[editor]Feature Requests

Feedback on past, current, and future development.
User avatar
Markelius
Posts: 58
Joined: 19 Mar 2013, 09:13

[editor]Feature Requests

Post by Markelius » 06 Nov 2013, 00:48

Ok so, it's been a while since I looked at the editor screenshots and how it functions, so these be irrelevant, but I'd still like to throw them out there.

1. Search function for objects/cells/ect. I know you can type the first letter of the objects in the Construction Set to get to them, but with the amount of objects under certain prefixes, this is rather useless, if I want to find a specific rock and I already know the name of it, I should just be able to type it's full name and have it pop up. Same goes for cells, scripts, and other things.

2. Hotlists/Favourites. A simple feature, but it could prove incredibly useful. Basically, say I'm working on a region, currently that would be the Sheogorad for my landscape overhaul. It would be extremely useful if I could just create an object hotlist containing all the objects I plan to use in the region, without having to go through the huge object lists in the CS to get to specific objects every time. The same could apply for cells, diolague, ect. It would save myself and I'm sure others lots of time.

3. Rebindable controls. I dislike the Construction Set's controls. I wish that they could be rebinded like the game's controls could. That would make my life a lot easier.

4. Object pivots. In blender, to move objects, you have a pivot in the center of it, you can either drag it around without the pivot, or for more precise movements you can just drag using the pivot and it will be locked to the x, y, or z axis. I realize you can do this in the CS by holding down "z, x, and y". But on a dvorak keyboard all these keys are far away from each other making it inconvenient to do so. Also, in the CS, the only way to drag an object downwards is by holding z while doing it, being able to use a pivot instead would save me lots of time.

5. Scale beyond 0.5x and 2x. For most objects, this isn't really needed, but I can think of a lot where it would come in very handy. You could create minature versions of things without having to make new meshes, or massive versions to be viewed as LOD or something. These are just examples, I'm sure there are more uses for this as well.

6. Call the editor the CHIM Kit!! I cannot stress this enough! You are missing out on a golden opportunity here! Look, I even make a logo for you!

That will be all.
Known as starwarsgal by the Morrowind Modding community.
modding tumblr | bethsoft forum profile

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5535
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Feature Requests

Post by Zini » 06 Nov 2013, 10:10

1. Search function for objects/cells/ect. I know you can type the first letter of the objects in the Construction Set to get to them, but with the amount of objects under certain prefixes, this is rather useless, if I want to find a specific rock and I already know the name of it, I should just be able to type it's full name and have it pop up. Same goes for cells, scripts, and other things.
Already implemented.
2. Hotlists/Favourites. A simple feature, but it could prove incredibly useful. Basically, say I'm working on a region, currently that would be the Sheogorad for my landscape overhaul. It would be extremely useful if I could just create an object hotlist containing all the objects I plan to use in the region, without having to go through the huge object lists in the CS to get to specific objects every time. The same could apply for cells, diolague, ect. It would save myself and I'm sure others lots of time.
You would use filters for that. Already implemented.
3. Rebindable controls. I dislike the Construction Set's controls. I wish that they could be rebinded like the game's controls could. That would make my life a lot easier.
I assume you are talking about the 3D nagivation controls. We could make them rebindable, but not a high priority IMHO. I would expect that matching the in-game controls is pretty much out of question, since navigation in-game and in the editor are two completely different things.
4. Object pivots. In blender, to move objects, you have a pivot in the center of it, you can either drag it around without the pivot, or for more precise movements you can just drag using the pivot and it will be locked to the x, y, or z axis. I realize you can do this in the CS by holding down "z, x, and y". But on a dvorak keyboard all these keys are far away from each other making it inconvenient to do so. Also, in the CS, the only way to drag an object downwards is by holding z while doing it, being able to use a pivot instead would save me lots of time.
We haven't started looking into 3D navigation and editing yet. We definitely will provide several modes to choose from and they will not match what MW does, but we don't have any details yet.
5. Scale beyond 0.5x and 2x. For most objects, this isn't really needed, but I can think of a lot where it would come in very handy. You could create minature versions of things without having to make new meshes, or massive versions to be viewed as LOD or something. These are just examples, I'm sure there are more uses for this as well.
We don't do arbitrary numeric limitations. However OpenMW automatically scales everything to [0.5, 2] on loading. This is required for compatibility. We will provide a new GMST to switch that off (most likely in OpenMW 1.1).

User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2130
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by sirherrbatka » 06 Nov 2013, 15:35

I think that most of this requests make sense, but please, post it in the feature requests subforum :)

PS
I also think that the current name (OpenCS, or OpenMW content editor) is not quite inspiring ;-)

User avatar
WeirdSexy
Posts: 609
Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 18:50
Location: USA

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by WeirdSexy » 06 Nov 2013, 16:18

1. +1 for using dvorak.

2. CHIM Kit ... I don't get it? :oops:


User avatar
Greendogo
Posts: 1376
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 02:04

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by Greendogo » 07 Nov 2013, 10:49

Calling the editor some variation of CHIM was already discussed with most participants leaving feeling itchy and scared. I'd still support it though.

For those that are too lazy to read that link, CHIM is basically an in game reference to the state of mind that gods achieve that allows them to bend reality to their thoughts and dreams. For instance, Vivec attained CHIM.

Hence something like CHIM kit for the OpenCS, even as a nickname, is quite clever.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4581
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by psi29a » 07 Nov 2013, 10:57

Call it what you will, binary name is opencs but package name, at least on debian, will be openmw-cs.

I'm partial to OpenMW-CS, with binary openmw-cs which gives the firm understanding that -cs is part of openmw project. OpenCS is too vague.

User avatar
Greendogo
Posts: 1376
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 02:04

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by Greendogo » 07 Nov 2013, 11:10

Yeah, I know, I won't suggest we change it. OpenCS is too easy to remember. But it's still a clever name. Sorry for derailing, Markelius. ;)

User avatar
Mistahtokyo
Posts: 118
Joined: 07 Sep 2013, 18:31

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by Mistahtokyo » 08 Nov 2013, 05:29

Why is OpenCS a problem? It's short, sweet, to the point. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4581
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: [editor]Feature Requests

Post by psi29a » 08 Nov 2013, 10:28

Mistahtokyo wrote:Why is OpenCS a problem? It's short, sweet, to the point. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
OpenCS would mean OpenConstructionSet, which is too vague... and there are already other projects that use that name:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencs/

OpenMW-CS is to the point and obvious that it's OpenMW's Construction Set.

While in the context of Morrowind, opencs makes sense... openmw/opencs. Problem is that outside this niche, it can cause confusion. In addition to that opencs is specific to openmw, so a better term would be OpenMW-CS to denote that this CS is specific to OpenMW.

That is how it is to be packaged in Debian/Ubuntu, because opencs is already used another binary predating ours.

Zini: This is a naming problem and conflicts with a pre-existing package. Shouldn't we rename the binary anyway?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests