Can't Import Array Tags to SQL Tags like UDTs

UDT Tags Import Well from OPC to SQL Tags:
If I have a UDT containing 10 integers in the PLC and browse to this UDT in Ignition Designers’s OPC browser, the UDT can be expanded and shows the members as expected. I can also drag that UDT over to SQL Tags, and the whole UDT tree will be created as SQL tags. This is all great.

Array Tags Do NOT Import Well from OPC to SQL Tags:
Now try the same thing with a PLC array of 10 integers–which from a user perspective is really no different than the UDT previously noted. I can browse the array members just like the UDT members. But when it comes to adding this array to SQL tags, it’s a no go. Drag-n-dop creates a single non-expandable string tag, rather than the desired array tag folder with 10 integer member tags inside it. Here’s a slightly more complex example (array of simple UDTs, rather than an array of integers):
[attachment=1]Message 2014.04.29 154328.bmp.jpg[/attachment]
This gets ugly when you have a PLC array of even more complex UDTs. It seems you either have to create this one piece at a time in SQL tags, or create one instance of the member UDT (or UDTs if more than one kind of member UDT) as an Ignition UDT(s) and then create another UDT with a bunch of instances of that UDT as shown below. Doing this isn’t real easy because you can’t use copy and paste (or, better yet, multi-instance wizard) to add members to an Ignition UDT.
[attachment=0]Message 2014.04.29 154911.bmp.jpg[/attachment]
Am I missing a better way to do this, or is Ignition due for an array tag handling improvement?

Unfortunately you’re not missing anything, it’s just that our support for arrays in SQLTags is basically non-existent.

Compounding this problem is that the server you’re pulling these tags from takes advantage of the fact that a tag can reference other tags without having to be a folder - so structure members and array elements have a parent tag instead of parent folder - another thing which we have no support for right now when it comes to drag and drop. There’s nothing wrong with this - in fact it’s how I would implement it in our drivers if I wasn’t well-aware of the aforementioned limitations.

I don’t have a work-around for you. Hopefully we can work on these things in the near future.

Thank you for confirming Kevin. Support for array tags (including arrays of UDTs) will be very welcome.

I’m wondering if you could reuse much of what you’ve done to handle UDTs to handle arrays. Arrays are kind of like the simpler precursors to UDTs. I’m probably missing minor details like the fact they are implemented quite differently. Thought I’d throw this out there in case it sparks any helpful ideas.