Thanks, it's good to know that there are internal functionalities actually using these flags!

Thank you so much! This helps me a lot with the understanding of what was going on. I am digging back into my work on this today and will follow up with your advice.

@zipit Hi, Thank you so much.

@m_adam Thank you for the clarification and the code example, Maxime!

Hi @JohnThomas thanks for the follow-up. I see the point, but when you're dealing with uniform splines you've also to consider the number of intermediate points you're using to approximate the natural spline. With a natural parametrization even with a low number of points the vertexes position returned from SplineHelp::GetPosition() are accurate, whilst with a uniform parametrization you get higher accuracy as long as you increase the number of points. See the data below, where first coordinate is the position returned by the SplineHelp::GetPosition and the second coordinate is returned by quering the points vector PointsObject::GetPointR() Natural_4 [4, 2123.461, BEZIER, 1] 0 [0/0], 0.000[0.000] --> (200.000,0.000,0.000) -- (200.000,0.000,0.000) 1 [17/0], 0.250[530.865] --> (0.000,700.000,0.000) -- (0.000,700.000,0.000) 2 [34/0], 0.500[1061.731] --> (-200.000,0.000,0.000) -- (-200.000,0.000,0.000) 3 [51/0], 0.750[1592.596] --> (0.000,-200.000,0.000) -- (0.000,-200.000,0.000) Uniform_4 [4, 2107.332, BEZIER, 2] 0 [0/0], 0.000[0.000] --> (200.000,0.000,0.000) -- (200.000,0.000,0.000) 1 [7/0], 0.350[737.566] --> (4.370,699.695,0.000) --> (0.000,700.000,0.000) 2 [14/0], 0.700[1475.132] --> (-199.849,8.692,0.000) -- (-200.000,0.000,0.000) 3 [17/0], 0.850[1791.232] --> (-4.394,-199.953,0.000) -- (0.000,-200.000,0.000) Uniform_16 [4, 2107.332, BEZIER, 2] 0 [0/0], 0.000[0.000] --> (200.000,0.000,0.000) -- (200.000,0.000,0.000) 1 [7/0], 0.350[737.566] --> (4.370,699.695,0.000) -- (0.000,700.000,0.000) 2 [14/0], 0.700[1475.132] --> (-199.849,8.692,0.000) -- (-200.000,0.000,0.000) 3 [17/0], 0.850[1791.232] --> (-4.394,-199.953,0.000) -- (0.000,-200.000,0.000) Uniform_128 [4, 2124.555, BEZIER, 2] 0 [0/0], 0.000[0.000] --> (200.000,0.000,0.000) -- (200.000,0.000,0.000) 1 [182/0], 0.353[749.359] --> (-1.373,699.970,0.000) -- (0.000,700.000,0.000) 2 [363/0], 0.703[1494.600] --> (-199.996,1.279,0.000) -- (-200.000,0.000,0.000) 3 [440/0], 0.853[1811.636] --> (1.380,-199.995,0.000) -- (0.000,-200.000,0.000) If no further help is needed please don't forget to set the thread as Solved. Cheers, R

hello, I've lookied into the live selection tool and internally it's using GetPixelInfoPolygon, or the equivalent for point and edges. You also have Get<xxx>PixelBuffer where <xxx> is Point, Edge or Polygon. That return the internal buffer constructed inside the Init function of the ViewportSelect Class. pixelBuffer[ width*y + x] will give you the right pixel on that buffer. Sorry to have missed those functions. Cheers, Manuel

thanks to all of you, got it working with axisstate.x = int(doc.GetData(c4d.DOCUMENTSETTINGS_GENERAL).GetBool(c4d.DOCUMENT_STATEX)) kind regards mogh

@m_magalhaes ok,It's a bit complicated

@r_gigante Perfect! Worked like a charm. Thank you.

Thanks a lot! That helps Cheers, Frank

@m_adam You are a genius - I am in awe! Thank you everyone for the help!

@m_magalhaes This morning: uff more learning and work. This Afternoon lets try this code ... mind blown ... thank you ! I'll mark this as solved hence I think ist a good way to close a thread with a working prototype for others to learn. Thank You again, @zipit & @m_magalhaes mogh

Thanks, Maxime! That answers all my questions I'll mark this solved now.

@m_adam & @PluginStudent Thank you both! This was exactly what I needed. This forum is so so helpful.

Hi @r_gigante, @zipit, I'm creating something like the following code. I tried to use the GetAndCheckHierarchyClone, this works but the cloner object became to slow to calculate. For this reason I used the following solution: def __init__(self): pass #self.SetOptimizeCache(True) def GetVirtualObjects(self, op, hh): instance = op.GetDown() if instance is None: return c4d.BaseObject(c4d.Onull) dirty = op.CheckCache(hh) or op.IsDirty(c4d.DIRTY_DATA) instance_dirty = instance.IsDirty(c4d.DIRTY_DATA) dirty |= instance_dirty if not dirty: return op.GetCache(hh) cloner = c4d.BaseObject(c4d.Onull) count = 3 n = 0 while n < count: instance.GetCache().GetClone().InsertUnder(cloner) n += 1 cloner.Message(c4d.MSG_UPDATE) return cloner So, by just deactivating the SetOptimizeCache and cloning only the cache of the instance object the cloner object calculate is become to fast. The unique problem now is the cloner object is return the cache of previous modification on the instance object. This is perceptible only with bool parameters. Example: When I check a bool parameter of the instance object, the cloner return the result of the previous state of the bool parameter. but if I mouseover the cloner in the Viewport or I select it object manager this update the cloner object. Thanks

Ok, thanks @r_gigante... I'll keeping going with the workaround.

Oh man, it really was the missing message. Never thought it would have such weird consequences to forget that. Thanks guys!

@zipit This plug-in has a twin plug-in that has some properties with the same name, and I suspect that the properties with the same name cause conflicts (even if the ids are different).I made the modification and it is normal now. Thank you for your reply Cheers

hello, that's because you set the width of your columns to more that what it show. But you can simply passed that argument when you add your customGUI settings.SetBool(c4d.TREEVIEW_RESIZE_HEADER, False) In the c++ doc you have that page and in python this one Cheers, Manuel