ZDoom

Maybe a compromise, if possible, would be to increase the space between outlines from 2 pixels to 5 or 6.

MaxED wrote:You guys keep mentioning it, yet nobody have provided a reason WHY they should be gone.

Kappes Buur wrote:I find the outlines very confusing and unsettling, to the point that it strains my eyes trying to select a texture.

Enjay wrote:And conversely, I like the outlines because, to my eye, they separate the textures nicely.

What about a togglable option ? (like choosing black/white background, etc.) I guess it's the main thing that bothers me so this would resolve the issue and everyone would be satisfied.

Sandro wrote: Finally, I'm kinda disappointed with the memory taken since the new browser came : now it uses twice the memory it used previously (up to 800Mo instead of 400Mo).

Still, I'm not willing to update as long as this problem appears. I'll keep testing latest versions to see if it's better, but am I the only one, seriously ?

Personally, I believe something like this should have abided by the golden rule of if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

I think I'll better go and make Duke Builder or something. See ya.

[worried laughter] ... You're kidding, right?

IMHO, Reading last messages maybe we should take a deep breath, have a hot tea (or cold beer, it depends) and get some sleep.
This day was pretty intense for various reasons.

Un-user friendly? At times I have a feeling people are just being stubborn and not willing to deal with it. I see little to no difference between the old texture browser and the new one. Just because you don't want to work with it doesn't mean we'll go back in time to make one person happy. Or two. Or even three, for that matter, since that's pretty much the number of people who don't like the new browser. You can't win 'em all. Try to get used to it?

I don't see much meaningful difference between old and new, except for the tree view that moved from the left to the right. Otherwise, what? Texture dimensions are indicated on a label over the texture itself, giving a denser layout? There's an outline? Meh. Not worth getting worked over it.

Lud wrote:I see little to no difference between the old texture browser and the new one.

Old texture browser had used textures BOTH on top and in their original position, so you could look at used textures among the unused, compare and think if you want to reuse them or use something else instead. Especially with the fact that generally people group textures by first 4 characters or so, in non-directory-based texture packs that is. This is somewhat compensated by the tab key now.
That, and also the new texture browser, even with "used textures on top", would mix used textures with unused ones. Without any visual separators or anything.
I mean, I'm not even complaining anymore, but please don't say that there is "little to no difference". It's a major workflow breaker, I currently completely stopped any serious mapping until I find time/inspiration to fix this thing myself.

Also, in Quake, most likely no one complains because they put textures in directories.
Also, edit: sizes are apparently configurable now, at least that.

Also, edit (x2): http://i.imgur.com/4fVXdAR.png and https://github.com/m-x-d/GZDoom-Builder/pull/9
Is the pull request god happy now?
Didn't touch the texture ordering because don't remember what exactly changed in it.
Didn't duplicate the used textures into "all textures" list, since apparently it'd require the items to literally be duplicated. That's ew.

Also, edit (x3): This window should probably receive different default values for the texture sizes because with 128x128 only two textures fit in a row.

Old texture browser had used textures BOTH on top and in their original position, so you could look at used textures among the unused, compare and think if you want to reuse them or use something else instead. Especially with the fact that generally people group textures by first 4 characters or so, in non-directory-based texture packs that is. This is somewhat compensated by the tab key now.
That, and also the new texture browser, even with "used textures on top", would mix used textures with unused ones. Without any visual separators or anything.
I mean, I'm not even complaining anymore, but please don't say that there is "little to no difference". It's a major workflow breaker, I currently completely stopped any serious mapping until I find time/inspiration to fix this thing myself.

I agree with this, the fact that I have to jump between seeing used textures either on top, or in between other textures is quite a deal breaker. I see tab is implemented to jump between two modes each having either used textures on top, or all textures together - which can be used to switch back and forth between the modes. It is better than nothing, still a good step back in how I use the texture browser personally. The white lines many mention is a sharp contrast making the list more uneasy to look at (again my opinion) - and I always use the browser with a black background for the reason I only want the actual texture-graphics to pop out, not background or anything else.

So to me the new list has many things that makes it more tricky to work with it, and nothing at all that makes an improvement for my personal use (I don't use folders for my textures).
This is not a major problem as of now, since I just keep using the last version that got released with the old browser - but if nice new features are added to the new editor down the line I might have to go with the new one or perhaps go switching editor based on operations. The fact that so many has opinions on the new browser, and miss the old behavior - would be a good thing to look at and perhaps just add a "old behavior" toggle - which would make the list as it used to be, and then everyone would be happy as they could pick from the old and the new - the old one is already coded and should not be a hassle to re-implement I think? (though I'm a mapper, not a coder).

Remember also that people comment here and tell what they like and not like not because they want to complain or be mean - but because changes has a large impact on a job they spend hundreds or thousands of hours on, and which might cause problems if certain changes are forced. So as long as critique is constructive and not offensive - so should the feedback to questions and critiques be.

Sandro wrote:For some reason, the very latest version (r2787) now uses 1,7Go of memory

That would be the real deal breaker if it consumed that much memory for me.

Also not a fan of the new texture browser.

The very clear divide could help people tell at a glance what was used/not used, which was fantastic for people with vision problems and/or blurry monitors; now I have to really squint to make out the divide.

An option for the old one would be very much appreciated, please.

I just noticed some kind of strange texture warping going on in visual mode. I can't seem to pinpoint why or how it's happening but it acts like a slime trail in software mode does. Here's what I mean (might be hard to tell, but you can see the texture is warping along a straight line coming off that side of the teleporter's platform):



If I draw some crazy geometry to change the nodes and stuff, it gets rid of it in that spot but then happens again in some other direction (always straight lines though, never diagonal). Here's the map where it's happening. Reference vertex 623. Map format: UDMF GZDoom Doom 2. Seems to look fine in-game.

GZDoom Builder version: 2.3.0.2734

It's not some odd result from using grid smaller than 1? have you tried deleting the sector this happens in and just re-create it?

It looks like float imprecisions while calculating texture coordinates for triangulated sectors. And these distortions are along triangle edges (left and right one). It's quite noticeable in that picture that the distortion is in fact two slightly diagonal lines that end at the same point, between which the texture is a bit rotated.

@Nevander try to export an .obj file and see how this sector looks in triangles.