A few suggestions (Tools)

[GlshchnkLx]

As you see, by adding in LW the following functionality:

-A set of functions for rendering in the Editor (Draw for example lines, text, etc.)

-Ability to create/ edit tools or entities

[Crazycarpet]

Although it would be nice to have some sort of "plugin" feature for the editor I don't think it'll happen. I'm fairly certain it's been suggested a few times.

[Josh]

Who will write these plugins?

[macklebee]

Who will write these plugins?

If history repeats itself, it will be the same people that will complain about the editor crashing repeatedly due to poor programming.

 

We had an active lua state in LE2's editor that allowed people to run scripts within the editor which opened a lot of possibilities for custom tools. But due to this ability, the editor repeatedly crashed when their object scripts would error/fail. It was not an enjoyable experience for the average user.

[Rick]

To be fair that didn't seem to have much error handling to stop the entire editor from crashing which is what one would expect if an official plugin system was implemented. Of course people will complain about that plugin not working but that's the authors issue right? Well we'd think that but it could be confused as Leadwerks itself and give it a bad rep. Pro's and con's I guess.

 

I believe the editor is in BMax right? So it wouldn't be in the Lua state I wouldn't imagine so it should be a smoother experience than before. Josh would have to be sure to handle errors from the plugins to prevent it from crashing the entire editor though.

[GlshchnkLx]

Perhaps few people would write plugins for LeadWerks. But let's say, if a person is working on a serious project in LW then it will be easier to sharpen the engine for their purpose.

 

For example, in LW bad editor primitives, poor editor terrain (although it is possible to alter and by changing the shader processing), and more. For example, to make the roads or rivers editor (if waiting for the official implementation, this can take a long time, but to do a simple tool can be quickly (I wrote this, but visualization was only in the game -. Which is very inconvenient)

[Rick]

This could allow for a UI editor to be built into the editor too by people. Being able to add drop/drop widgets at design time would be a nice feature.

[Josh]

I will only consider this once Workshop Store sales have reached an acceptable level.

[Rick]

What is the relationship between to 2? I'm confused as to why one would affect the other in some way. Can you clarify on that?

[Josh]

If models won't sell, plugins won't sell. If plugins won't sell, then there is no incentive to make them, and no one will. I'm not interested in working on a feature that won't get used.

[GlshchnkLx]

The engine has a small capacity in comparison with others.

The bad development policy, where everything depends on the sale Workshop (It makes you wonder about the wisdom of using LW

[nick.ace]

I would have written my Trafficwerks code as an extension if it was supported. Right now, the only thing you can do to mimic extensions is to use pivots (e.g., Aggror's GUI tool). I mean people upload to the Workshop for free all the time, and there are many downloads there. Plus you can make some cool tech demos with extensions.

[martyj]

I think this feature would just end up having plug-ins become stagnate and not up to date with the current leadwerks features.

 

Is there an example of something someone wishes to do in the editor that it cannot already handle?

 

I'd love to see better c++ integration myself, but I find I can get around it.

 

And towards @GlshchnkLx.

 

Sure leadwerks doesn't have things like networking, but in my opinion, leadwerks has the features needed for the audience. For example, if Leadwerks added networking it would only benefit people who can already write their own networking code IMO. Considering multiplayer games usually require a server side.

 

If you ask me, I think the bigger question is not what plugins people could add. But what features would people actually use in leadwerks.

 

I would rather use something built into leadwerks just off the fact that you know Josh will support it. If there's a bug, it will get resolved quickly, and not wait for a potential open source fix.

 

Having you depend on plugins I feel like could be "game" breaking in a lot of peoples projects.

 

I've thought of writing an MP3 OpenAL audio player for Leadwerks since a few people have requested it, and it's an area where I've done some work on. The problem is, I would have to then maintain that section of code.

[nick.ace]

Yes,

 

Examples:

- Traffic tools

- UI builder tools

- AI waypoint tools

- AI behavior trees

- Animation blending editor

- Road tools

- City generation

- LOD tools

- New importers/exporters

- Terrain generation

- Mesh editors

- etc.

 

Some of these were an issue for me specifically. Unless you want to use pivots for all of those. I couldn't even use my own traffic system at a certain point once I had 500 pivots lying around and have to connect them all through the script parameters! Besides, if you depend on a plugin, you know the risks. Also, right now you have a bunch of UI libraries because there's not a great single way to do it (let me clarify: they're all great, it's just they lack an interface in the editor, so some creative was involved). Wouldn't it be cool if all of those libraries were consolidated? The thing is that the map file format doesn't need to be different. The biggest problem is the interface for the things I listed.

 

That's why Workshop code could exist, so you can fix it if anything needs to be changed. Or perhaps have a separate repository for all plugins so that anyone can request pull requests. Not every tool needs to be complicated that it would break either.

 

Why would you have to maintain your section of MP3 code? That format doesn't change, so the decoder doesn't change. The playback shouldn't change either.

[Rick]

I think this feature would just end up having plug-ins become stagnate and not up to date with the current leadwerks features.

 

Yes, this would for sure happen. The question is, is this better than having nothing like we do today?

 

 

If models won't sell, plugins won't sell. If plugins won't sell, then there is no incentive to make them, and no one will. I'm not interested in working on a feature that won't get used.

 

Thanks for elaborating. I see you were thinking of plugins that would charge money. I guess I was going with more free plugins but if you can't monetize this feature then it might not warrant the effort involved.

[Josh]

If they can't monetize it, people aren't going to put in the effort to maintain and document anything. This is like one step away from asking me to open-source Leadwerks.