![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
This is for OC
Each object defintion gets a checkbox, no matter how deep in folders and subfolders it may be, so that if someone doesn't use, say, everything in the objects folder, then anything not used would not be loaded, most likely speeding up loading time.
Also, this would help when, for example, someone take an object def out of a folder where other files it needs to function might be, instead of the engine saying that files for the moved def are missing, the def would have a list or something of the files it needs to funciton so that no matter where the files it needs are, it still functions.
Also have scenarios activate the object defs it needs by their individual check boxes, and if they use all of the object defs in a folder or subfolder, then it activates that folder's checkbox.
The way the program would look at it might look like this:
If object A is needed and object A resides by itself, then its checkbox is simply checked.
If object A is needed and it resides within a folder(s) and/or subfolder(s), then just its checkbox is activated.
If its the only object in a folder, (the folder is not needed most likely), then the folder will be checked.
If object A is needed and object A resides in a folder but there is also object B in that folder, then just object A is checked.
If both object A and object B are needed then the folder they are in will be checked.
And so on and so forth.
I think I described it a bit better this time.
Each object defintion gets a checkbox, no matter how deep in folders and subfolders it may be, so that if someone doesn't use, say, everything in the objects folder, then anything not used would not be loaded, most likely speeding up loading time.
Also, this would help when, for example, someone take an object def out of a folder where other files it needs to function might be, instead of the engine saying that files for the moved def are missing, the def would have a list or something of the files it needs to funciton so that no matter where the files it needs are, it still functions.
Also have scenarios activate the object defs it needs by their individual check boxes, and if they use all of the object defs in a folder or subfolder, then it activates that folder's checkbox.
The way the program would look at it might look like this:
If object A is needed and object A resides by itself, then its checkbox is simply checked.
If object A is needed and it resides within a folder(s) and/or subfolder(s), then just its checkbox is activated.
If its the only object in a folder, (the folder is not needed most likely), then the folder will be checked.
If object A is needed and object A resides in a folder but there is also object B in that folder, then just object A is checked.
If both object A and object B are needed then the folder they are in will be checked.
And so on and so forth.
I think I described it a bit better this time.
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
That is not really needed in the frontend, and for the Editor in my opinion it works fine in Clonk Rage at the moment - I don't really see why we would have to go back to the old system.
No no no, u guys can leave CE and CR the way they r, ill just deal with it.
I mean try to implement this into OpenClonk since its still in developement.
I wouldnt have said anything if i wanted u guys to do this for CE, CR, and OC.
I was just usin CE and CR as an example.
I mean try to implement this into OpenClonk since its still in developement.
I wouldnt have said anything if i wanted u guys to do this for CE, CR, and OC.
I was just usin CE and CR as an example.
We should just fix that you can't host when you put your objects in subdirectories.
thats the thing though, if each object had its own checkbox, when a map goes to initiate, it looks for the objects that were checked on when it was made/saved.
So as long as anyone wants to play it has the corresponding objects, it would matter where in a person's directories they would reside, cause each object already has its own signature code thing, (im like 90% sure on this one), so any given scenario(s) would have the set of object sigs required to play it in its code.
If at any time in this disscusion i start talkin about somethin and it sounds like i have now idea wat im talking about, either a; ill usually say so, or b; feel free to correct me without fear of me giving some pissed off comeback. XD
Basicaly, (as far as i know), when u go to make a map, u go into your directories and activate only the objects u want/need for your scenario, start the map/edit it/save it, when it saves, it would save a copy of each required object's sig code so that it can find it in anyones directories.
This could also help in-game too, cause then u wouldnt need to have an entire pack activated to play, unless the scenario author made it with the entire pack.
Any items not used in the scenario wouldnt have to just be left out in the properties, they could just not be activated when the map is made.
This would hopefully cut back on lag.
So as long as anyone wants to play it has the corresponding objects, it would matter where in a person's directories they would reside, cause each object already has its own signature code thing, (im like 90% sure on this one), so any given scenario(s) would have the set of object sigs required to play it in its code.
If at any time in this disscusion i start talkin about somethin and it sounds like i have now idea wat im talking about, either a; ill usually say so, or b; feel free to correct me without fear of me giving some pissed off comeback. XD
Basicaly, (as far as i know), when u go to make a map, u go into your directories and activate only the objects u want/need for your scenario, start the map/edit it/save it, when it saves, it would save a copy of each required object's sig code so that it can find it in anyones directories.
This could also help in-game too, cause then u wouldnt need to have an entire pack activated to play, unless the scenario author made it with the entire pack.
Any items not used in the scenario wouldnt have to just be left out in the properties, they could just not be activated when the map is made.
This would hopefully cut back on lag.
You can load parts of packs just right now.
I spent some time thinking about the problem with resources, and I fear that a solution like your's can't handle versioning of object packs.
I spent some time thinking about the problem with resources, and I fear that a solution like your's can't handle versioning of object packs.
![[pl]](/mwf/flags/pl.png "Poland")
As far as I understand you I can say, that imho this is not that bad idea. Possibility of having all the editors in one place(except for external 2D/3D and text editors), like having Mape, unpacking/packing tools, script debugger, organisation options at one place, and maybe some kind of manager for scenario files, that would allow for example see recently played maps, most played, parkour only, etc. could be usefull. It could maybe even load an instance of engine to allow easy testing of new objects and reload them at runtime without need to reload scenario. I'm not against this idea, but I don't really think it is neccesary at this point...
TheBuilder stares openmouthed at Asmageddon's comment for a full minute from shock
Believe me or not, but having an editor where u can start a map and then place ANY object u have in ur game files into the map without having to load all their definitions was another idea i had a while ago but figured that it would be a rather complex code to make.
But my idea was only for object definitions and any other files needed for them to work correctly, (these extra files should be saved under their corresponding objects anyway), i didnt envision this for c4p or c4g files, this cause each object should already be coded to load watever of these files it needs when its loaded itself,
sidenote and almost uncontrolable rant, FOR TEH LOVE OF GOD PLZ KEEP THAT VERSION OF THE EDITOR!!!
XD, umm sorry, its just that is one of the things that pisses me off, i start working on a scenario with wat i think i need then have to save, go back out, and find the other thing i want/need, (god that is so annoying).
One last thing, my original post for this topic took me all about 5 second to come up with, though it took me a good 10-15 to word it right.
Believe me or not, but having an editor where u can start a map and then place ANY object u have in ur game files into the map without having to load all their definitions was another idea i had a while ago but figured that it would be a rather complex code to make.
But my idea was only for object definitions and any other files needed for them to work correctly, (these extra files should be saved under their corresponding objects anyway), i didnt envision this for c4p or c4g files, this cause each object should already be coded to load watever of these files it needs when its loaded itself,
sidenote and almost uncontrolable rant, FOR TEH LOVE OF GOD PLZ KEEP THAT VERSION OF THE EDITOR!!!
XD, umm sorry, its just that is one of the things that pisses me off, i start working on a scenario with wat i think i need then have to save, go back out, and find the other thing i want/need, (god that is so annoying).
One last thing, my original post for this topic took me all about 5 second to come up with, though it took me a good 10-15 to word it right.
Another afterthought,
I was thinkin about takin my custom directory of all of my .c4d files, translating them all into at least english, (maybe german eventually), and uploading it to CCAN as a HUGE object pack, but the way that i would have to go about editing the ten-thousand or so things that would be in the finished directory, (object names/description/etc), was a bit beyond my attention span, though u can see from my posts i one of considerable length, XD.
But anyway, making it so that in developer mode u can change the names/descriptions/etc of objects without ever having to leave the edito itself would make it a truly fullly functional editor. The same thing would be nice for things like scenario names/descriptions, and like adding new materials to your collection, example: Uranium from the Atompack/Nuclearpack.
As it is now, the editor is incredibly powerful and simple, but unfortunatly/luckily it could be added to make it even easier to use.
I was thinkin about takin my custom directory of all of my .c4d files, translating them all into at least english, (maybe german eventually), and uploading it to CCAN as a HUGE object pack, but the way that i would have to go about editing the ten-thousand or so things that would be in the finished directory, (object names/description/etc), was a bit beyond my attention span, though u can see from my posts i one of considerable length, XD.
But anyway, making it so that in developer mode u can change the names/descriptions/etc of objects without ever having to leave the edito itself would make it a truly fullly functional editor. The same thing would be nice for things like scenario names/descriptions, and like adding new materials to your collection, example: Uranium from the Atompack/Nuclearpack.
As it is now, the editor is incredibly powerful and simple, but unfortunatly/luckily it could be added to make it even easier to use.
@Ceasar, that would just piss people off, cause then they couldnt organize their stuff as well.
The clonk editor does not exist for OpenClonk anymore. But to post it into the english clonk forum (because its not related to OC but CE/CR) does not make sense either because neither CE nor CR are developed in the future.Regarding your problem: You can create folders and store scenarios inside these.
wait WAT?! no editor for open clonk, whys that?
But no this is not about CE or CR, i was just using them as examples, this is about organizing stuff in OC, sorry for any misunderstandings.
Umm u might want to change order to organize, cause when i first read the bold part i thought u were talkin about how to get new packs for OC, XD.
The main reason for this topic is to get the organization of player, scenario, and object files to be better/easier, so any ideas on how to make the OC system better/easier than the CE/CR system would be nice.
But no this is not about CE or CR, i was just using them as examples, this is about organizing stuff in OC, sorry for any misunderstandings.
Umm u might want to change order to organize, cause when i first read the bold part i thought u were talkin about how to get new packs for OC, XD.
The main reason for this topic is to get the organization of player, scenario, and object files to be better/easier, so any ideas on how to make the OC system better/easier than the CE/CR system would be nice.
> wait WAT?! no editor for open clonk, whys that?
If I am not mistaken then we don't even have the source code of it.
Why can't you just use the Windows explorer for organizing your stuff? This works as well for your other non-clonk-related documents, doesn't it?
im talkin about organizing player, scenario, and object files within a frontend or watever u guys r gonna make/use for OC.
That is a bit depressing that u guys dont have the source code, im guessing that means u cant make a better editor too.
Crap i was hopin fo a better one, gues ill have to settle for CR's editor then.
That is a bit depressing that u guys dont have the source code, im guessing that means u cant make a better editor too.
Crap i was hopin fo a better one, gues ill have to settle for CR's editor then.
I use my file manager. It's not like programming something slightly more convenient makes up the hours of effort I'd need to put into it.
This isnt about the way the files are stored on a computer, its about the way they are organized in the game.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. And I'm also not sure whether it should be called "Editor" in that case.
Try this, go look at the file in our computer that holds the files for CE, make sure u veiw them as "details", and that the application appear near the op of the lise.
Bring up CE, keep the file on CE open on your computer.
Now u'lll see that they are very similar, though in player mode the frontend of CE doesnt show the other files.
Switch to developer mode in CE.
Now u see all of the files, the file on your computer and the frontend of CE should look much more similar now.
The difference between wat the files shown on ur computer and those shown on the frontend differ in that, on your computer u cant move individual object definitions around unless they outside of any object definition file, other wise u dont see them.
On the frontend however, u can see them by double clicking on object folders till u see the one u want.
THAT is the difference, im talking about organizing the object definitions within their folders, not just the folders themselves.
Bring up CE, keep the file on CE open on your computer.
Now u'lll see that they are very similar, though in player mode the frontend of CE doesnt show the other files.
Switch to developer mode in CE.
Now u see all of the files, the file on your computer and the frontend of CE should look much more similar now.
The difference between wat the files shown on ur computer and those shown on the frontend differ in that, on your computer u cant move individual object definitions around unless they outside of any object definition file, other wise u dont see them.
On the frontend however, u can see them by double clicking on object folders till u see the one u want.
THAT is the difference, im talking about organizing the object definitions within their folders, not just the folders themselves.
> The difference between wat the files shown on ur computer and those shown on the frontend differ in that, on your computer u cant move individual object definitions around unless they outside of any object definition file, other wise u dont see them.
There is a tool called C4Group which allows to pack and unpack the .c4? files. Right-clicking the object definition or whatever in the Windows explorer and selecting "Unpack" or "Explode" turns the object definition into a regular folder you can browse.
Yes u can "unpack" or "explode" a .c4? file, but u still have to go into the developer mode/editor to do this.
then y when i go to where teh files r stored and right click on them i dont get teh option to unpack/explode them?
Because you have not installed the C4Group shell extension I guess. There used to be batch file but currently I think the only way to do it is to run it with some special command line argument.
Aren't we are going to abandon this C4Group thingy? I do not see any sense in it. The files for Internet games could simply be packed as zip and for archiving reasons zip could also be used. (Or some other file-format like tar.gz or 7z)
> Aren't we are going to abandon this C4Group thingy?
Not as long as there is not any alternative ready to use. In my eyes this is one more thing that is questionable whether changing this to something else is worth the effort. Especially as long as basic game content is nowhere near finished.
Anyway, this discussion is not about whether we abandon C4Group or not. All my arguments are the same if you replace C4Group by Zip or whatever.
Well, I've ment that the packages are only unpacked on the hard-disc. Only zip Files for transmitting the packages.
Though, i really like the "one-definition = one archive"-feature, because it makes it clear, where you have to search, if you want to change the object, etc.
Thank you Kanibal, but yes, this disscusion is mainly about the checkbox system i suggested.
... [I'm not taking part in discussion, or anything, its just plain "..." this time]
I haven't done any measurements, but supposedly reading compressed, packed content is faster, because the CPU can unpack it as fast as the drive can read and it isn't scattered about the platter.
Thats understandable, but still not wat ive been trying to get at.
Wat i was suggesting was a one object, one checkbox type selection system for object definitions, though when u check a object folder everything in that folder gets checked too, something like this would make it so that a person could organize their objects the way they want them without making a second copy of everything, though this also means that every individual object needs to have all the data that makes it work in its own definition.
An example of y i said that last line would be if u go look a the towers in the knight pack, they r all under the object definition "tower", because of this i could not split them up without causing them to malfuntion in the game since the definition folder "tower" had data needed to all 5-7 idfferent towers; bounding tower right/left, drawbridge tower right/left, etc.
Wat i was suggesting was a one object, one checkbox type selection system for object definitions, though when u check a object folder everything in that folder gets checked too, something like this would make it so that a person could organize their objects the way they want them without making a second copy of everything, though this also means that every individual object needs to have all the data that makes it work in its own definition.
An example of y i said that last line would be if u go look a the towers in the knight pack, they r all under the object definition "tower", because of this i could not split them up without causing them to malfuntion in the game since the definition folder "tower" had data needed to all 5-7 idfferent towers; bounding tower right/left, drawbridge tower right/left, etc.
You can already activate sub-definitions in the [Definitions] section of your scenario. It's just not supported by the editor GUI (which we dont have for OC at the moment anyway).
I know someone who is writing a platform independend Editor for Clonk, maybe he could join the Project.
Well, some time ago, Feuermonster and I started to program a Clonk-Editor, called Pycloed, which stands for "Python Clonk Editor", with a GUI powered by PyGTK. Maybe I can motivate Feuermonster to go on programming it for openclonk...
Given the numerous attempts to create a versatile editor for clonk, I think to use an existing IDE and only supply plugins for that is the way which wil get us the best chance of a usable editor. Cefe sounded good but is dead now so I hope the best for Madeen's Eclipse plugin.
That is correct.
?
Date 2010-02-16 18:22
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
