for starters - because it's my code and I asked you not to. because:
A) Modelview's frontend is non-portable
B) modelview's frontend wasn't designed to be an editor from the start
C) because I'd rather concentrate programming effort on something worthwhile
A and B are reasons why the conversion will be nontrivial (A fact of which I am aware).
C is questionable. There are people out there who prefer modelview to PCS2. How a combined effort to bring both applications on the same level to serve both groups is not worthwhile is quite beyond me.
And while you are fully correct in saying that it is your code, you also made the decision to make that code public. That means that everyone, even one such as I, can go and take it to do whatever I want with it, in accordance with the license under which that code was released.
And I am quite sorry, but in this instance, I am not inclined to bow to your wishes just because you ask me to. If there are technical reasons why something is impossible, I am willing to listen to them. If it boils down to "because I don't want you to", I will ignore you. That's how I see it.
ah.. compiling on non-windows... if you're using the Makefile it's out of date... use SCons for non-windows builds
Actually, no. I'm using Visual Studio 2010.
Shields are mesh, and should be edited as such. Implementing mesh editing was on the TO DO list for PCS2. What's wrong with PCS2s support for textures in VPs? and i'm not sure what you mean "preview of the texture separated from the model"
On the TO DO list. Good. Nice to hear.
As for the support for textures in VPs, nothing is wrong with it per se. But if you look at modelview, it allows you to look at models in vps without extracting them from the vp first. It also allows you to edit those models (although, and this is certainly a good thing, it can't repackage those vps).
but what is substantially different about the UI that makes this so, that it isn't just easier to correct in the already cross platform portable UI code in PCS2?
For me personally, the fact that I can use the standard MFC editors on it is a big plus.
I asked you nicely not to fracture my codebase, and not to rip my code for use in other applications.
if it comes down to it: PCS2 isn't GPL. In fact I haven't applied a specific license to it. any and all usage of my code goes through me - it's my code.
Why would my efforts fracture your codebase? Am I committing breaking changes to your version control system without consulting you? Am I distributing builds that are not approved by you? Am I asking you to fix my bugs?
Also, since your code is hosted on SourceForge, permission to fork your code is sort of implicated. Unless you decide to make PCS2 closed source, in which case already released code is still released, and the fork can continue anyway.
I am very sorry about this escalation, but I have little to no respect for this sort of behaviour. What I see here is your desire to keep the development effort centralized. Which I can understand and appreciate. What I cannot understand is your insistence that ALL development has to be approved by you.