Thanks for creating the subcomposition I will have a play :-)
Re-closing the feature request I would suggest its still relevant particularly for new users. The subcomposition solution will get buried in the forum over time and we should really be striving for consistency with the top level nodes. Maybe this is a conversation about rationalising functions across node groups. Inconsistencies will only confuse new users.
Edit:
Also you have now labelled the feature request "Withdrawn by reporter" which is not the case, I have not withdrawn the request.
Others may feel the report has merit based on the obvious inconsistencies with the node groups features. I would assume any feature request which highlights inconsistencies in a group of nodes should be discussed and not just circumvented using a subcomposition.
Magneson hey, not rude we are coming from different directions. I had thought about locking the movement to the layer bounds but hadn't managed to get it to work yet. Your example comp is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for taking the time to share the method, cheers.
Magneson not sure, in your comp the mapping is taking place inside a separate scaled window from the output. In my case I only have one window with a target layer for mouse interaction. I had a quick play and can see it might be a workaround but it would be more elegant to have the 'restrict to layer' option duplicated across all mouse interactions to reduce node clutter and to make things less complicated. Nice layout for the mapping comp BTW.
