Topic: ATT syn

[Hugo]

Hello

How can the syn be moved without the ATT ATT git it as a trick.
Thank you


Hallo

Wie kann man die ATT syn ohne das die ATT verschoben werden git es da einen Trick.
Danke

[Lee Mac]

Not sure I understand, but maybe modify the block definition?

[Hugo]

Is because when I use command ATTsyn me when I moved the ATT, ATT pushed back the back to the old postition
But I want to avoid that.
How do I make the best which the ATT position not changeable if I want to synchronize the ATT.

Thank you

Wenn ich denn Befehl ATTsyn verwende wird mir wenn ich das ATT verschoben habe, die ATT wieder auf die alte Postition zurückverschoben
Das will ich aber vermeiden.
Wie mache ich das am besten das sich die ATT Position nicht änder wenn ich das ATT Synchronisieren will.

Danke

[irneb]

Unfortunately AttSync is an all-or-nothing sychronization command. It will change all properties of all attributes in all references of the block to match the AttDef's in the block definition. So if you have some references with moved, or otherwise altered attributes, these modifications would be lost. The only data not lost through AttSync is the text inside the attribute references (if the attribute wasn't renamed).

The only way I can think of circumventing this would be to save the modifications into a list. Then after applying AttSync re-modify the attributes back to their original positions, rotations, scale factors, properties, etc. BTW, this also applies to attributes in mirrored blocks - using AttSync on mirrored blocks would cause the attribute references to display back-to-front.

[Hugo]

ok thank you

I thought to myself that this is not so simple.

Thank you very much

Ok Danke

Dachte ich mir das das nicht so einfach ist.

Danke schön

[trogg]

Is there a way to edit an attribute after it has been made with the "Lock Position" to remove this setting?
I have tried the following:
selecting the attribute in the block editor and then changing the "Lock Position" setting in the properties palette. But after I do this, it still doesn't allow me to move the ATT.
I then tried Lee's Attribute Modification Suite http://lee-mac.com/attmodsuite.html(found here). It works but when the designers go into the block editor (which they shouldn't do for this project) they notice that even though the attribute has been moved, the insertion point still remains at its original position.

I personally think that Lee's routine works fine but I am curious about 1) A real way in which to remove the "Lock Position" setting for existing ATTs and 2) After moving the ATT, why the insertion point stays put?

[Lee Mac]

2) After moving the ATT, why the insertion point stays put?

Because you can modify attributes separately from a block definition - you can even create extra attributes for an Insert which are not part of the block definition.

However, all changes will be overridden by those found in the block definition when AttSync is called.

[Lee Mac]

1) A real way in which to remove the "Lock Position" setting for existing ATTs

Alter the setting in the Block Editor, then perform an AttSync to apply the changes to all Inserts.

However, as Irneb points out, AttSync is an 'all-or-nothing' operation, you can't apply specific properties unless you roll your own AttSync.

[alanjt]

However, as Irneb points out, AttSync is an 'all-or-nothing' operation, you can't apply specific properties unless you roll your own AttSync.

but even that is useless if another user runs ATTSYNC on the blocks.

[Lee Mac]

However, as Irneb points out, AttSync is an 'all-or-nothing' operation, you can't apply specific properties unless you roll your own AttSync.

but even that is useless if another user runs ATTSYNC on the blocks.

Oh exactly.

[ronjonp]

Startup  :

Code: [Select]

(progn (command ".undefine" "attsync") (defun c:attsync (/) (alert "OH Noes you dont! :P")))

[trogg]

Makes sense Lee - Thanks

[alanjt]

Startup  :

Code: [Select]

(progn (command ".undefine" "attsync") (defun c:attsync (/) (alert "OH Noes you dont! :P")))

Well I'll be damned. I always thought "." overlooked that. I never realized it only worked when in a command call.