Can we Set Undo Amount?
GeneralDee
Posts: 132
Sometimes I find myself wanting to get back to a pose after forgetting to save at a certain point and I end up trying to undo to the earlier position. Sometimes the undo amount is not enough as I went a little too far. Is there a way to increase the amount of undo attempts?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
In DAZ Studio? No, I'm afraid not - I believe it is set by memory, not by number of undos, but it isn't user-editable.
That's really a shame. Photoshop manages to give you unlimited undo's, Blender can do it too, and I'm having a hard time believeing it's a RAM limitation, considering that Studio is taking only 1GB of RAM in a simple scene and still only manages 10 undo's. It would not be *that* hard to progam editing steps into a history object, given that everything is essentially parameter changes on loaded geometry and atributes.
P.S. I was really wanting to be your 55,555th comment, but alas, someone else beat me to it :)
I find it difficult to believe it's a memory limitation.
I just had the typical 15 or so..
and still have 23 gigs of unallocated memory...
----
but if that count of undo is actually about 16 .. that's a boundry size, can only count to 16 without making a bigger counter ..
---
Sorry to resurect such an old thread but, as far as I know, this serious limitation is still with us. I too have RAM to spare and I just had a situation where I over-wrote a scene because I forgot to update its sequence number. I should have been able to go back in history to before I moved the characters and posed them for the new iteration of the scene but the undo stack is so pathetically small that I could only go back a few steps.
This is yet another one of those user requests that just get ignored or dismissed with some lame excuse while we all know that user-configurable history stacks are commonplace these days.
Sometime UNDO doesn't work at all (ran into issue when deleting keyframes).
So SAVE often. Very often.
But is it actually a limitation? I kinda disagree, because I'm changing and customizing so many things besides the actual pose (think morphs, lighting settings, render settings, environment nodes, etc, etc.) that the last thing I would want to rely on to change a pose is the undo function. For the simple reason that it would change so many more things in my scene besides the figure I'm working on.
Not to mention that it's very easy to prevent any of these issues from happening. Have a pose you may want to use again? Save the pose! If you think you'll be in need of multiple poses or something like that? Use the timeline pane!
Seriously, the timeline pane is something not to be underestimated. If you specifically set up the types which you want to save then you can easily limit this to the transforms. This will make it very easy to undo as much of the pose as you want, assuming that you saved enough snapshots.
Yes, it's a limitation. Just because your workflow wouldn't accomodate this feature doesn't mean the rest of ours wouldn't. The most common reason for me to want to undo some 10's of steps is because while posing assets, I accidentally change the current camera position instead of switching to Perspective View first. This bit me tonight, which is why I was looking for the same solution. I only got about 20 undos in before running out. I have a 128GB RAM system, and many TBs of free disk storage. I also find it incredibly hard to believe that the problem is a cache "set by memory." If Daz isn't allocating enough arbitrarily-determined memory, then let me set a parameter for how much to utilize on an undo cache and Daz can preallocate the space all the live long day.
<soapbox>I'm happy to have new omnisex character figures to play with. I'm happy to have smoke/fog for the once a year I need it. But when Daz crashes 8-10 times a day; takes hours to shut down; has such limited posing tools for figures (which is what it was originally designed for) which were fine in 2000 but horribly outdated today; hard-coded addresses in JSON files that make it difficult to organize assets effectively; such limited documentation that no one can tell me what some of the menu items do; when I can't find assets because of the lack of a coherent storage strategy for assets from both Daz and 3rd parties (and its use of a CMS database? really?); etc., etc., which makes day-to-day use a royal PITA, I remember where the priorities lay. Selling new assets, period.
</soapbox>If that is literally true then there is an issue with the system, or possibly the content.
"modern" is not a useful term - describe what tools you want and make a feature request for them, no one can do anything with outdated or modern as feature descriptions.
They are relative paths (unless you have saved a file pointing to content that is not in a content directory). Most user-facing files can be moved, if you do it inside Daz Studio you can create links which will preserve all metadata and so on; you can also use categroies to organise content. Most applications that I am aware of that use external resources, whether 3D content or the likes of brushes, need the correct relative paths in order for the cotnent to work.
using a database is much flexible than using files on a disc - a single file can be in multiple categories. The database also allows for filtering by type or compatibility, which should make finding things easier if you are willing to use the available tools.
The limitation on the undo stack is a throwback to a previous era of ancient software. We all know this. Whether or not it could easily be fixed is another thing altogether. Did the current (small) dev team write that code? Are there any knock-on effects? It's easy to throw eggs from the sidelines but anyone who has any coding or dev experience will understand that 'oh, just increase that value' might not be quite as simple as it first appears to the layperson.
I find the 'move back to the last thing I was browsing' limit in the contents tab highly limiting/annoying but, if you're needing to roll back 30,40 or 50 active steps in your scene it might be time to consider starting again or rethinking your 'save scene' policy!
Richard - there are a fair few products that require the relative paths to be untouched and I suspect that's what rwetmore is referring to. Any script that is called from another script cannot be readily moved from its designated relative location unless unencrypted access is available (not often) to modify the parent script. The superb UltraScenery series springs to mind: We thought we could move that to, oh, Environments -> Landscape -> Toolkits in our directory structure. Hah! No! It needs to be where it's put by DIM. Understandable once I'd had a look through how it worked, but it's not obvious sometimes. Those of us who use our own content structure do get caught out by this on occasion but I can't see a workaround with how Studio currently works. It's certainly fixable if Daz were to designate and enforce a directory structure but I suspect it's too old and with too many older products for that to be possible.
Don't get me started on empty iRay materials directories.... ><