Am I correct that now when you set an object as an non-contained child of another object, rather than
actually doing that, it makes it a child of the 'parent of the new parent'??
Maybe a stepped through example...
This is what I 'want':
Parent 1
Parent 2 (child of Parent 1 - contained)
Child 1 (child of Parent 2 - non contained - events go to Parent 2)
This is what I 'get':
Parent 1
Parent 2 (child of Parent 1 - contained)
Child 1 (child of Parent 1 - no events go to Parent 2)
I think I understand the 'reasoning' behind this (some sort of 'optimisation', but it creates a number of flaws
1. Events don't go to the parent you want them to go to
2. Z-order can be buggered up, Children should be above parents (or has been the way in the past)
