[The E]

Please take this to PMs.

[Kazan]

I am skeptical.  I would much rather see stuff moved into ModelView from PCS2 than the other way around.

yeah.. modelview with its hammered **** gui code (gui might look pretty.. buts its code isn't) that is non-portable, and wasn't designed to be an editor from the ground up.

we've already settled this.  The_E is going to make an awesome GUI for PCS2.  

if it comes down to it: PCS2 isn't GPL.  In fact I haven't applied a specific license to it.

it is now.. so the rest of your post is pointless

[Spicious]

Registered on sf as spicious.

I look forward to the awesome (and hopefully cross-platform) GUI.

[Kazan]

added

[Bobboau]

I don't suppose a chatlog of the discussion could be posted, I'd like to know what changes are being planned. I just read this whole ****ing topic to find out what changes are planned only to find 'we talked about it in chat'. hearing 'redoing' the UI is making me a little nervous, because the UI was designed to be easily extensible and dynamic. we aren't going to end up with having to manually read and write to the control for everything are we? were not going to have controls that stay the same shape and size regardless of the parent panel they are in are we?

now as far a what was being discussed earlier about using the PCS2 backed and the modelview frontend, I actually think this might be a worthwhile project, as it would involve decoupling the POF classes from the UI and allow it to be easily integrated into other projects. this would necessitate breaking PCS2 in 2 though a POF library and PCS2 proper, which again I think would be a good idea.

[chief1983]

Supposedly there isn't too much coupling already, as before this plan was set in motion The_E believed he had already isolated the PCS2 backend into its own library.  But yes, I've been pushing for discrete objects and libs for lots of things, way back to the PCS2 Collada support.  It would have allowed various front ends to make use of the Collada conversion code without being dependent on PCS2 or changes to its interfaces.

[Nuke]

making it possible to run pcs2 in a command line mode would be pretty cool for anyone who wants to write custom scripts for conversion. all editing should be possible with this meathod. say if i wanted to make a large detailboxed terrain map from a large texture and topographic map. i could write a script that would automatically cut up the texture, generate geometry for them at various levels of complexity, and feed all the neccisary model and texture data into pcs2, setting up all the detail box subobject flags for each tile automatically, then save to pof. im sure there are other things like that wich could be done with such an interface.

[chief1983]

Yup, having a separate lib for all that stuff would make that far more trivial.  But again, it sounds like it's pretty close to that already, so it might not be too hard to do.

[Kazan]

yes the backend is trivial to isolate from the frontend.  it was designed that way intentionally.

no to modelview frontend.

[Bobboau]

if someone else wants to do it and it helps improve modularity of pcs2 / pof code why not? for an open source proponent you are awfully clingy with what happens with your code outside of your control.

[Kazan]

Modelview's UI is written in MFC, i really don't want any code i wrote behind an MFC application.  I cannot stop you, but i really would rather it not be done.

[chief1983]

There's  definitely other purposes it could serve though too.  Nuke's suggestion is a good one.  Unit testing too.

[Bobboau]

by that logic a billion open source libraries wouldn't have been written because of fear that someone would use them in a ****ty project.