Project Werkflow

[L B]

*Feels invisible*.

[macklebee]

That makes perfect sense. It means you could just have called it box01 and place it in the Props/Boxes directory. Instead you are putting what should be a path (the hidden meaning because it means something to the editor ONLY) into the filename itself. If this system used directories instead no one would name their file Props_Boxes_box01.gmf. They would just name it box01 and place it in the correct directory.

 

you can name it whatever you feel like... the Editor doesn't make you use the naming convention.

 

and actually I prefer the current method instead of having to use a folder. I have about 35 different boxes. What you are suggesting would mean I would have to put all of the models, textures, mat files, and lua scripts into this Props/Boxes directory. To me, that isn't very organized. As it is right now with the "_" method, I can still keep each separate entity and their related files in separate folders (which makes working on a specific model and distributing easier), but will still be organized in the Editor under one folder in the asset list.

[Rick]

you can name it whatever you feel like... the Editor doesn't make you use the naming convention.

 

It does if you want organization and don't want to change your filenames to get that organization.

 

 

What you are suggesting would mean I would have to put all of the models, textures, mat files, and lua scripts into this Props/Boxes directory. To me, that isn't very organized.

 

?? So you don't find it organized to put like things in a folder that describes what those things are? That's the whole point of a file system.

 

 

As it is right now with the "_" method, I can still keep each separate entity and their related files in separate folders (which makes working on a specific model and distributing easier), but will still be organized in the Editor under one folder in the asset list.

 

I find that misleading. When looking at the editor and then looking for the files on the disk, they could be anywhere. I think when working with a team it could lead to some confusion.

 

It's pointless to argue about it anyway, Josh isn't going to change it.

[macklebee]

It does if you want organization and don't want to change your filenames to get that organization.

 

oh jeez... its that big of a deal to rename a file?

 

 

?? So you don't find it organized to put like things in a folder that describes what those things are? That's the whole point of a file system.

 

who said I didn't use folder's to describe what things are? All I am saying is that your method means I have to put everything in one folder if I wanted them all structured under one folder in the editor.

 

I find that misleading. When looking at the editor and then looking for the files on the disk, they could be anywhere. I think when working with a team it could lead to some confusion.

 

?? how is it misleading? they have to be in the SDK folder or the gamepath folder to even show up in the asset list... and have you ever right-clicked on the object class in the asset list? it gives you an option to go right to the model's file location.

 

It's pointless to argue about it anyway, Josh isn't going to change it.

 

god, I hope not... because i don't see any suggestions here that are an improvement over what we currently have...

[Marcus]

It's pointless to argue about it anyway, Josh isn't going to change it.

 

That is Josh's biggest weakness. He refuses to look at how others are doing it, despite the fact that others get great reviews for how they do it. It VERY much feels like an art pipeline for programmer's instead of artists and designers.

[Rick]

oh jeez... its that big of a deal to rename a file?

 

The same could be said about putting files in a folder. But since you ask, I actually do find it a pain to have such long filenames. Once a game gets to any size you could be prefixing a file with 4-5 nested folder names just so you can have it "organized" in the editor. That doesn't seem odd to you at all? It also doesn't follow the whole filesystem standard that everyone is familiar with. I think that's why most people find it odd and strange to work with. I've given it about a year and I still find it odd to work with.

 

?? how is it misleading?

 

You know exactly why it's misleading, but like you stated because of it looking misleading there is a method to right click and go to that directory to make it easier. That still doesn't make it less visually misleading.

 

 

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this. I'll stop here and let you get the last word. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

That is Josh's biggest weakness. He refuses to look at how others are doing it, despite the fact that others get great reviews for how they do it. It VERY much feels like an art pipeline for programmer's instead of artists and designers.

 

Because that's exactly what it is. Josh puts artists first. He thinks artists create games. That's his view on it. I don't think that can be changed.

 

I just think it would be nice to have it configurable is all.

[L B]

Are my posts appearing to you guys? Or are you just too lost in your debate?

[Rick]

lol Ubu, I see your post. I just didn't download it yet. What is it an editor example? Could you post a screenshot of it instead?

[macklebee]

The same could be said about putting files in a folder. But since you ask, I actually do find it a pain to have such long filenames. Once a game gets to any size you could be prefixing a file with 4-5 nested folder names just so you can have it "organized" in the editor. That doesn't seem odd to you at all? It also doesn't follow the whole filesystem standard that everyone is familiar with. I think that's why most people find it odd and strange to work with. I've given it about a year and I still find it odd to work with.

 

 

 

You know exactly why it's misleading, but like you stated because of it looking misleading there is a method to right click and go to that directory to make it easier. That still doesn't make it less visually misleading.

 

 

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this. I'll stop here and let you get the last word. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

 

 

Because that's exactly what it is. Josh puts artists first. He thinks artists create games. That's his view on it. I don't think that can be changed.

 

I just think it would be nice to have it configurable is all.

 

There's nothing that prevents you from using the same naming for the "_" method for your folder naming... that is essentially what i do anyways, and it still allows me to keep each model in a separate folder but at the same time organized in the asset list under one folder. That takes care of the visual misleading... at least to me it does.

 

I have a folder in my Models directory called Boxes and inside are the separate folders for each entity... like Box1, Box2, Box3, etc... but my individual models are named boxes_box1.gmf, boxes_box2.gmf... this gives me a nice organized asset list in the editor.

 

I agree it was cumbersome to get used to because its not whats been drilled into our heads for years with every other app out there. But now that I am using it alot and I am building up tons of assets, I find it extremely useful.

 

And I am not arguing with you specifically. I am just tired of people constantly complaining about things that others actually find extremely useable... because what happens is when all Josh hears are complaints about something, is that he eventually thinks everyone dislikes it, even if the majority of people actually like it but never say so.

 

and thats funny... Marcus complains that the art pipeline is for programmer's and you complain the art pipeline is for artists...

[Rick]

you complain the art pipeline is for artists...

 

I wasn't really referring to the art pipeline. I don't consider the editor part of the art pipeline. The editor is for level designers to create levels. Level designers generally aren't artists per se, but designers. They are good at putting together and working with assets but not necessarily good at making those assets. Given that the editor is for designers I feel it should be structured for designers and not for artists.

[Marcus]

I feel it should be structured for designers and not for artists.

 

Exactly

[macklebee]

hmmm... considering majority of the people here are the programmer/scripter/modeler/artist and designer for their project, I fail to see the point... but whatever... if you think a designer is not intelligent enough to be able to figure the current asset naming structure out, that is your opinion.

[Rick]

considering majority of the people here are the programmer/scripter/modeler/artist and designer for their project

 

Which is why nothing ever gets done.

 

if you think a designer is not intelligent enough to be able to figure the current asset naming structure out, that is your opinion.

 

Yep, that's it. I think all designers are idiots. It's amazing how you figured me out like that.

 

The points have been made. Not much we can add now. We're just poking shots at each other now. As usual we don't see eye to eye. I guess that's what makes the world such a wonderful place.

[VicToMeyeZR]

 

ProgramFiles_Adobe_Reader_HowTo_ENU_iamges_tip.gif

lmao.. laughed so hard at that.. hehe. Rick, you have such a good humor.

[Rick]

lmao.. laughed so hard at that.. hehe. Rick, you have such a good humor.

 

I'm glad that didn't get wasted I searched my directories and just wanted to see what a really long path would look like on a real file. Wouldn't that be crazy though? I mean that's essentially how it works today in LE. If I was looking through a game directory and saw something like that I would just scratch my head. Would that even work on Win95

 

Rick, you have such a good humo

 

I'm sure not everyone thinks that

[Josh]

Some interesting points. I do like the convenience of the Unity auto-conversion stuff, but it also seems like a ton of effort to put into something that isn't going to have any benefit for a shipping game. I have also found when you hide things from the user and try to make converters "guess" what the user wants, the results are often confusing.

 

I would like to make the properties editor act "live" so that the moment you change something the action is carried out, and I have thought about embedding it in the main window.

[macklebee]

Which is why nothing ever gets done.

 

I think some of us might disagree with that statement... but yes, majority of people will never have a complete game.

 

Yep, that's it. I think all designers are idiots. It's amazing how you figured me out like that.

 

The points have been made. Not much we can add now. We're just poking shots at each other now. As usual we don't see eye to eye. I guess that's what makes the world such a wonderful place.

 

Everything else you stated on how the asset list should be done ends up making things more complicated for people than what is currently done. So other than some vague complaint about how the editor should be made for designers, what is one to assume? that they cannot figure out the current naming convention? I fail to see how else it could be taken... but whatever. A difference of opinion.

[macklebee]

I would like to make the properties editor act "live" so that the moment you change something the action is carried out, and I have thought about embedding it in the main window.

 

that would be a nice addition especially for when setting emittor properties. Also would vote for the previous feature request of being able to refresh the asset list. that would be handy for whenever you change the gamepath so you don't have to exit and restart the editor just to get the new assets list.

[Rick]

Also would vote for the previous feature request of being able to refresh the asset list.

 

I agree. This is a nuisance atm.

[Josh]

One problem with using folders is a model often consists of many files, so you create a folder just for one model and place the script, phy, gmf, etc in there. So I found in practice we ended up with a lot of repeating nodes like "Vehicles\monstertruck\monstertruck".

 

Seems like a hotly debated issue, and I can see both sides.

[Rick]

I can see macklebee point in the examples he gives, but I can't in good conscious bring myself to go any deeper than 1, maybe 2 "folders" deep with the way it's setup. (which means things don't get as organized as they could/should) I mean to have to prefix the assets for visual organizing in the editor, it's just to strange of a solution for me. To have to physically affect the asset filename for the sake of the editor just doesn't seem right. There must be another way that takes into account macklebee's points but still holding true to a folder system.

 

Maybe make it so subfolders that begin with _ are ignored by the editor. That way you could have Boxes/_Box1, Boxes/_Box2, etc. but the editor will lump all the files under the _dir into just Boxes in the editor.

 

Or a better symbol would be ~ to start with for a folder name that won't be displayed in the editor. Nobody uses ~ in folder names anyway.

[dhutchison]

Related to this discussion is the challenge of pulling together all of the assets of a project into a distributable game folder that can be packaged together, zipped, and shared with others.

 

Am I right in saying there is no automatic way to pull together all the dependencies of a project into a deployable standalone game folder?

[Josh]

Well, if I were to rewrite the editor, this is how I would do it...

 

-Make the asset pipeline pretty much like Unity's, using my own judgement to improve it.

-For materials, you would just select from a bunch of presets, and have relevant properties for those presets. I think this is much more useful than a visual material editor.

-The editor replaces all other SDK applications. It's the only tool you would use.

-Use wxWidgets for the interface because the default Windows GUI is really slow. This can be seen when the properties and options dialogs are populated. There's no way I could have predicted this, because Win7 wasn't even released when I started the editor.

-Make it so any entity can have a script, so you can drag a light, particle emitter, etc., and have a script that operates directly on the entity.

-The previous point makes prefabs more useful, because you can attach a light directly to another entity and save it as a prefab.

[Marcus]

Well, if I were to rewrite the editor, this is how I would do it...

 

-Make the asset pipeline pretty much like Unity's, using my own judgement to improve it.

-For materials, you would just select from a bunch of presets, and have relevant properties for those presets. I think this is much more useful than a visual material editor.

-The editor replaces all other SDK applications. It's the only tool you would use.

-Use wxWidgets for the interface because the default Windows GUI is really slow. This can be seen when the properties and options dialogs are populated. There's no way I could have predicted this, because Win7 wasn't even released when I started the editor.

-Make it so any entity can have a script, so you can drag a light, particle emitter, etc., and have a script that operates directly on the entity.

-The previous point makes prefabs more useful, because you can attach a light directly to another entity and save it as a prefab.

 

About using your own judgement on the first one, what you should do is start a new thread and get input from the community. I'm sure you could get some truly great feedback. I know I have been telling you to do the third item on your list for over a year now and you (and most others) said it was a dumb idea, glad to see you coming around.

[VicToMeyeZR]

Good ideas from everyone. I think Josh is seeing the light.

 

I definitely don't like naming files like we do.