Written by RobertT the 4 Jul 08 at 13:45.
Category: Interface.
Status: New
Description
It would be very helpful if Tex fields in things such as constraints and modifiers (e.g. Displace modifier) and Obj fields (e.g. Array modifier) could be automatically populated (as they are in other areas, such as Tex in the Material window's texture slots) with available names of Textures or Objects as appropriate.
This could greatly expedite workflow and make the UI more pen-computing friendly as such editing actions would then be more point-and-click instead of having to type in Texture/Object names in certain fields when in others they are automatically listed and selectable.
Perhaps this will be addressed and made consistent in the upcoming UI refresh.
i voted yes for this but in larger scenes, this dropdown list can end up being LUDICROUSLY large!
instead of populating a list, a better option would be almost like a "dropper" tool... instead of typing the name, select a little dropper icon and then go pick your object or texture node or whatever... whatever you picked gets assigned.
Maby this could be countered by not providing a drop down box but a smart insert function. When you start typing it will show you a list of things to enter you can choose from and the more you type the more specific it will get. Although this will defeat the pen input scenario requested by RobertT.
Another Idea is to make the objects selectable from the outliner.
oh, and if we go with the "dropper" option, let's make it so that you can use the dropper tool to pick an object anywhere it makes sense - in the 3d views or in text lists like the OUTLINER! this would make selection tasks easy even in a really crowded scene.
I agree that a simple dropdown list is not enough here.
But a good data-browser for these fields combined with search and drag&drop capabilities (as a lot of people already mentioned: the outliner is perfect for this) might just improve handling here a lot.
Related idea:
Display list of avilable objects for "OB:"- buttons to select from
http://www.blenderstorm.org/qapoll/ideas/idea/181/
Werner
PS: I wonder why this has _not_ been accepted as a duplicate of 181? No complain, but i see little to no differences.