Is there a way to remove a particular constraint from every selected bones?

Hi, so I made an action constraint and copied it to serval bones, now I made some modifications to the action of those constraints and I would like to update them accordingly. So I wonder if there’s any way to batch delete those constraints and put them back with Copy Attributes or at least link their data without going through the hassle of coding some fancy script? :v

1 Like

You can use “copy constraints to selected bones” action (I just get it from searchbar menu whenever I need it) to copy all constraints from active to all selected. Replaces and copies all constraints, not just one in particular, if that’s an issue for you.

It could’ve worked but my problem is that I don’t want to replace every single constraints of every bones with the active one since some of them have different and unique properties I don’t want to mess around with x)

No one found an answer for this?
How do Blender people do this?

Like suppose i want to remove an action from 100 bones. I need to click them individually and remove the action constraint x100 times?

What’s the philosophy behind giving an higher priority to “active object concept” over changing multiple properties at the same time?
Like, when you make a selection of multiple object, the last on is the active one and changes on any properties are only made to that active object, ignoring the properties of the other objects. Does anyone really think this feature is important over changing all the shared properties of all the objects of the selection?

Another case where this is absurd, select 100 objects, change the name of a constraint, it only changes the for the active object, the last one selected.
So you need to change the name 100 times.
Isn’t that crazy?

Why isn’t the ALT trick not just working for everything by default?

I found that but still, I don’t get why people should go through scripting for this…:

> import bpy
> 
> for bone in bpy.context.selected_pose_bones:
>     for c in bone.constraints:
>         if 'Action' in c.name:
>             bone.constraints.remove(c)  # Remove constraint

Yes, it is. Not only because different object types can (and do) have different properties, but simply because multi-editing is a much, much more rare occurrence.

Because you haven’t stepped up and written the necessary code.

Because that’s what’s scripting is for. Adding things that aren’t there out of the box. Because no matter what you do you can’t please everyone.

Yes, it is. Not only because different object types can (and do) have different properties, but simply because multi-editing is a much, much more rare occurrence.

In which case would you make a multiple object selection only to change last objects property?
I’m pretty sure all people but you would expect all selected objects sharing the properties of the last one to change.
Btw If you rig you will edit multiple bones quite often.

Because you haven’t stepped up and written the necessary code.

How is this constructive?
Even if I would “Step up” and code, it wouldn’t get in if most people think like you that it’s a bad design.

Thanks for sharing your opinion but i still don’t get your point.
In what case would it be unintuitive if all the shared properties are changed in a multiple selection?

This is BA, not devtalk, not RCS. If you have a better design and capable of implementing it, go for it. Venting the “whys” here is useless. That is how that was constructive.

On which of those would you like to answer the most? devtalk or RCS?
I’ll create a duplicate just for you

Idk man, I just want to talk about it and get others thought on it, while posting a solution to an unanswered post.
You seem pretty engaged

I don’t need a duplicate of that post. No one does. Least of all the developers.

If you have a concrete idea - that’s what RCS is supposed to be for. If you want to implement it and get it in - there’s devtalk and tracker. If you post another venting tirade on either, you’ll just be ignored.

I don’t have a concrete idea, i just want to discuss the topic and BA is the place for it.
Bye

Ctrl alt C removes constraints of selected bones, and then you can copy constraints to selected bones.

I know but if you have multiple constraints it removes them all.
That’s why i posted the script where you can input the constraint name, then do your procedure.

Ahh I see. Maybe the copy constraints addon can copy selected constraints to other bones?

Well, i face those ‘much, much more rare occurrences’ on a daily basis and every Autodesk refugee will stumble upon it sooner or later. Thats simply industry standard in every other 3D package and they’re very aware of that. It’s like this ‘Right Click Select’ thingy they tried to defend for ages, no logic behind it.

Multi-object editing (I mean the mesh edit mode) took absolute ages to get in for a reason, and it still is not up to shape. Reworking the concept of active object, selection, UI for editing shared properties, etc. etc. would be an equally demanding task. There’s still, in parts, 20+ years of legacy in the software. Some of the users (heck, I think even some recent devs) weren’t even born when some of those decisions were made. Who’s to say why things the way they are, now? Rewriting huge parts of Blender takes serious work, time, and requires even more serious motivation. Crying “why” isn’t motivation, for anyone.

It’s like people think Blender devs are sitting around picking their noses. They have considerable workload as is. Presuming that your own issues and goals are more important than everyone else’s leads nowhere. @manuDesk claims they want to “discuss”. So far I’ve only seen a tantrum, and responded in kind.

I get that tantrum thing and people here being used to newcomers complaining but really, there is a part of me wondering if it was just a design choice to make Blender behave like that.
Maybe the priority for this is very low and maybe it is very complex to change these.
Knowing the state of the “multi-object-editing” is all i ask.
Even better if we can get a bit of history as why things are as they are.
If there are already many topics about it I would love that you would give me links to them, that is constructive.
Before proposing new stuff and behaviors, it is good to know why things are as they are, there might be good reasons and understanding them is just a good thing and here is a good place to share that information.

Before proposing something, it is good to know other people’s idea, not just from Maya or “industry standard” users but also from oldschool Blender users and people who think Blender is fine as is.
Here is a good place to discuss that.
It is also a good place to understand “the why” of it, cause there is often an explanation and someone to give it.

Sometimes some changes are very simple to implement, it’s just a design choice or “consistency” stuff.
Developers seem to care a lot about those and refuse to act on simple things involving the Consistency factor. Maybe multi-editing is one of those?
We can already change multiple objects similar properties but just not all of them and that’s why I’m wondering.

And this is an important topic. Multi-editing is something that would save people a long time.
For someone who doesn’t know how to script this can be a game changer.
For you, it is unimportant, that’s a valid opinion and I’m glad you shared it.
Even better, you now add some history to it and a hint about the complexity of changing it.
Great!

You are right, I cry a lot. But the more I understand Blender, the more I like it. But I need to understand why things are as they are. Once I understand, I don’t cry, I do the opposite and convince people to join Blender.

You missed your chance of me shutting it up by not posting this:

It seems to be a WIP which makes me very happy.

The point I wanted to confirm is that anyone making a multi-selection expects all objects to be affected if a shared property gets changed.
If you told me that it is not the behavior You expect I would have liked to know why.
I was just wondering if it is generally what everyone expects, it would make me feel more normal.
Knowing it is not in the build cause it is too big of a change but it would make sense would have helped.
Knowing it is being worked is even better.
But you being passive-aggressive and making me feel like I’m an annoying crybaby is just giving me hope for life and the future, it boosts my motivation to an extreme level, I literally feel excited, I feel like I’m 20 again.

1 Like

Do you write complex software for tens of thousands of users? If the answer is “no”, then you shouldn’t be making statements like that one.

That hypothesis is meaningless. Someone who doesn’t know how to script? Then that someone will find someone else who does. That’s the way things usually go when there’s a job to be done. That’s why big studios have their own departments dealing with Maya scripting, Max scripting, whatever scripting. If you’re a one-man-studio, you’re already having to do everything yourself anyway. Or perhaps outsource some things.

So what, exactly, stopped you from going out to the tracker and finding it in the first place?

I don’t know if I can be any more transparent…

Do you write complex software for tens of thousands of users? If the answer is “no”, then you shouldn’t be making statements like that one.

Well, I do write complex software for tens of thousands of users.
Sorry but I really know what I’m talking about… Sometimes it’s just like this, simples changes… Easy stuff, even if it sounds complex to you, it is very easy for and advanced programmer, like routine stuff… Copy/Pasting basically.
You will get there eventually!

The complexity or number of users has nothing to do with design choice.

That hypothesis is meaningless. Someone who doesn’t know how to script? Then that someone will find someone else who does. That’s the way things usually go when there’s a job to be done. That’s why big studios have their own departments dealing with Maya scripting, Max scripting, whatever scripting. If you’re a one-man-studio, you’re already having to do everything yourself anyway. Or perhaps outsource some things.

Then why make an UI, we should just animate with code like back in the days.
Even better, I should ask “someone”, like an advanced programmer (one that write complex stuff for thousand of users) to animate-code it for me!

So what, exactly, stopped you from going out to the tracker and finding it in the first place?

I don’t know if I can be any more transparent…

What stopped me? The term “multi-object-editing” that you provided was missing from my search tools and I didn’t think of using it before talking to you, thanks for that.

The hate you have for me seems pretty dense

1 Like

You’re taking this way too personally and that prevents you from understanding what I’m saying.

I take it personal as I don’t understand your intervention.

You seemed more annoyed than anything that I question myself about why multi-editing not being into Blender but thanks for your answer i managed to find more bout the topic.

Whatever, I think Multi-editing is cool and something I would really want in Blender, almost as much as Sculpting Layers/Multires compatible Shape Keys.

Enjoy the “Remove Constraint By Name” script and feel free to discuss multi-editing with me any time.

1 Like