Started by cajomi, May 26, 2007, 03:47:31 am
Quote from: cajomi on May 29, 2007, 01:55:38 amYou know, some improvements are needed. Some of them are more work, some less.So, what about an update?
Quote from: jo on May 29, 2007, 12:21:39 amYou say something about things being a point and click in Vue and more work in TG2, populations were the example. I'm not surprised, Vue is considerably further along in its life. I think that you shouldn't confuse something like that with a GUI toolkit, because it isn't GUI toolkits that have anything to do with that. I hope you were just using it to illustrate a separate point.
Quote from: latego on May 29, 2007, 11:41:49 amP.S.: if you are planning scripting for TG2, PLEASE have a look at Lua... you won't regret it.
Quote from: cajomi on May 29, 2007, 12:15:52 pmwell,I think, if the operators for height and size are added automatically, if a heighfield is imported, and if they would have standard values that match the way, the terrain is handled without them, it would make the whole process faster, without loosing any advantage of seperating them.
QuoteThe alpha channel should be separated from the breakup, and be named "Alpha" or "Mask", and the this mask should have as standard size the size of the terrain and fit automatically. Changing the size of the terrain should be automatically change also the alpha. So, best way would be, to express the size a factors (10-0.1) of the original terrain.
QuoteThe only thing, with my little expierence of TG2, is the camera. I understand, that is has its orientation to the univers, not to a planet. May be, it would simplify all, if you can choose at start up, or somewhere, to set the world as univers or a one planet world. In a one planet world, the old TG2 tracking should be possible. I did not like that camara tool at once, but the longer I used it, I found it more and more powerful compared to a 3D view. If now placing of objects would be done in this preview (with a zoom please) it would be really simple work.
QuoteIn general, it seems to me, that the naming could cause problems. For creating a heightfield, why should I use shader, was the first I hought. Shader are for the terrain after it is created, for the rendering.
QuoteAnd for what I need a "reflective shader" when I am creating a terrain?
QuoteOn the other side, if now is time to shade, what does the alpine shader there, I found in it no colour or distribution.
QuoteSo, I mean, if the functions appear only where they belong and are sensful and named the way they work, for example "layer", "map", "functions", "displacements" and are grouped, it would all be much easyer.
QuoteFour weeks sounds long for that, but that would be not so easy. I am sure, the naming is in your thinking exact how you want to name. And I am aware, that naming and expectations of naming depend on personal preferences and often also on the other softwares, which are used.And that is all I meant. I have found with GeoControl, that sometimes simply changing the naming of a tool or control can enhace the acceptance dramatically and that every control should have a sensful start value.