Renaming views


#1

Warning: Internal error, please report: Dereferencing a non-pointer. (3f47aacd)

I got this error while I am trying to rename views I do not understand. There are nodes just to filter the views and rename only the ones I want to. I want to write a P where is now is a C into the Viewname. After this I have to do the same with another character. (Many watch node to check the exact content I am passing to the next node)


#2

You are currently wiring the parameter value in to the elements. Change this to be the actual 3d views, you will need to run the same filter across the 3d views as well otherwise the lists wont match.


#3

Thanks a lot. I solved just following your hint as the screenshot below explain.

I had to figure out how to do the same on the views, after a while I just consider the views a list (…still sometimes switching “mind-set” takes time)

I found an interesting better test to skim the views, (View is perspective node) and I applied. I am now moving on the direction to use Dynamo for placing on sheet. I know helps and nodes are out there.


#4

I think I bumped again in the same logical problem after having “partially understood” the problem, it seems I am not able to fix it. If sort the views based on their name, in reality I am sorting only their parameters names, then how the views can follow the same order. It should be the “Sort.byKey” node to address or another one…I am making confusion here I know. I tried two different ways but they end up with the same result, thus I cannot put on sheet the views like that. They do not keep the same order sorted by name…

So where is the node that says “get.element by parameter”? or order elements by paramater names…


#5

SOLVED This morning I realized I had to pass throught the same process of renaming the views again to be able to ordering tehm. I read an old post and the observations of mr.Osborne here helped me. Also I could have not realized how the sorting by function worked without help by mr. Venkov and mr. Subbaiah here. So thanks everybody, mr Thorley above as well who helped me to understand the logic mistake. I am sure there must be a smarter way to achieve the same result, though.