GeData?

Helper

On 11/11/2013 at 12:20, xxxxxxxx wrote:

User Information:
Cinema 4D Version:   R14
Platform:   Windows ;
Language(s) :     C++ ;   PYTHON ;

---------
C++ is, compared to Python, sometimes a bit mysterious.

I have found out, thanks to this forum, how to set the blendmode in a layer shader.
But getting the blend mode is something I do not yet understand.
That is because I do not fully understand GeData?

How to get the blending mode out of this GeData, or how to interpreted GeData?

Set: 	res = layer->SetParameter(LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_MODE, BlendMultiply);
Get:	res = layer->GetParameter(LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_MODE, blendMode);

Another "simple" question:
Is there no SearchMaterial (or SearchObject) as in Python?

Helper

On 11/11/2013 at 14:15, xxxxxxxx wrote:

GeData is just a container. Similar to BaseContainer.

The workflow to retrieve data from it as follows:
-Create an empty GeData instance with whatever variable name you prefer (typically it's named "d" or "data")
-Use GetParameter() to fill the GeData container with some value you want to retrieve (usually descriptions or description ID's)
-Get the value out of the GeData container by using the specific type of data you saved into it

Example:

    GeData bm;  
  layer->GetParameter(LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_MODE, bm);     //LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_MODE is a LONG value  
  LONG blendMode = bm.GetLong();                          //So we look in the GeData container for a LONG type of result  
  GePrint("blendMode = " + LongToString(blendMode));  
  
  GeData bv;  
  layer->GetParameter(LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_BLEND, bv);   //LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_BLEND is a Real value  
  Real blendValue = bv.GetReal();                        //So we look in the GeData container for a Real type of result  
  GePrint("BlendStrength = " + RealToString(blendValue));

If you're wondering how I knew what type LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_MODE & LAYER_S_PARAM_SHADER_BLEND were.
I got that info from looking at the lib_layershader.h file for these two IDs.

-ScottA

Helper

On 11/11/2013 at 23:51, xxxxxxxx wrote:

Thanks, for the as always clear explanation.