Forum

Group in subpatch

i think it is more intuitive for incoming and outgoiung ioboxes that already have a descriptive name to use it as such, and not to create extra nodes for them. thus control of pin naming is retained.

hei ggml,

sory for late. good point. i just fixed that, please try latest alpha.

kleiner finger >> hand:

i recently used alpha 28 for some days and have to say: grouping is awesome. but after a while i felt it’s lacking an ungrouping feature that could be associated to CTRL+SHIFT+G.

of course, this would be trickier than it sounds (think about little space for all those nodes that would pop up), but i can imagine a possible workflow if the so extracted nodes woud be selected after the ungrouping action.

could that be possible? what do you think?

another, more specific situation that is creating extra ioboxes in 28.1a:
when grouping a patch that is connected further down in two ways:

  • via named ioboxes
  • directly from node to node
    vvvv should be able to tell that it is feeding the same pins and use the named iobox also for the direct connections, instead of creating an extra iobox1

re group in subpatch - output.v4p (5.5 kB)

another small issue, same situation as above but concerning input pins:
when grouping a patch that is connected further up in two ways:

  • via named ioboxes
  • directly from node to node
    vvvv should be able to tell that it is feeding the same pins and use the named iobox also for the direct connections, however grouping isnt working at all

re group in subpatch - input.v4p (3.5 kB)

danks again. this situation now still ignores the labeled iobox but at least creates a new one for both to connect to. so while this adds an unnecessary iobox at least it works.