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archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do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">
|
|
|
|
<author>Jim</author>
|
|
|
|
<class>OBSBasic</class>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QMainWindow" name="OBSBasic">
|
|
|
|
<property name="geometry">
|
|
|
|
<rect>
|
|
|
|
<x>0</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>0</y>
|
|
|
|
<width>927</width>
|
2014-01-23 16:00:42 -08:00
|
|
|
<height>700</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="Minimum" vsizetype="Minimum">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>0</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>0</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="windowTitle">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>.MainWindow</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>
|
2014-07-26 12:29:39 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="windowIcon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/obs.png</normaloff>:/res/images/obs.png</iconset>
|
|
|
|
</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="centralwidget">
|
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout">
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="OBSBasicPreview" name="preview" native="true">
|
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="Expanding">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-01-23 16:00:42 -08:00
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>32</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>32</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</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 alignment="Qt::AlignHCenter|Qt::AlignVCenter">
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget" native="true">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Fixed" vsizetype="Fixed">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<width>720</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="maximumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>16777215</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>154</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_5" native="true">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Preferred">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>150</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>0</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QLabel" name="label">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.Scenes</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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QFrame" name="frame_2">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShape">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::StyledPanel</enum>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShadow">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::Sunken</enum>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_3">
|
|
|
|
<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="QListWidget" name="scenes">
|
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Ignored" vsizetype="Expanding">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-06-30 01:13:32 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="contextMenuPolicy">
|
|
|
|
<enum>Qt::CustomContextMenu</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShape">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::NoFrame</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="frameShadow">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::Plain</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QToolBar" name="toolBar">
|
|
|
|
<property name="iconSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>16</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>16</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="floatable">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionAddScene"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRemoveScene"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSceneProperties"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSceneUp"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSceneDown"/>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
</layout>
|
|
|
|
</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
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_3" native="true">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Preferred">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>150</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>0</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_5">
|
|
|
|
<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="QLabel" name="label_2">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.Sources</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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QFrame" name="frame_3">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Expanding">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShape">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::StyledPanel</enum>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShadow">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::Sunken</enum>
|
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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_4">
|
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="spacing">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<property name="leftMargin">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<property name="topMargin">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<property name="rightMargin">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<property name="bottomMargin">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QListWidget" name="sources">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Ignored" vsizetype="Expanding">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-06-30 01:13:32 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="contextMenuPolicy">
|
|
|
|
<enum>Qt::CustomContextMenu</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="frameShape">
|
|
|
|
<enum>QFrame::NoFrame</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QToolBar" name="toolBar_2">
|
|
|
|
<property name="iconSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
|
|
|
<width>16</width>
|
|
|
|
<height>16</height>
|
|
|
|
</size>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="floatable">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionAddSource"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRemoveSource"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSourceProperties"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSourceUp"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionSourceDown"/>
|
|
|
|
</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>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
</layout>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_4" native="true">
|
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QLabel" name="label_3">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Mixer</string>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QScrollArea" name="scrollArea">
|
|
|
|
<property name="verticalScrollBarPolicy">
|
|
|
|
<enum>Qt::ScrollBarAlwaysOn</enum>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="widgetResizable">
|
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="volumeWidgets">
|
|
|
|
<property name="geometry">
|
|
|
|
<rect>
|
|
|
|
<x>0</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>0</y>
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<width>233</width>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<height>16</height>
|
|
|
|
</rect>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Preferred" vsizetype="Maximum">
|
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_6">
|
|
|
|
<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>
|
|
|
|
</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
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item alignment="Qt::AlignTop">
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QWidget" name="widget_2" native="true">
|
|
|
|
<property name="sizePolicy">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Maximum" vsizetype="Minimum">
|
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
|
|
|
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
|
|
|
|
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
|
|
|
|
</sizepolicy>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="minimumSize">
|
|
|
|
<size>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<width>150</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>
|
|
|
|
<layout class="QVBoxLayout" name="verticalLayout_10">
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
<property name="spacing">
|
2014-01-26 14:36:15 -08:00
|
|
|
<number>5</number>
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
</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="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="QPushButton" name="streamButton">
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
2014-03-10 13:10:35 -07:00
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
</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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.StartStreaming</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="checkable">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QPushButton" name="recordButton">
|
2014-03-10 13:10:35 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
2014-05-20 23:27:27 -07:00
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
2014-03-10 13:10:35 -07:00
|
|
|
</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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.StartRecording</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>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QPushButton" name="settingsButton">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Settings</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
<item>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QPushButton" name="exitButton">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Exit</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
</layout>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
</layout>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
</item>
|
|
|
|
</layout>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenuBar" name="menubar">
|
|
|
|
<property name="geometry">
|
|
|
|
<rect>
|
|
|
|
<x>0</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>0</y>
|
|
|
|
<width>927</width>
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<height>24</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>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="menu_File">
|
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File</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>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="action_Save"/>
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="action_Open"/>
|
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
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
2014-08-21 18:18:42 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionShow_Recordings"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
2014-04-15 05:19:59 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="action_Settings"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
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
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionE_xit"/>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
2014-05-18 17:44:10 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="menuBasic_MainMenu_Help">
|
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="menuLogFiles">
|
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.Logs</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-08-21 18:19:19 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionShowLogs"/>
|
2014-05-18 17:44:10 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionUploadCurrentLog"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionUploadLastLog"/>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="menuLogFiles"/>
|
2014-07-13 23:56:28 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionCheckForUpdates"/>
|
2014-05-18 17:44:10 -07:00
|
|
|
</widget>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="menuBasic_MainMenu_Edit">
|
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
2014-06-30 01:13:32 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="transformMenu">
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionEditTransform"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionResetTransform"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRotate90CW"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRotate90CCW"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRotate180"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionFlipHorizontal"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionFlipVertical"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionFitToScreen"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionStretchToScreen"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionCenterToScreen"/>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
2014-06-30 19:47:06 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="QMenu" name="orderMenu">
|
|
|
|
<property name="title">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Order</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionMoveUp"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionMoveDown"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionMoveToTop"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionMoveToBottom"/>
|
|
|
|
</widget>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionUndo"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="actionRedo"/>
|
|
|
|
<addaction name="separator"/>
|
2014-06-30 01:13:32 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="transformMenu"/>
|
2014-06-30 19:47:06 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="orderMenu"/>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
</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
|
|
|
<addaction name="menu_File"/>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="menuBasic_MainMenu_Edit"/>
|
2014-05-18 17:44:10 -07:00
|
|
|
<addaction name="menuBasic_MainMenu_Help"/>
|
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>
|
2014-07-06 16:19:27 -07:00
|
|
|
<widget class="OBSBasicStatusBar" name="statusbar"/>
|
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
|
|
|
<action name="actionAddScene">
|
|
|
|
<property name="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/add.png</normaloff>:/res/images/add.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Add</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionAddSource">
|
|
|
|
<property name="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/add.png</normaloff>:/res/images/add.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Add</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRemoveScene">
|
|
|
|
<property name="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/list_remove.png</normaloff>:/res/images/list_remove.png</iconset>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Remove</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRemoveSource">
|
|
|
|
<property name="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/list_remove.png</normaloff>:/res/images/list_remove.png</iconset>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Remove</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>
|
2014-06-30 18:21:40 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Del</string>
|
|
|
|
</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
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionSceneProperties">
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/properties.png</normaloff>:/res/images/properties.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Properties</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionSourceProperties">
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
2014-03-23 01:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/properties.png</normaloff>:/res/images/properties.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Properties</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-01-24 20:19:50 -08:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionSceneUp">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/up.png</normaloff>:/res/images/up.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.MoveUp</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-01-24 20:19:50 -08:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionSourceUp">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/up.png</normaloff>:/res/images/up.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>MoveUp</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-01-24 20:19:50 -08:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionSceneDown">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/down.png</normaloff>:/res/images/down.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.Main.MoveDown</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-01-24 20:19:50 -08:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionSourceDown">
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<bool>true</bool>
|
2014-05-03 22:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
</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="icon">
|
|
|
|
<iconset resource="obs.qrc">
|
2014-05-15 17:36:56 -07:00
|
|
|
<normaloff>:/res/images/down.png</normaloff>:/res/images/down.png</iconset>
|
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="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>MoveDown</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="action_New">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.SwitchMode</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="action_Open">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Export</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="action_Save">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Import</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-08-21 18:18:42 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionShow_Recordings">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.ShowRecordings</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-04-15 05:19:59 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="action_Settings">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Settings</string>
|
2014-04-15 05:19:59 -07:00
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
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
|
|
|
<action name="actionE_xit">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
2014-05-10 18:47:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Exit</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>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-08-21 18:19:19 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionShowLogs">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.Logs.ShowLogs</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-05-18 17:44:10 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionUploadLastLog">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.Logs.UploadLastLog</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionUploadCurrentLog">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.Logs.UploadCurrentLog</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionUndo">
|
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Undo</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRedo">
|
|
|
|
<property name="enabled">
|
|
|
|
<bool>false</bool>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Redo</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionEditTransform">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.EditTransform</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRotate90CW">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.Rotate90CW</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRotate90CCW">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.Rotate90CCW</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionRotate180">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.Rotate180</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionFitToScreen">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.FitToScreen</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+F</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionStretchToScreen">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.StretchToScreen</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+S</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionResetTransform">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.ResetTransform</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+R</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionCenterToScreen">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.CenterToScreen</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+C</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionFlipHorizontal">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.FlipHorizontal</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionFlipVertical">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Transform.FlipVertical</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-06-30 19:47:06 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionMoveUp">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Order.MoveUp</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+Up</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionMoveDown">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Order.MoveDown</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+Down</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionMoveToTop">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Order.MoveToTop</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+Home</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
|
|
|
<action name="actionMoveToBottom">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.Order.MoveToBottom</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
<property name="shortcut">
|
|
|
|
<string>Ctrl+End</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
2014-07-13 23:56:28 -07:00
|
|
|
<action name="actionCheckForUpdates">
|
|
|
|
<property name="text">
|
|
|
|
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.CheckForUpdates</string>
|
|
|
|
</property>
|
|
|
|
</action>
|
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>
|
|
|
|
<customwidgets>
|
|
|
|
<customwidget>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<class>OBSBasicPreview</class>
|
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
|
|
|
<extends>QWidget</extends>
|
UI: Add scene editing
So, scene editing was interesting (and by interesting I mean
excruciating). I almost implemented 'manipulator' visuals (ala 3dsmax
for example), and used 3 modes for controlling position/rotation/size,
but in a 2D editing, it felt clunky, so I defaulted back to simply
click-and-drag for movement, and then took a similar though slightly
different looking approach for handling scaling and reszing.
I also added a number of menu item helpers related to positioning,
scaling, rotating, flipping, and resetting the transform back to
default.
There is also a new 'transform' dialog (accessible via menu) which will
allow you to manually edit every single transform variable of a scene
item directly if desired.
If a scene item does not have bounds active, pulling on the sides of a
source will cause it to resize it via base scale rather than by the
bounding box system (if the source resizes that scale will apply). If
bounds are active, it will modify the bounding box only instead.
How a source scales when a bounding box is active depends on the type of
bounds being used. You can set it to scale to the inner bounds, the
outer bounds, scale to bounds width only, scale to bounds height only,
and a setting to stretch to bounds (which forces a source to always draw
at the bounding box size rather than be affected by its internal size).
You can also set it to be used as a 'maximum' size, so that the source
doesn't necessarily get scaled unless it extends beyond the bounds.
Like in OBS1, objects will snap to the edges unless the control key is
pressed. However, this will now happen even if the object is rotated or
oriented in any strange way. Snapping will also occur when stretching
or changing the bounding box size.
2014-06-15 00:54:48 -07:00
|
|
|
<header>window-basic-preview.hpp</header>
|
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
|
|
|
<container>1</container>
|
|
|
|
</customwidget>
|
2014-07-06 16:19:27 -07:00
|
|
|
<customwidget>
|
|
|
|
<class>OBSBasicStatusBar</class>
|
|
|
|
<extends>QStatusBar</extends>
|
|
|
|
<header>window-basic-status-bar.hpp</header>
|
|
|
|
</customwidget>
|
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
|
|
|
</customwidgets>
|
|
|
|
<resources>
|
|
|
|
<include location="obs.qrc"/>
|
|
|
|
</resources>
|
|
|
|
<connections>
|
|
|
|
<connection>
|
|
|
|
<sender>actionE_xit</sender>
|
|
|
|
<signal>triggered()</signal>
|
|
|
|
<receiver>OBSBasic</receiver>
|
|
|
|
<slot>close()</slot>
|
|
|
|
<hints>
|
|
|
|
<hint type="sourcelabel">
|
|
|
|
<x>-1</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>-1</y>
|
|
|
|
</hint>
|
|
|
|
<hint type="destinationlabel">
|
|
|
|
<x>463</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>351</y>
|
|
|
|
</hint>
|
|
|
|
</hints>
|
|
|
|
</connection>
|
|
|
|
<connection>
|
|
|
|
<sender>exitButton</sender>
|
|
|
|
<signal>clicked()</signal>
|
|
|
|
<receiver>OBSBasic</receiver>
|
|
|
|
<slot>close()</slot>
|
|
|
|
<hints>
|
|
|
|
<hint type="sourcelabel">
|
|
|
|
<x>697</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>615</y>
|
|
|
|
</hint>
|
|
|
|
<hint type="destinationlabel">
|
|
|
|
<x>463</x>
|
|
|
|
<y>351</y>
|
|
|
|
</hint>
|
|
|
|
</hints>
|
|
|
|
</connection>
|
|
|
|
</connections>
|
|
|
|
</ui>
|