GZDoom Builder 2.3

Projects that have specifically been abandoned or considered "dead" get moved here, so people will quit bumping them. If your project has wound up here and it should not be, contact a moderator to have it moved back to the land of the living.
User avatar
FoptionMapping
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:27 am
Location: Shapes.shpA

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by FoptionMapping »

Image

This interface is horrible. Is there any way to return it back to it's original style, because I don't want to use an outdated version just for layouts.
User avatar
Sandro
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:03 am
Location: Erathia

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Sandro »

I must admit I'm kinda disappointed with this new textures browser as well.

1° - the grey square lines around each texture should be abandoned, like the previous browser did.
2° - the distinction between used textures and other textures should be increased.
For now there's too much contrast because of these two reasons to see textures correctly (in my opinion of course).

3° - In the textures menu, when you click on the wad, it should display all the textures of it instead of showing only the folders. It's just pointless not having so. (plus, the HD textures are not mixed with the others, but it should, as the sub-folders of the wad in the menu already allow you to choose to see them only)

After few days trying to be used to it, I've switched to the previous version, as it now takes too much time to distinguish the textures I want to use. I find it quite user-unfriendly, but again, that's just my opinion (although I see quite a lot of people complaining about it and -almost- no one praising it...).
However, I've to say it's a good improvement, except for those three reasons mentioned above. If you could fix them it would be awesome ! (Of course only if you agree it's a problem).

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). :?
janiform
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:56 am

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by janiform »

I'm interested in playing with the new terrain import feature, but I have no idea how to work with the OBJ format. Is there any simple way to convert a grayscale heightmap image to an OBJ, or are there any plans to allow the importing of heightmap images?
Xabis
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:15 pm

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Xabis »

Removing post, as i was mistaken.
Last edited by Xabis on Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kappes Buur
 
 
Posts: 4114
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:19 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia (Legacy GZDoom)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Kappes Buur »

I like the new texture browser, except, as Sandro already mentioned, the outlines should be gone
Spoiler:
Everything in one place, used textures displayed with a coloured name. :thumb:
User avatar
MaxED
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by MaxED »

Kappes Buur wrote:The outlines should be gone
You guys keep mentioning it, yet nobody have provided a reason WHY they should be gone. Also removing them will require aligning texture names to the middle of the image, because otherwise they will look strange and HORRIBLE.
User avatar
kodi
 
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:02 am

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by kodi »

jute wrote:I'm interested in playing with the new terrain import feature, but I have no idea how to work with the OBJ format. Is there any simple way to convert a grayscale heightmap image to an OBJ, or are there any plans to allow the importing of heightmap images?
That's what I did!
guide for blender
User avatar
ZZYZX
 
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:43 am
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by ZZYZX »

MaxED wrote:
Kappes Buur wrote:The outlines should be gone
You guys keep mentioning it, yet nobody have provided a reason WHY they should be gone.
Because they mix with the texture itself and distract you.
Side node, was that texture browser idea taken from Quake map editors? It's horrible. Don't take ideas from Radiants, ever, these have the worst GUI in id Tech mapping history.
Also, aligning texture names to the middle is ok, that's what it looked like before IIRC.

Also, on the GUI, I'm currently trying to implement a new settings window framework instead of the current stuff, that would look like Visual Studio settings for example (large category tree on the left, flags/fields on the right, instead of 5-6 tabs).
This would free you from the need to achieve GUI design miracles while trying to fit all the relevant settings in one tab, and should make it easier to add settings in the future, remembering that you told me that "adding a setting is hard".
Besides, plugins then could add their own settings to that tree by providing an embedding container object.
Do you think you'd accept that if it's done?
Last edited by ZZYZX on Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26517
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Enjay »

I guess I'm weird, I quite like the new texture browser.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Nash »

I'm also okay with the new texture browser, although granted, I'm not much of a "power mapper" and probably haven't mapped enough for this to affect me negatively... :shrug:
User avatar
MaxED
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by MaxED »

ZZYZX wrote:Side node, was that texture browser idea taken from Quake map editors?
From Sledge, actually, both idea and implementation :)
ZZYZX wrote:"adding a setting is hard".
Adding a setting is not hard. Keeping all existing settings in mind while adding new stuff, testing said new stuff with all possible combinations of settings and figuring out which settings need to be set to reproduce a bug reported by a user are exhausting.
ZZYZX wrote:plugins then could add their own settings to that tree by providing an embedding container object.
Plugins can already add additional tabs to the settings tab control. BuilderModes does this.
User avatar
ZZYZX
 
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:43 am
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by ZZYZX »

This is how the texture selection window looks in a generic Quake-related editing tool:
Image
MaxED wrote:
ZZYZX wrote:"adding a setting is hard".
Adding a setting is not hard. Keeping all existing settings in mind while adding new stuff, testing said new stuff with all possible combinations of settings and figuring out which settings need to be set to reproduce a bug reported by a user are exhausting.
Well it's still hard to implement detailed settings given 6 tabs and a 800x600 window. Hence that idea I had, first I simply wanted to add an option for old (or at least similar) texture browser, but then I realized that settings are organized in a way that pretty much prevents adding anything. Except perhaps maybe few checkboxes on Interface tab, but then again, it should be in Appearance.
User avatar
MaxED
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by MaxED »

ZZYZX wrote:This is how the texture selection window looks in a generic Quake-related editing tool
Yet somehow TrenchBroom threads are not brimming with people crying "TEH TEHTUERS BORSER IS HORRIBUL!!!" To be honest, I haven't seen anyone there complaining about it.
ZZYZX wrote:Well it's still hard to implement detailed settings given 6 tabs and a 800x600 window. Hence that idea I had, first I simply wanted to add an option for old (or at least similar) texture browser, but then I realized that settings are organized in a way that pretty much prevents adding anything. Except perhaps maybe few checkboxes on Interface tab, but then again, it should be in Appearance.
Don't forget to add a SETTING to use the old Preferences window, because, you know, there's always a guy or two who wouldn't like the new one and wouldn't stop complaining about it.
User avatar
Kappes Buur
 
 
Posts: 4114
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:19 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia (Legacy GZDoom)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Kappes Buur »

MaxED wrote:You guys keep mentioning it, yet nobody have provided a reason WHY they should be gone.
I find the outlines very confusing and unsettling, to the point that it strains my eyes trying to select a texture.

Similar to this
  • Image
Other than that, I do like the new texture browser.
Last edited by Kappes Buur on Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26517
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Post by Enjay »

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

I hope the texture browser in that oone that ZZYZX posted is resizeable. I'd hate to have to work with a tiny texture browser like that.
Locked

Return to “Abandoned/Dead Projects”