Thank you both! So it does work if you link the material to the object.
While testing this a little bit further, I sometimes got inconsistent results. At some point assigning the material to the object data did actually work, but after removing and adding the library override, it stopped working again.
What gave me consistent results: only add an override to the object, not the object data. Then override the material assignment and make sure it’s linked to the object, not the object data.
Hello,
seems that library overrides are getting more and more polished over time, it’s great !
However, I’m a bit stuck trying to do something :
In our actual pipeline we have a very useful feature that allow to switch assets between some lowpoly versions for fast animation and of course the original for rendering or refined animation.
Given how proxy and instances work it’s quite easy to do : in each asset’s file we have two collections (low and final) that shares the same rig. In the shots we just swap the instanced collection of an asset and the proxified rig stay the same. Allowing animation and constraints to be kept between low and final version.
Now I’m trying to recreate the same thing using overrides and of course it gets much more complicated. I can use Remap User on overridden collections but all the data from the rig( pose, constraints, anim) get lost in the process.
I’m I doing it wrong ? Is it something planned to work at some point ?
I can think of at least two ways to get something like that with overrides, did some quick demonstration in this .blend file (link character_v1 or character_v2 and make an override of it).
First is just having lowres and highres sub-collections along side the rig one in your main character collection, then you decide which one to show/use with the exclude setting of the view layer.
First is having the instancing of the collection along side the rig in your main char collection, then once linked and overridden you exclude both geometry collections ‘forever’ and can chose which one to use in the empty instance.
Thanks a lot for taking time to answer @mont29 , it’s really appreciated ! I wouldn’t have thought of it but sounds clear and simple once you’ve explained it , this open the doors to many possibilities !