0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Ash looks great, for play without texture files =D
Really good! It will be an awesome tool. I'll give more feedback via irc.
Shoozza did you use any tool to draw these mockups or they are just your hand-made drawings?
What widget toolkit is that? Or are you going to use WinAPI for Windows and something cross platform (eg QT/WX) for the other two? I didn't mention GTK because it isn't native on Mac and requires X11.
Quote from: jrgp on June 27, 2012, 07:01:15 pmWhat widget toolkit is that? Or are you going to use WinAPI for Windows and something cross platform (eg QT/WX) for the other two? I didn't mention GTK because it isn't native on Mac and requires X11.I'm writing it in Lazarus/Delphi. I think it allows me to choose between QT and GTK when compiling for GNU/Linux.It uses Carbon for the Mac OS X GUI so I guess X11 is not necessary.
I'd stay away from MacOS-like dock with resizing icons. It looks fancy but not practical with small icons. A single row sidebar or a 2-row window like on mockup 1 and 2 would be easier to use.
Another thing to consider is a sidebar on the right with potential features like layers which can be locked, hidden, or have some other effect applied to them.
Config could be moved inside one of the dropdown menus instead of having its own personal button.
Speaking of config window - it looks rather messy. Are you sure there will be this many settings? For example, does Theme really need a whole separate tab?
Title bar could also be a bit more compact IMHO. For example, "window" menu could be moved inside "view". "Texture" could instead be part of a sidebar or a small window like it is now in polyworks.
Then have all the tools in one sidebar/window, and additional things like texture picker, layers, etc in another sidebar. Pretty much how photoshop or most other graphic editors do it, even Polyworks 1 does it very similarly.
Also keep in mind the possibility of making maps from within Soldat itself, so players can edit and play the map at the same time. Maybe some of that PW2 code will help achieving that.
Why don't you use C++ instead?
Are you forking or using bits of code from the original map editor that's in Delphi?
Quote from: jrgp on June 28, 2012, 06:42:45 amWhy don't you use C++ instead?It will be part of the official repo, Lazarus/FPC is good enough for this, code reuse in and from Soldat is easily possible (keep stuff in sync while updating the game).Works out of the box without redist kit installs on Windows.
Quote from: Shoozza on June 28, 2012, 07:09:29 amQuote from: jrgp on June 28, 2012, 06:42:45 amWhy don't you use C++ instead?It will be part of the official repo, Lazarus/FPC is good enough for this, code reuse in and from Soldat is easily possible (keep stuff in sync while updating the game).Works out of the box without redist kit installs on Windows.If this is going to be open source, and it's sharing little bits of code with Soldat, does that mean some of Soldat's source will be public? I guess I assume'd you'd make the source for your map editor public (like your old intentions with OpenSoldat) but I guess I don't see any mention of that in your posts.
I'm surprised people actually use the tool box as the hotkeys for different tools in PW are very easy to learn. I hid the tool box years ago.
Online mode, for more than one mapper working on the same map
Will be PMS improved to add little miniature of map and other data like Creator etc...
The dock would be too difficult to quickly aim - true. It would be good if there are too many items in tools though. Another way would be to add second actions for the button which you could switch to.
All right panel stuff is missing currently. But somehow you are the first one who notices it.
Dropdown menus you mean the hidden menubar?Not sure if moving the config in the menu (which is hidden) is helpful for new people.The button seems to be a simple solution for changing settings and it doesn't take much space either.Or why do you want to move it somewhere else?
Im not sure if it needs it but I just was quickly added stuff so if you know better primary tab entries let me know. What are the other issues you see with it?
You don't think the titlebar in menu 5 is good? It has a minimal space for dragging and maximizing (by double click) but that space could be hidden in fullscreen.I see no reason to make the menu deeper as there is plenty of room for it when its visible (it's hidden by default and can be showed by pressing alt or making it always visible in options).
If there are so many tools that even a two-columns-wide full-height sidebar is not enough - you're doing something wrong. Polyworks is simpler than photoshop, so if photoshop can fit all its tools in a simple sidebar - then PW2 can too. Yet another photoshop reference: some of the buttons in its sidebar reveal additional tools if you click-and-hold on them. For example, if you click and hold on "Brush" tool - you'll also see icons pop up for Pencil, Mixer Brush and Color Replacement tool. If there really are that many tools - they could be grouped in a similar way.
By dropdown menus I mean "File/Edit/Texture/View/Window" menus in the title bar.From my experience many programs have config/preferences/options button located in one of such menus instead of having a separate button in a different place (though I've seen some programs use the latter too). I think thats where most users will go looking if they want to change some settings. They will definitely notice the menus in the title bar because every program has them, but not everyone will immediately notice a small button in the opposite corner. It doesn't make a huge difference really, but I think placing it in the dropdown menu is a safer and more reliable solution than a button that has to be coded and maintained separately. Though on the other hand, it's placed in different menus in different programs, so unless menu names are obvious enough - user might end up having to look through multiple menus in order to find the button. :S Gah, I don't know...
Well, here's how I would group things up:General Settings - File paths, file extensions, updater - most common settings that you'd find in any program.Interface - Theme, Language, Hotkeys.Network - Privacy, Online editingMap Settings - IMHO doesn't belong in config at all. Config is about customizing how the program works, so map settings don't belong there (unless it's about how the program displays maps). With most programs you set them up the way you want and then don't touch the config again. Map settings is something you'll change very often when working on different maps, so having it in "Edit" dropdown menu would be more accessible.Report Bug - belongs in the "Help" dropdown menu (you already have bugtracker there).Collection Settings - not quite sure what that is. :SWelcome page - unnecessary, instead maybe use "about" window in "help" menu.
Additionally, a tree-like appearance would help organize and group things a bit. Here's an example from Miranda IM's options window (see attached image)It just bugs me a bit how all other menus have a more general purpose, but then there's another menu dedicated exclusively to textures. Functionality and appearance-wise I have no complaints, though I would suggest having tabs and titlebar on separate rows, so that no matter how many tabs you have - you still won't have to hide/unhide title bar.
Advanced stuff if time permits:AutosavePolygon drawing with automatic triangulationComponent/Shape library (improved Prefab handling)Online mode, for more than one mapper working on the same mapViews: viewing multiple areas of a single or multiple open Maps at the same time...
