the same class, e.g. different looking doors, right? It seems like the conversion is very strange. I really can’t see why definition name in SU should map to class in hammer.

After looking more at hammers coding and the plugin. The plug in for sketch up was only designed to export models. All of the coding still needs to be done hammer separately. Thanks for the helps though.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.