obs-studio/obs/forms/OBSBasicSettings.ui

3311 lines
128 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ui version="4.0">
<class>OBSBasicSettings</class>
<widget class="QDialog" name="OBSBasicSettings">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
<width>896</width>
<height>667</height>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</rect>
</property>
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Fixed" vsizetype="Fixed">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="windowTitle">
2014-07-13 13:09:56 -07:00
<string>Settings</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout">
<item>
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout">
<item alignment="Qt::AlignLeft">
<widget class="QListWidget" name="listWidget">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Minimum" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="maximumSize">
<size>
<width>135</width>
<height>16777215</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="iconSize">
<size>
<width>48</width>
<height>48</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="currentRow">
<number>0</number>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.General</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/system-settings-3.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/system-settings-3.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Stream</string>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/network.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/network.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/network-bluetooth.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/network-bluetooth.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/decibel_audio_player.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/decibel_audio_player.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/video-display-3.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/video-display-3.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Hotkeys</string>
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/preferences-desktop-keyboard-shortcuts.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/preferences-desktop-keyboard-shortcuts.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced</string>
</property>
<property name="icon">
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
<normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/advanced.png</normaloff>:/settings/images/settings/advanced.png</iconset>
</property>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QStackedWidget" name="settingsPages">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="generalPage">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_2">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<spacer name="verticalSpacer">
<property name="orientation">
<enum>Qt::Vertical</enum>
</property>
<property name="sizeHint" stdset="0">
<size>
<width>20</width>
<height>40</height>
</size>
</property>
</spacer>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.General.Language</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="language"/>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_42">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.General.Theme</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="theme"/>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="warnBeforeStreamStart">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.General.WarnBeforeStartingStream</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="warnBeforeStreamStop">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.General.WarnBeforeStoppingStream</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</layout>
</widget>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<widget class="QWidget" name="streamPage">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_5">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QWidget" name="streamContainer" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Minimum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_6">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_5" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_7">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_6" native="true">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_8">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_21">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Stream.StreamType</string>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="streamType"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="Line" name="line">
<property name="orientation">
<enum>Qt::Horizontal</enum>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="outputPage">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_2">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Expanding" vsizetype="Preferred">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_5">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="outputModeLabel">
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Mode</string>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="outputMode">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Expanding" vsizetype="Fixed">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Mode.Simple</string>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Mode.Adv</string>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<item>
<widget class="Line" name="line_2">
<property name="orientation">
<enum>Qt::Horizontal</enum>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<item>
<widget class="QStackedWidget" name="outputModePages">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<widget class="QWidget" name="easyOutputsPage">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_3">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_8">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Streaming</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_20">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_19">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.VideoBitrate</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="simpleOutputVBitrate">
<property name="minimum">
<number>200</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>1000000</number>
</property>
<property name="value">
<number>2000</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_20">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="simpleOutputABitrate">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>8</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>32</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>64</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>80</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>96</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>112</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>128</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>160</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>192</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>256</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>320</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="simpleOutAdvanced">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Advanced</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="simpleOutPreset">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">ultrafast</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">superfast</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">veryfast</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">faster</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">fast</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">medium</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">slow</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">slower</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_24">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.EncoderPreset</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_23">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.CustomEncoderSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="simpleOutCustom"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_9">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Recording</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_6">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="1">
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_5">
<item>
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="simpleOutputPath">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QPushButton" name="simpleOutputBrowse">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Browse</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</item>
<item row="0" column="0">
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_18">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Simple.SavePath</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="simpleNoSpace">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.NoSpaceFileName</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="simpleOutRecFormat">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">flv</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mp4</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mov</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mkv</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">ts</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">m3u8</string>
</property>
</item>
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="simpleOutRecFormatLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Format</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="simpleOutRecQuality"/>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_26">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Simple.RecordingQuality</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="simpleOutRecEncoder"/>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="simpleOutRecEncoderLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Encoder</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_420">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.CustomMuxerSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="simpleOutMuxCustom"/>
</item>
UI: Add recording presets to simple output So certain high-profile individuals were complaining that it was difficult to configure recording settings for quality in OBS. So, I decided to add a very easy-to-use auto-configuration for high quality encoding -- including lossless encoding. This feature will automatically configure ideal recording settings based upon a specified quality level. Recording quality presets added to simple output: - Same as stream: Copies the encoded streaming data with no extra usage hit. - High quality: uses a higher CRF value (starting at 23) if using x264. - Indistinguishable quality: uses a low CRF value (starting at 16) if using x264. - Lossless will spawn an FFmpeg output that uses huffyuv encoding. If a user tries to select lossless, they will be warned both via a dialog prompt and a warning message in the settings window to ensure they understand that it requires tremendous amounts of free space. It will always use the AVI file format. Extra Notes: - When High/Indistinguishable quality is set, it will allow you to select the recording encoder. Currently, it just allows you to select x264 (at either veryfast or ultrafast). Later on, it'll be useful to be able to set up pre-configured presets for hardware encoders once more are implemented and tested. - I decided to allow the use of x264 at both veryfast or ultrafast presets. The reasoning is two-fold: 1.) ultrafast is perfectly viable even for near indistinguishable quality as long as it has the appropriate CRF value. It's nice if you want to record but would like to or need to reduce the impact of encoding on the CPU. It will automatically compensate for the preset at the cost of larger file size. 2.) It was suggested to just always use ultrafast, but ultrafast requires 2-4x as much disk space for the same CRF (most likely due to x264 compensating for the preset). Providing veryfast is important if you really want to reduce file size and/or reduce blocking at lower quality levels. - When a recording preset is used, a secondary audio encoder is also spawned at 192 bitrate to ensure high quality audio. I chose 192 because that's the limit of the media foundation aac encoder on windows, which I want to make sure is used if available due to its high performance. - The CRF calculation is based upon resolution, quality, and whether it's set to ultrafast. First, quality sets the base CRF, 23 for "good" quality, 16 for "very high" quality. If set to ultrafast, it'll subtract 2 points from the CRF value to help compensate. Lower resolutions will also lower the CRF value to help improve higher details with a smaller pixel ratio.
2015-09-18 22:29:36 -07:00
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="simpleOutInfoLayout">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>10</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>10</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>10</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>10</number>
</property>
</layout>
</item>
<item>
<spacer name="verticalSpacer_2">
<property name="orientation">
<enum>Qt::Vertical</enum>
</property>
<property name="sizeHint" stdset="0">
<size>
<width>20</width>
<height>40</height>
</size>
</property>
</spacer>
</item>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="simpleOutputContainer" native="true">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_4">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutputsPage">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_8">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QTabWidget" name="advOutTabs">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="usesScrollButtons">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutputStreamTab">
<attribute name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Streaming</string>
</attribute>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_12">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_4" native="true">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_14">
<property name="spacing">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutTopContainer" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_7">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_28">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.AudioTrack</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_8" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Preferred">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_7">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutTrack1">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">1</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutTrack2">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">2</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutTrack3">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">3</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutTrack4">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">4</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="advOutEncLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Encoder</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutEncoder"/>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutApplyService">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.ApplyServiceSettings</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutUseRescale">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Minimum" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="layoutDirection">
<enum>Qt::RightToLeft</enum>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Rescale</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutRescale">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>false</bool>
</property>
<property name="editable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutputRecordTab">
<attribute name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Recording</string>
</attribute>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_11">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutRecTypeContainer" native="true">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_9">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_31">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Recording.Type</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutRecType">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Recording.Type.Standard</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Recording.Type.FFmpegOutput</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="Line" name="line_3">
<property name="orientation">
<enum>Qt::Horizontal</enum>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QStackedWidget" name="stackedWidget">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutRecStandard">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_13">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_7" native="true">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_15">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutRecTopContainer" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_16">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_32">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Simple.SavePath</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_6">
<item>
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutRecPath">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QPushButton" name="advOutRecPathBrowse">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Browse</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutNoSpace">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.NoSpaceFileName</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_43">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Format</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutRecFormat">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">flv</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mp4</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mov</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">mkv</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">ts</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">m3u8</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_29">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.AudioTrack</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_9" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Preferred">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_9">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutRecTrack1">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">1</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutRecTrack2">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">2</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutRecTrack3">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">3</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutRecTrack4">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">4</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="advOutRecEncLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Encoder</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutRecEncoder"/>
</item>
<item row="5" column="0">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutRecUseRescale">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Minimum" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="layoutDirection">
<enum>Qt::RightToLeft</enum>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Rescale</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="1">
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutRecRescaleContainer" native="true">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_4">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutRecRescale">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>false</bool>
</property>
<property name="editable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_9001">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.CustomMuxerSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutMuxCustom"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutRecFFmpeg">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_15">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_36">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.SavePathURL</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QStackedWidget" name="stackedWidget_2">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="page_5">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_12">
<property name="spacing">
<number>3</number>
</property>
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutFFRecPath">
<property name="readOnly">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QPushButton" name="advOutFFPathBrowse">
<property name="text">
<string>Browse</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="page_4">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_8">
<property name="spacing">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutFFURL">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_16">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.Format</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutFFFormat"/>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_44">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.FormatDesc</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QLabel" name="advOutFFFormatDesc">
<property name="text">
<string/>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_40">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.VideoBitrate</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="advOutFFVBitrate">
<property name="minimum">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>1000000000</number>
</property>
<property name="value">
<number>2500</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="7" column="0">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutFFUseRescale">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Minimum" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="layoutDirection">
<enum>Qt::RightToLeft</enum>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Rescale</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="7" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutFFRescale">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>false</bool>
</property>
<property name="editable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="8" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_37">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.VEncoder</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="8" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutFFVEncoder"/>
</item>
<item row="10" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_38">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.VEncoderSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="10" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutFFVCfg"/>
</item>
<item row="11" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_41">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="11" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="advOutFFABitrate">
<property name="minimum">
<number>32</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>4096</number>
</property>
<property name="singleStep">
<number>16</number>
</property>
<property name="value">
<number>128</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="12" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_47">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.AudioTrack</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="12" column="1">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_10" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Preferred">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_10">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutFFTrack1">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">1</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutFFTrack2">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">2</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutFFTrack3">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">3</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QRadioButton" name="advOutFFTrack4">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">4</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="13" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_39">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.AEncoder</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="13" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutFFAEncoder"/>
</item>
<item row="14" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_46">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.AEncoderSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="14" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutFFACfg"/>
</item>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_48">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.Type</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutFFType">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.Type.RecordToFile</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.Type.URL</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_1337">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.FFmpeg.MuxerSettings</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutFFMCfg"/>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="advOutFFNoSpace">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.NoSpaceFileName</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advOutputAudioTracksTab">
<attribute name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio</string>
</attribute>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_9">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_3" native="true">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Preferred">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_10">
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Audio.Track1</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_10">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutTrack1Bitrate">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>8</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>32</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>64</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>80</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>96</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>112</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>128</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>160</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>192</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>256</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>320</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_25">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_55">
<property name="text">
<string>Name</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutTrack1Name"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_2">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Audio.Track2</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_11">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_49">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutTrack2Bitrate">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>8</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>32</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>64</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>80</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>96</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>112</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>128</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>160</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>192</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>256</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>320</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_50">
<property name="text">
<string>Name</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutTrack2Name"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_3">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Audio.Track3</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_12">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_51">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutTrack3Bitrate">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>8</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>32</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>64</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>80</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>96</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>112</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>128</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>160</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>192</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>256</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>320</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_52">
<property name="text">
<string>Name</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutTrack3Name"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_4">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Adv.Audio.Track4</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_13">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_53">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.AudioBitrate</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="advOutTrack4Bitrate">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>8</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>32</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>64</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>80</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>96</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>112</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>128</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>160</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>192</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>256</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>320</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_54">
<property name="text">
<string>Name</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QLineEdit" name="advOutTrack4Name"/>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="audioPage">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_14">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.SampleRate</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="sampleRate">
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true">44.1khz</string>
</property>
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>44.1khz</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>48khz</string>
</property>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_15">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.Channels</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="channelSetup">
<property name="currentText">
<string>Mono</string>
</property>
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Mono</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Stereo</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_2">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.DesktopDevice</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="desktopAudioDevice1">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_3">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.DesktopDevice2</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QComboBox" name="desktopAudioDevice2">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_4">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.AuxDevice</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QComboBox" name="auxAudioDevice1">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_5">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.AuxDevice2</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="1">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QComboBox" name="auxAudioDevice2">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_6">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Audio.AuxDevice3</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="1">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QComboBox" name="auxAudioDevice3">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="7" column="0" colspan="2">
<widget class="QScrollArea" name="audioSourceScrollArea">
<property name="widgetResizable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="audioSourceWidget">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
<width>98</width>
<height>28</height>
</rect>
</property>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="8" column="1">
<widget class="QLabel" name="audioMsg">
<property name="styleSheet">
<string notr="true">color: rgb(255, 0, 4);</string>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
<property name="wordWrap">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="videoPage">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_3">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_8">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>170</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.BaseResolution</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="baseResolution">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="editable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
<property name="duplicatesEnabled">
<bool>false</bool>
</property>
<property name="frame">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_10">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.ScaledResolution</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="outputResolution">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="editable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_11">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.DownscaleFilter</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="downscaleFilter">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="fpsType">
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Expanding" vsizetype="Fixed">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="currentText">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.FPSCommon</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<property name="sizeAdjustPolicy">
<enum>QComboBox::AdjustToContents</enum>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.FPSCommon</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.FPSInteger</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.FPSFraction</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QStackedWidget" name="fpsTypes">
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>0</number>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<widget class="QWidget" name="page">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_2">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="fpsCommon">
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true">30</string>
</property>
<property name="currentIndex">
<number>3</number>
</property>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">10</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">20</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">29.97</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">30</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">48</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">59.94</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">60</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="page_3">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_3">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="fpsInteger">
<property name="minimum">
<number>1</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>120</number>
</property>
<property name="value">
<number>30</number>
</property>
</widget>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="page_2">
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_4">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::ExpandingFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="fpsNumerator">
<property name="minimum">
<number>1</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>1000000</number>
</property>
<property name="value">
<number>30</number>
</property>
</widget>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="fpsDenominator">
<property name="minimum">
<number>1</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>1000000</number>
</property>
</widget>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</item>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_12">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.Numerator</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_13">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.Denominator</string>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QLabel" name="videoMsg">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="styleSheet">
<string notr="true">color: rgb(255, 0, 4);</string>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
<property name="wordWrap">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</layout>
</widget>
<widget class="QScrollArea" name="hotkeyPage">
<property name="widgetResizable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="hotkeyWidget">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
<width>98</width>
<height>28</height>
</rect>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="hotkeyLayout">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<property name="verticalSpacing">
<number>0</number>
</property>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
<widget class="QWidget" name="advancedPage">
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_11">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QScrollArea" name="scrollArea">
<property name="frameShape">
<enum>QFrame::NoFrame</enum>
</property>
<property name="frameShadow">
<enum>QFrame::Plain</enum>
</property>
<property name="widgetResizable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="scrollAreaWidgetContents">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
<width>525</width>
<height>383</height>
</rect>
</property>
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_16">
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>9</number>
</property>
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_11" native="true">
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_17">
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="advancedVideoContainer">
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_14">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<property name="labelAlignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_30">
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>0</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.Video.ColorFormat</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="colorFormat">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">NV12</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">I420</string>
</property>
</item>
2015-04-17 02:46:48 -07:00
<item>
<property name="text">
<string>I444</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">RGB</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_34">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.Video.ColorRange</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="4" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="colorRange"/>
</item>
<item row="3" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_33">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.Video.ColorSpace</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="3" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="colorSpace">
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">709</string>
</property>
</item>
<item>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">601</string>
</property>
</item>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="rendererLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.Renderer</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="renderer">
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="adapterLabel">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Video.Adapter</string>
</property>
<property name="alignment">
<set>Qt::AlignRight|Qt::AlignTrailing|Qt::AlignVCenter</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QComboBox" name="adapter">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>false</bool>
</property>
<property name="currentText">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="5" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="disableOSXVSync">
<property name="text">
<string>DisableOSXVSync</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="6" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="resetOSXVSync">
<property name="text">
<string>ResetOSXVSyncOnExit</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_5">
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.StreamDelay</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_18">
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="streamDelayEnable">
<property name="text">
<string>Enable</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_56">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.StreamDelay.Duration</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_12" native="true">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<layout class="QHBoxLayout" name="horizontalLayout_13">
<property name="spacing">
<number>5</number>
</property>
<property name="leftMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="topMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="rightMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<property name="bottomMargin">
<number>0</number>
</property>
<item>
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="streamDelaySec">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Fixed">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>80</width>
<height>0</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="suffix">
<string notr="true">s</string>
</property>
<property name="minimum">
<number>1</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>1800</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QLabel" name="streamDelayInfo">
<property name="text">
<string notr="true">Estimated RAM goes here</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="streamDelayPreserve">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Advanced.StreamDelay.Preserve</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QGroupBox" name="groupBox_7">
<property name="title">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.Reconnect</string>
</property>
<layout class="QFormLayout" name="formLayout_19">
<property name="fieldGrowthPolicy">
<enum>QFormLayout::AllNonFixedFieldsGrow</enum>
</property>
<item row="1" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_17">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.RetryDelay</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="0" column="1">
<widget class="QCheckBox" name="reconnectEnable">
<property name="text">
<string>Enable</string>
</property>
<property name="checked">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="1" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="reconnectRetryDelay">
<property name="maximum">
<number>30</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="0">
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_22">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.Settings.Output.MaxRetries</string>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item row="2" column="1">
<widget class="QSpinBox" name="reconnectMaxRetries">
<property name="minimum">
<number>1</number>
</property>
<property name="maximum">
<number>10000</number>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QLabel" name="advancedMsg">
<property name="styleSheet">
<string notr="true">color: rgb(255, 0, 4);</string>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
<property name="wordWrap">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QLabel" name="advancedMsg2">
<property name="styleSheet">
<string notr="true">color: rgb(255, 0, 4);</string>
</property>
<property name="text">
<string notr="true"/>
</property>
<property name="wordWrap">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="QDialogButtonBox" name="buttonBox">
<property name="standardButtons">
<set>QDialogButtonBox::Apply|QDialogButtonBox::Cancel|QDialogButtonBox::Ok</set>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
</layout>
</widget>
<tabstops>
<tabstop>listWidget</tabstop>
<tabstop>buttonBox</tabstop>
<tabstop>language</tabstop>
</tabstops>
<resources>
<include location="obs.qrc"/>
</resources>
<connections>
<connection>
<sender>listWidget</sender>
<signal>currentRowChanged(int)</signal>
<receiver>settingsPages</receiver>
<slot>setCurrentIndex(int)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>75</x>
<y>35</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>199</x>
<y>50</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>fpsType</sender>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<signal>currentIndexChanged(int)</signal>
<receiver>fpsTypes</receiver>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<slot>setCurrentIndex(int)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>159</x>
<y>34</y>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>241</x>
<y>34</y>
obs-studio UI: Implement stream settings UI - Updated the services API so that it links up with an output and the output gets data from that service rather than via settings. This allows the service context to have control over how an output is used, and makes it so that the URL/key/etc isn't necessarily some static setting. Also, if the service is attached to an output, it will stick around until the output is destroyed. - The settings interface has been updated so that it can allow the usage of service plugins. What this means is that now you can create a service plugin that can control aspects of the stream, and it allows each service to create their own user interface if they create a service plugin module. - Testing out saving of current service information. Saves/loads from JSON in to obs_data_t, seems to be working quite nicely, and the service object information is saved/preserved on exit, and loaded again on startup. - I agonized over the settings user interface for days, and eventually I just decided that the only way that users weren't going to be fumbling over options was to split up the settings in to simple/basic output, pre-configured, and then advanced for advanced use (such as multiple outputs or services, which I'll implement later). This was particularly painful to really design right, I wanted more features and wanted to include everything in one interface but ultimately just realized from experience that users are just not technically knowledgable about it and will end up fumbling with the settings rather than getting things done. Basically, what this means is that casual users only have to enter in about 3 things to configure their stream: Stream key, audio bitrate, and video bitrate. I am really happy with this interface for those types of users, but it definitely won't be sufficient for advanced usage or for custom outputs, so that stuff will have to be separated. - Improved the JSON usage for the 'common streaming services' context, I realized that JSON arrays are there to ensure sorting, while forgetting that general items are optimized for hashing. So basically I'm just using arrays now to sort items in it.
2014-04-24 01:49:07 -07:00
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>outputMode</sender>
<signal>currentIndexChanged(int)</signal>
<receiver>outputModePages</receiver>
<slot>setCurrentIndex(int)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
2014-07-03 18:07:33 -07:00
<x>586</x>
<y>38</y>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>250</x>
<y>39</y>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>simpleOutAdvanced</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>simpleOutPreset</receiver>
<slot>setVisible(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>360</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>427</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>simpleOutAdvanced</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>label_24</receiver>
<slot>setVisible(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>360</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>466</x>
<y>427</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>simpleOutAdvanced</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>simpleOutCustom</receiver>
<slot>setVisible(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>360</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>503</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>simpleOutAdvanced</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>label_23</receiver>
<slot>setVisible(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>360</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>466</x>
<y>503</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>advOutRecType</sender>
<signal>currentIndexChanged(int)</signal>
<receiver>stackedWidget</receiver>
<slot>setCurrentIndex(int)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>705</x>
<y>144</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>396</x>
<y>245</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>advOutFFUseRescale</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>advOutFFRescale</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>514</x>
<y>344</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>748</x>
<y>344</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>advOutUseRescale</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>advOutRescale</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>141</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>427</x>
<y>178</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>advOutRecUseRescale</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>advOutRecRescale</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>141</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>178</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>advOutFFType</sender>
<signal>currentIndexChanged(int)</signal>
<receiver>stackedWidget_2</receiver>
<slot>setCurrentIndex(int)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>141</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>427</x>
<y>215</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>streamDelayEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>label_56</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>141</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>864</x>
<y>215</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>streamDelayEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>streamDelayPreserve</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>427</x>
<y>355</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>862</x>
<y>355</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>streamDelayEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>widget_12</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>424</x>
<y>331</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>658</x>
<y>331</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>reconnectEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>label_17</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>875</x>
<y>254</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>466</x>
<y>291</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>reconnectEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>reconnectRetryDelay</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>516</x>
<y>411</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>250</x>
<y>92</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>reconnectEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>label_22</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>533</x>
<y>273</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>449</x>
<y>301</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
<connection>
<sender>reconnectEnable</sender>
<signal>toggled(bool)</signal>
<receiver>reconnectMaxRetries</receiver>
<slot>setEnabled(bool)</slot>
<hints>
<hint type="sourcelabel">
<x>517</x>
<y>267</y>
</hint>
<hint type="destinationlabel">
<x>777</x>
<y>206</y>
</hint>
</hints>
</connection>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</connections>
</ui>