Welcome
Ladies and Gents:

These forums are now closed and registration disabled.

Please join us at our new forum on Proboards. Our hope is that these new forums are more stable, provide more and better features, and allow continuation of the project forums in a safer, more secure, long term environment.

me3explorer.proboards.com

--The ME3Explorer Team

KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Development board for ME3Explorer tools. Please try to keep discussions for each tool inside its own thread.

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby Alvaro » 20 Dec 2016, 18:59

Excellent news indeed. Thank you very much KF! :)

I hope you could add this one into toolset asap because it is a huge improvement I think.

Even at this state I´m for one that will never use current stable Image Engine again. Bulk format conversions plus no more troubles with ATI2 normals make the difference here.

About the gui, I´m not sure about such big load button, the extremely small aditional text in some places -24" 1980x1080 here- and a few other details but that won´t stop me loving it! It´s great! :)

Regards!
Alvaro
User avatar
Alvaro
User
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 15 Mar 2015, 13:06
Has thanked: 8 time
Have thanks: 12 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby KFreon » 20 Dec 2016, 21:40

I'm interested to hear how adding it to the toolset would be useful, unless you just mean updating the tool itself in the toolset.
If the later, then I have a bit of tidying up to do then it should be able to go into the next release.

The load button should only be big until you load something though? If you could throw some screenshots in an issue on git or something, that'd be good.
I'm glad you like it :D
User avatar
KFreon
Toolset Developer
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 00:57
Has thanked: 83 time
Have thanks: 520 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby Alvaro » 20 Dec 2016, 22:41

@KF, you are right! I wanted to say updating, of course! Looks like to improve my broken english is something impossible for me! ;)

Yes, that load button is no that big as soon as you loaded any texture... but looked weird to me at first.

Neither complains nor concerns here about GUI at all. That´s more a question of personal preferences and tastes than anything else at this point to me. In fact that it could be also still under development so final tool could be different.

In any case, and if that might be of any help here:

a.- informative text looks realy small here: header details, format description close to the format selector when converting or doing bulk operations...
b.- when hovering a button, that white text onto a cyan background is not the best to read IMHO.
c.- tool window can be resized freely... that´s nice but info and buttons may overlap if you wanted to keep it small.

I hope you get the point here but no problem to post some images at Gith if that helps, of course.

Once more, congratulations. Well worth the wait because it´s a fantastic tool!
Alvaro
User avatar
Alvaro
User
 
Posts: 83
Joined: 15 Mar 2015, 13:06
Has thanked: 8 time
Have thanks: 12 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby giftfish » 21 Dec 2016, 03:02

I'd like to see more significant testing before the tool gets added into the toolset and swapped out with the existing version of the tool.

The entire reason Texplorer, TPF Tools, ModMaker, and Image Engine were made archival is due to how unpredictable they become when their code is edited, and the impossible complications this created for development. We were without a new stable for *almost two years* due to this. Image Engine is definitely the most stable of the texture tools (by far), but the plan for each tool was that the re-write would be incorporated into the toolset *only when* it had been exhaustively tested by itself. Once we verified it was as bug free as possible, only then would it be rolled back into the toolset.

This is something we don't want to rush. I'd like to see much more thorough testing by texture modders and capable texture users to try to break the tool and track down bugs. You guys could organize yourselves on Discord for some testing sessions.

K, I also do plan on getting you some GUI feedback like we talked about a few weeks ago. I'm just swamped until after the holidays. Also, don't the image manipulating functions of TPF Tools run through Image Engine? Have you been testing this using the current version of TPF Tools in the toolset, or with your WIP re-write?

--Edited to make my grammar suck less.
User avatar
giftfish
Toolset Developer
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 08 Jan 2016, 02:35
Has thanked: 129 time
Have thanks: 75 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby Ottemis » 21 Dec 2016, 03:22

giftfish wrote:I'd like to see much more thorough testing by texture modders and capable texture users to try to break the tool and track down bugs.


I'll try and pull more users/testers to it through posts here and there, so that we have a wider testing base for the tool. Hopefully these people will report issues on git as they should and any wrinkles can be ironed out faster, potentially anyways.

Ottemis has been thanked by:
User avatar
Ottemis
Harbinger
 
Posts: 824
Joined: 11 Mar 2013, 12:14
Has thanked: 225 time
Have thanks: 247 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby KFreon » 21 Dec 2016, 03:31

@gift
Tis true I suppose.
It should be tested a bit more, I just fear it won't unless it's part of the toolset.
Also, I wrote ImageEngine to centralise image stuff so the side effects of changing code aren't so unpredictable. Still, does need testing...
ImageEngine stuff is the basis of a bunch of functionality in TPFTools and Texplorer. At this stage, I haven't tested using anything related to the toolset. I extracted a bunch of textures a while back and I've just been throwing them at it.
Now, I don't expect anything to behave strangely when IE is upgraded since the external interface hasn't changed (as in the way it's used is still the same)

@Alvaro
Roger that.
- I like the big Load button and since it isn't a problem, it probably won't change.
- Hovering on buttons - Yes, I do need to try to fix that. I'll see what I can do.
- Things do overlap, but since it's resizable, is that a problem?
--- Any suggestions as to what can be done about that? I have 3 big screens so it's never been a problem for me... Advice on that front would be useful.


@otte
Having a group of testers would be good :D
User avatar
KFreon
Toolset Developer
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 00:57
Has thanked: 83 time
Have thanks: 520 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby giftfish » 24 Dec 2016, 00:48

KFreon wrote:@gift
Tis true I suppose.
It should be tested a bit more, I just fear it won't unless it's part of the toolset.
Also, I wrote ImageEngine to centralise image stuff so the side effects of changing code aren't so unpredictable. Still, does need testing...
ImageEngine stuff is the basis of a bunch of functionality in TPFTools and Texplorer. At this stage, I haven't tested using anything related to the toolset. I extracted a bunch of textures a while back and I've just been throwing them at it.
Now, I don't expect anything to behave strangely when IE is upgraded since the external interface hasn't changed (as in the way it's used is still the same)

I'm less worried about the GUI and more worried about what's under the hood. We never expect bugs; it's the ones we don't expect that end up being the problem most of the time. Centralizing things within IE makes sense, however, doesn't that mean current code within TPF Tools and Texplorer would need to be modified to be compatible with those changes in functionality? I'd be very, very surprised if there weren't any problems. This is partly why I expected that all the texture tools would be re-written, tested, and then dumped into the toolset at the same time. They all work together to a certain extent, and IE now forms the base.

Considering you haven't tested IE with the toolset at all, I think dumping it in would only be asking for problems. It could work as part of a feature branch of the main repo, but the big complication there are issues. Git issues. Issues associated with your testbuilds need to stay separate from the main repo. You need an easy way to track them, and we don't want folks getting confused between the various versions of IE in existence and posting them in the main repo. Keeping things separate for now is the best way to go.

I've thrown out the idea of a dedicated testing group before, and I think that's something we should try to put together. If folks aren't willing to test the tools, then it doesn't do us any good to develop them. I can put up a dedicated global announcement for it after Christmas, and maybe Otte can coordinate things like she said and we can get a testing group going. We should, technically, have a dedicated group of testers for the toolset, a lead tester for each tool, and a testing coordinator that oversees testing for all tools.

Now wouldn't that be nice?
User avatar
giftfish
Toolset Developer
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 08 Jan 2016, 02:35
Has thanked: 129 time
Have thanks: 75 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby CreeperLava » 24 Dec 2016, 10:34

@gift
IE is completely standalone within the toolset, there shouldn't be any more bugs if it is integrated rather than run as a standalone program. It even has a separate exe. I did some testing with K regarding the extraction and bulk conversions, all issues I found were fixed by K.
That being said, a dedicated group of testers would be nice. Not sure if there's really a need to complicate things with lead testers and so on. There won't be many people participating, and being the lead of 1 other tester seems a bit pointless to me.
User avatar
CreeperLava
User
 
Posts: 844
Joined: 07 Feb 2015, 21:52
Has thanked: 119 time
Have thanks: 83 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby KFreon » 24 Dec 2016, 12:57

@creeper: No, gift is correct. IE is the basis of Texplorer and TPFTools and performs many of the texture operations, such as loading textures, that those tools use.

@gift: I agree that the UI is less important than the backend from the toolsets' perspective.
A quick explanation of what I meant:
- The toolset is already based on IE (a previous version of IE, yes)
- The interface between IE and the toolset hasn't changed (much)
---- I see where "UI" came from. By 'interface' I mean how the toolset code is accessing IE. If we think of the IE code as a house, the insides of the house like furnature etc has been changed/moved, but the exterior of the house (i.e. the functions as seen by Texplorer) are unchanged.
- So as long as IE worked in the stable (which it did, lets say...) and independent testing using the UI has worked (lets say it has too), then it'll work fine in the toolset.

Now I agree I'm taking those two things as given, and I agree they aren't (things weren't quite working in the Stable, and things may not quite work now), but individual testing of IE will iron out bugs and those bugs cannot crop back up when IE is updated in the toolset.
There could certainly be new ones, and it will still need testing, but less testing will suffice.

tldr, individual testing done now (before updating the toolset) is still valid testing and any bugs found and fixed during such a process will "fix" them when updating the toolset.
User avatar
KFreon
Toolset Developer
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 00:57
Has thanked: 83 time
Have thanks: 520 time

Re: KFreon's WPF Rewrite

Postby CreeperLava » 24 Dec 2016, 14:54

I'm confused then, it does have it's own exe, right ? So if it works fine by itself, it should work fine when integrated in ME3Explorer ?
User avatar
CreeperLava
User
 
Posts: 844
Joined: 07 Feb 2015, 21:52
Has thanked: 119 time
Have thanks: 83 time

PreviousNext

Return to ME3Explorer Toolset Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred