obs-studio/obs/forms/OBSBasic.ui

893 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ui version="4.0">
<author>Jim</author>
<class>OBSBasic</class>
<widget class="QMainWindow" name="OBSBasic">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
<width>927</width>
<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">
<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>
<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>
<property name="minimumSize">
<size>
<width>32</width>
<height>32</height>
</size>
</property>
<property name="focusPolicy">
<enum>Qt::ClickFocus</enum>
</property>
<addaction name="actionRemoveSource"/>
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>
<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>
<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">
<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>
</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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<property name="contextMenuPolicy">
<enum>Qt::CustomContextMenu</enum>
</property>
<property name="frameShape">
<enum>QFrame::NoFrame</enum>
</property>
<property name="frameShadow">
<enum>QFrame::Plain</enum>
</property>
<addaction name="actionRemoveScene"/>
</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>
<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">
<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>
</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>
<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>
<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>
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<number>0</number>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</property>
<item>
<widget class="SourceListWidget" name="sources">
<property name="sizePolicy">
<sizepolicy hsizetype="Ignored" vsizetype="Expanding">
<horstretch>0</horstretch>
<verstretch>0</verstretch>
</sizepolicy>
</property>
<property name="contextMenuPolicy">
<enum>Qt::CustomContextMenu</enum>
</property>
<property name="frameShape">
<enum>QFrame::NoFrame</enum>
</property>
<addaction name="actionRemoveSource"/>
</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>
</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>
</property>
</widget>
</item>
<item>
<widget class="VScrollArea" name="scrollArea">
<property name="verticalScrollBarPolicy">
<enum>Qt::ScrollBarAlwaysOn</enum>
</property>
<property name="horizontalScrollBarPolicy">
<enum>Qt::ScrollBarAlwaysOff</enum>
</property>
<property name="widgetResizable">
<bool>true</bool>
</property>
<widget class="QWidget" name="volumeWidgets">
<property name="geometry">
<rect>
<x>0</x>
<y>0</y>
<width>216</width>
<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">
<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>
<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">
<property name="spacing">
<number>5</number>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
<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">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</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="text">
<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">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</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="text">
<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>
<height>26</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">
<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"/>
<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"/>
<addaction name="actionShow_Recordings"/>
<addaction name="actionRemux"/>
<addaction name="separator"/>
<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>
<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>
<addaction name="actionShowLogs"/>
<addaction name="actionUploadCurrentLog"/>
<addaction name="actionUploadLastLog"/>
</widget>
<addaction name="menuLogFiles"/>
2014-07-13 23:56:28 -07:00
<addaction name="actionCheckForUpdates"/>
</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>
<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>
<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"/>
<addaction name="transformMenu"/>
<addaction name="orderMenu"/>
<addaction name="separator"/>
<addaction name="actionAdvAudioProperties"/>
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"/>
<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>
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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>
<property name="shortcut">
<string>Del</string>
</property>
<property name="shortcutContext">
<enum>Qt::WidgetWithChildrenShortcut</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</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">
<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>
<property name="shortcut">
<string>Del</string>
</property>
<property name="shortcutContext">
<enum>Qt::WidgetWithChildrenShortcut</enum>
</property>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
</action>
<action name="actionSceneProperties">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<property name="enabled">
Add source properties window (very preliminary) - Add a properties window for sources so that you can now actually edit the settings for sources. Also, display the source by itself in the window (Note: not working on mac, and possibly not working on linux). When changing the settings for a source, it will call obs_source_update on that source when you have modified any values automatically. - Add a properties 'widget', eventually I want to turn this in to a regular nice properties view like you'd see in the designer, but right now it just uses a form layout in a QScrollArea with regular controls to display the properties. It's clunky but works for the time being. - Make it so that swap chains and the main graphics subsystem will automatically use at least one backbuffer if none was specified - Fix bug where displays weren't added to the main display array - Make it so that you can get the properties of a source via the actual pointer of a source/encoder/output in addition to being able to look up properties via identifier. - When registering source types, check for required functions (wasn't doing it before). getheight/getwidth should not be optional if it's a video source as well. - Add an RAII OBSObj wrapper to obs.hpp for non-reference-counted libobs pointers - Add an RAII OBSSignal wrapper to obs.hpp for libobs signals to automatically disconnect them on destruction - Move the "scale and center" calculation in window-basic-main.cpp to its own function and in its own source file - Add an 'update' callback to WASAPI audio sources
2014-03-23 01:07:54 -07:00
<bool>true</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">
<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">
<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="actionSceneUp">
<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">
<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">
<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>
<action name="actionSourceUp">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</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">
<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">
<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>
<action name="actionSceneDown">
<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">
<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">
<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>
<action name="actionSourceDown">
<property name="enabled">
<bool>true</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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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>
<action name="actionShow_Recordings">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.ShowRecordings</string>
</property>
</action>
<action name="actionRemux">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Remux</string>
</property>
</action>
<action name="action_Settings">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.MainMenu.File.Settings</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
<action name="actionE_xit">
<property name="text">
<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>
<action name="actionShowLogs">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Help.Logs.ShowLogs</string>
</property>
</action>
<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>
<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>
2014-09-15 16:16:16 -07:00
<action name="actionInteract">
<property name="text">
<string>Interact</string>
</property>
</action>
<action name="actionAdvAudioProperties">
<property name="text">
<string>Basic.MainMenu.Edit.AdvAudio</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>
<customwidget>
<class>OBSBasicStatusBar</class>
<extends>QStatusBar</extends>
<header>window-basic-status-bar.hpp</header>
</customwidget>
<customwidget>
<class>VScrollArea</class>
<extends>QScrollArea</extends>
<header>vertical-scroll-area.hpp</header>
<container>1</container>
</customwidget>
<customwidget>
<class>SourceListWidget</class>
<extends>QListWidget</extends>
<header>source-list-widget.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>