Hey @Dimitris_Derm. , what do you mean by 'method'? CallCommand just invokes the CommandData plugin which has been registered under the plugin ID you passed to the call. What you can do, is resolve the numeric plugin ID integer value to a symbol. But unlike for message IDs, the docs currently do not resolve symbols to their integer values. You can do two things: Just search in the main symbol definition file with a text editor, i.e., {c4d}/resource/modules/python/libs/python311/c4d/__init__.py Or use mxutils.SymbolTranslationCache which exists for the very purpose of resolving such integer values to symbols. But in your case, 14046 , you will draw a blank in both cases, which simply means developers never defined a public symbol for that command. [image: 1777286409522-1b4e6537-4fad-48a1-b4ec-c6edd4103083-image.png] Cheers, Ferdinand

Hello @Dimitris_Derm. No, with islands I do not mean different objects. With islands are polygon (selection) islands meant. And that is just the term that is used for these things. The "Plane" object below has two polygon islands, the left and right rectangle shown in the viewport, each composed out of 4 * 5 polygons. They are islands because they are topological disjunct from each other - you cannot 'get' from one island to another without jumping over a gap. [image: 1777019034509-a88ac530-c105-430c-bd11-f922f5688881-image.png] The same can be applied to selections, as shown below. Now the left polygon island in the mesh has two polygonal selection islands. You cannot get from one selection island to another without jumping over a gap (they are topologically disjunct). [image: 1777019065284-bf41be6a-3993-4eb1-b603-438df9aa1bb3-image.png] This is a requirement because as my code example demonstrates, when bridging in island mode, you just specify a polygon and a point (and set the flags), and the tool then 'grows out' the to be bridged patch from the given polygon, based on the active polygon selection. And this growing will stop at topological boundaries. So, when you would bridge from the selection in the lower left corner of the left rectangle (to some unspecified target in another mesh), it would only grow into these four polygons. The selection in the top right corner would never be part of the operation. Cheers, Ferdinand

Hey @Dimitris_Derm. , no there is currently no dedicated plugin class for MoGraph effectors and fields in Python, only the scripting objects exist at the moment. Cheers, Ferdinand

Ah ! They are called Proxy Tags and I can see the actual tag with the MSG_GETREALTAGDATA ! Thank you ️

Hey, well, "intended" would be the wrong word, but I am aware. The whole resource parsing situation is a bit of a mess at the moment, both in C++ and the Python API. Why is it like this? A description is defined by a res file (more or less its GUI declaration) and an h file which declares symbols for parameter IDs. The resource for the loop tool looks like this: CONTAINER ToolLoopSelection { NAME ToolLoopSelection; INCLUDE ToolBase; GROUP MDATA_MAINGROUP { BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_SELECTIONS { } BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_NON_QUADS { } BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_POLES { } } HIDE MDATA_COMMANDGROUP; } I.e., it indeed only defines three parameters. But the header file looks like this: #ifndef TOOLLOOPSELECTION_H__ #define TOOLLOOPSELECTION_H__ enum { MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_SELECTIONS = 1100, // BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_NON_QUADS = 1110, // BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SEL_STOP_AT_POLES = 1120, // BOOL MDATA_LOOP_FIRST_VERTEX = 1130, // LONG MDATA_LOOP_SECOND_VERTEX = 1131, // LONG MDATA_LOOP_POLYGON_INDEX = 1132, // LONG MDATA_LOOP_BOTH_SIDES = 1133, // BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SWAP_SIDES = 1134, // BOOL MDATA_LOOP_SELECTION_TYPE = 1140, // LONG (must be SELECTION_NEW, SELECTION_ADD or SELECTION_SUB) MDATA_LOOP_SEL_POLYGON_OBJECT = 1150, // LINK }; #endif // TOOLLOOPSELECTION_H__ I.e., it not only defines these three parameters, but also all the others. Because there are all these "hidden" parameters which are written into the data container of the tool, but never show up in the GUI. What collides here is (a) the a bit irregular (but not illegal) behavior of a resource to define more parameters in its header file than are used in the resource and (b) the questionable decision of our resource parser to ignore hidden parameters. Our resource parsing is automated, i.e., I cannot just go into a file and just add these parameters for a docs build. I could touch the resource parsers for Python and C++, but I do not have the time for that right now as they has been written in a very opaque manner. My advice is simply what the docs suggest: Search in the header files directly. Go to your Cinema folder, make sure that the resource.zip is either unpacked to the local folder (the folder existing does not mean necessarily that it has been fully unpacked) or an external folder of your choice. And then simply search in that folder with an editor of your choice. [image: 1775557617243-c122abc5-8cfc-40da-90be-534532600b4a-image-resized.png] At some point I will replace the resource and symbols parsing for Python and C++, because we made there quite a mess in the past with questionable parsers and manually curated lists. But for now this cannot be changed and using the files directly is the way to go when you want to look at descriptions. Cheers, Ferdinand PS: The C++ docs are NOT inherently better in that regard. The parser shares there the same flaws. The reason why you find some symbols there is because developers have duplicated them from the resources into the frameworks.