It's a long way to the top
by M. Ugur Karakaplan · in Torque Game Builder · 06/20/2007 (11:12 am) · 18 replies
This thread is for the very attention of TGB team.
I just finished reading the documentation and every other help stuff available. I have to make some comments and suggestions, and I hope TGB team will take those seriously.
First of all, I have to say that I am an advanced game programmer. I have a published game programmed in Game Maker 6 and it still sells in the stores. Recently, I decided to start using TGB because I believed that it will give me more flexibility but now I am not sure whether my decision was a good one. I started considering switching back to Game Maker or buying some other software because of the following reasons. Could you please check each point and inform me whether there will be improvements in those issues or not?
1- TGB is not keyboard friendly. To give a couple of examples, delete key cannot delete the animation frames, you have to select the frame with mouse and click delete button. Also to delete an image in the create list, you have to drag and drop it to the trash box, delete key does not work. Enter does not work in the "create a new project" box. You cannot use keyboard in level scene editing. There are a lot of other examples which I am not going to mention. Assigning keys to TGB actions should not be difficult. I hope the very next version of TGB will be more keyboard friendly.
2- Game tutorials are not enough at all. The documentation should have a professional platform tutorial (I do not count the one in the web as tutorial) with the most important items such as collectables, moving platforms, enemies, etc. Also, there should be tutorials for puzzle, strategy, adventure and other common genres. If the TGB team cannot produce such tutorials because of time constraint or some other problems, they can always find creative solutions like tutorial competitions with prizes, etc. The "Make a tutorial and become a hero" way is not attractive at all, because TGB is an expensive game builder, which creates some expectations in return. If it was cheap as Game Maker ($20) there would be thousands of tutorials in every genre you can think of, written by users.
3- The documentation is not user friendly. It is not well ordered and a lot of information is either missing or misplaced. I am pretty sure that TGB team knows what I am talking about.
4- A built-in script editor would have been extremely handy. To be honest, I do not want to pay for an external script editor. Notepad is simply not enough. Game Maker has a built-in script editor which has a real time code help and debugging. TGB can have too.
5- A built-in file explorer would have been extremely handy. It is not possible in TGB to reach the folders of another project and copy some stuff to the folders of current project. You have to open other windows in your system, and work on your own explorer. TGB can only see what the current project has in its folder. The horizon can be extended.
Continues in the next thread...
I just finished reading the documentation and every other help stuff available. I have to make some comments and suggestions, and I hope TGB team will take those seriously.
First of all, I have to say that I am an advanced game programmer. I have a published game programmed in Game Maker 6 and it still sells in the stores. Recently, I decided to start using TGB because I believed that it will give me more flexibility but now I am not sure whether my decision was a good one. I started considering switching back to Game Maker or buying some other software because of the following reasons. Could you please check each point and inform me whether there will be improvements in those issues or not?
1- TGB is not keyboard friendly. To give a couple of examples, delete key cannot delete the animation frames, you have to select the frame with mouse and click delete button. Also to delete an image in the create list, you have to drag and drop it to the trash box, delete key does not work. Enter does not work in the "create a new project" box. You cannot use keyboard in level scene editing. There are a lot of other examples which I am not going to mention. Assigning keys to TGB actions should not be difficult. I hope the very next version of TGB will be more keyboard friendly.
2- Game tutorials are not enough at all. The documentation should have a professional platform tutorial (I do not count the one in the web as tutorial) with the most important items such as collectables, moving platforms, enemies, etc. Also, there should be tutorials for puzzle, strategy, adventure and other common genres. If the TGB team cannot produce such tutorials because of time constraint or some other problems, they can always find creative solutions like tutorial competitions with prizes, etc. The "Make a tutorial and become a hero" way is not attractive at all, because TGB is an expensive game builder, which creates some expectations in return. If it was cheap as Game Maker ($20) there would be thousands of tutorials in every genre you can think of, written by users.
3- The documentation is not user friendly. It is not well ordered and a lot of information is either missing or misplaced. I am pretty sure that TGB team knows what I am talking about.
4- A built-in script editor would have been extremely handy. To be honest, I do not want to pay for an external script editor. Notepad is simply not enough. Game Maker has a built-in script editor which has a real time code help and debugging. TGB can have too.
5- A built-in file explorer would have been extremely handy. It is not possible in TGB to reach the folders of another project and copy some stuff to the folders of current project. You have to open other windows in your system, and work on your own explorer. TGB can only see what the current project has in its folder. The horizon can be extended.
Continues in the next thread...
#2
2. As TGB is priced higher there are less people using the engine, hence less tutorials (like you commented). Also more TGB are professionals rather then hobbiests who don't have as much time to write tutorials. GG did hand out bounties for tutorials a while ago, there are a fair few. TGB isn't hard to work out, just takes time ;)
3. You're not the first person to comment on the docs. I've never had a problem with them, but thats because I'm used to TGE's docs, and TGB's are far superior!
4. As Scott said there are a bunch, I reccommend Codeweaver.
5. There is an import option in the main menu but it doesn't seem to do anything. Using a script editor like Codeweaver will solve most of those problems as you can import using that.
06/20/2007 (5:44 pm)
1. Good points, never noticed it before but i don't mind the mouse :P 2. As TGB is priced higher there are less people using the engine, hence less tutorials (like you commented). Also more TGB are professionals rather then hobbiests who don't have as much time to write tutorials. GG did hand out bounties for tutorials a while ago, there are a fair few. TGB isn't hard to work out, just takes time ;)
3. You're not the first person to comment on the docs. I've never had a problem with them, but thats because I'm used to TGE's docs, and TGB's are far superior!
4. As Scott said there are a bunch, I reccommend Codeweaver.
5. There is an import option in the main menu but it doesn't seem to do anything. Using a script editor like Codeweaver will solve most of those problems as you can import using that.
#3
edit : url www.torquedev.com/
06/20/2007 (9:24 pm)
4) Codeweaver is the best option, and I find it even superior to Torsion in many aspects (but only for windows).edit : url www.torquedev.com/
#4
06/20/2007 (11:38 pm)
I just use PSPad with a self-made TorqueScript config file. Works great... I couldn't really get friendly with Codeweaver.
#5
One immediate suggestion about this forum: The threads could have been editable or deletable by the author.
All of my comments are based on TGB version 1.1.3. I am real glad that some of the issues were solved in version 1.5. I hope other issues will be solved soon. Then TGB will be the best.
Topic: It's a long way to the top (page 2/3)
Vedat Karakaplan
Member Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:13
6- Creating a level scene in TGB is a torture. Toolbox for editing a tile layer is not enough. I have a background image map of 500 images each 16x16. It is not possible to view them all at the same time with tile editing option. When you click "frame" button in tile editing, a scroll box comes which enables viewing the tiles. That box is size-adjustable; however it cannot get out of TGB window. It does not work as an independent floating window. When you select a tile, it disappears, and when you click the frame button, it does not come back in the previous position. And unfortunately, it distorts the tile images in a way that you cannot tell which image is what you want. When you put a tile image in a wrong place in the tile layer, you have to drag all the way to the eraser, select it, come back, remember which tile was put wrongly and erase it, and then drag all the way to the brush, select it, come back and continue tiling your level. If you want to create a level scene of 1600x1600 with 500 images of size 16x16, considering that you will need to make a lot of changes, this kind of mouse dependence is definitely a torture. The tools for level scene/tile layer editing should be improved.
7- Animated sprite editor is not flexible. You cannot insert an empty frame; deleting a frame needs clicking, keyboard does not work at all; changing the order of the images in story board is not possible; the images has deformation and it is not possible to view the animation in original sizes, etc. Also a link to external picture editors or a built-in picture editor for simple changes in images would have been very useful.
8- Collision system is not appropriate for many 2D games. There is a trade-off between visual quality and performance, but if your character collects the coins with an invisible body between his hand and foot (because of the convex collision polygon), or stops before actually hitting the wall (because of single collision polygon image for all of the animation frames), or gets stuck on air just before reaching on a platform or dies with an arrow before it actually hits his head (again because of invisible bodies created by convex polygons) this clearly says that you should sacrifice a little performance for more visual quality. In this collision system of TGB, you either have to construct convex image parts and mount them all to each other or have actual convex character images like balls or blocks to have visual quality. Precise collision check and multi-polygon collision check should be enabled as options as soon as possible.
9- Dynamic fields tab can be improved. It is almost for sure that you do not want a dynamic field with the name "Field name" and the value "Field value" so when you click these text boxes, it could have had these informative texts selected, so that when you start typing the unnecessary texts can be deleted immediately. Also, the variables in the dynamic fields are not ordered according to creation order, alphabetical order or numerical order. Changing the order is not possible, and in this case, with a lot of variables in dynamic fields, it takes time to find what you are looking for.
10- Screen size of TGB main window is not adjustable. There are specific ratios in preferences and full screen options with those ratios, but maximizing the window is disabled. Also having a custom window size is impossible. I hated the fixed window size at first sight and I still cannot find a logical reason not to have flexibility.
06/21/2007 (4:21 am)
Unfortunately each thread is allowed to have 4000 characters. I could not think of posting the last two as replies and I thought that it would not be a problem to open three threads since they are all about separate subjects. I apologize if some people are annoyed because of multiple posts. I will post the second and third page and all the replies (with the permission) under this thread. Could a moderator please delete the other threads and change the title of this thread to "It's a long way to the top" without page number.One immediate suggestion about this forum: The threads could have been editable or deletable by the author.
All of my comments are based on TGB version 1.1.3. I am real glad that some of the issues were solved in version 1.5. I hope other issues will be solved soon. Then TGB will be the best.
Topic: It's a long way to the top (page 2/3)
Vedat Karakaplan
Member Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:13
6- Creating a level scene in TGB is a torture. Toolbox for editing a tile layer is not enough. I have a background image map of 500 images each 16x16. It is not possible to view them all at the same time with tile editing option. When you click "frame" button in tile editing, a scroll box comes which enables viewing the tiles. That box is size-adjustable; however it cannot get out of TGB window. It does not work as an independent floating window. When you select a tile, it disappears, and when you click the frame button, it does not come back in the previous position. And unfortunately, it distorts the tile images in a way that you cannot tell which image is what you want. When you put a tile image in a wrong place in the tile layer, you have to drag all the way to the eraser, select it, come back, remember which tile was put wrongly and erase it, and then drag all the way to the brush, select it, come back and continue tiling your level. If you want to create a level scene of 1600x1600 with 500 images of size 16x16, considering that you will need to make a lot of changes, this kind of mouse dependence is definitely a torture. The tools for level scene/tile layer editing should be improved.
7- Animated sprite editor is not flexible. You cannot insert an empty frame; deleting a frame needs clicking, keyboard does not work at all; changing the order of the images in story board is not possible; the images has deformation and it is not possible to view the animation in original sizes, etc. Also a link to external picture editors or a built-in picture editor for simple changes in images would have been very useful.
8- Collision system is not appropriate for many 2D games. There is a trade-off between visual quality and performance, but if your character collects the coins with an invisible body between his hand and foot (because of the convex collision polygon), or stops before actually hitting the wall (because of single collision polygon image for all of the animation frames), or gets stuck on air just before reaching on a platform or dies with an arrow before it actually hits his head (again because of invisible bodies created by convex polygons) this clearly says that you should sacrifice a little performance for more visual quality. In this collision system of TGB, you either have to construct convex image parts and mount them all to each other or have actual convex character images like balls or blocks to have visual quality. Precise collision check and multi-polygon collision check should be enabled as options as soon as possible.
9- Dynamic fields tab can be improved. It is almost for sure that you do not want a dynamic field with the name "Field name" and the value "Field value" so when you click these text boxes, it could have had these informative texts selected, so that when you start typing the unnecessary texts can be deleted immediately. Also, the variables in the dynamic fields are not ordered according to creation order, alphabetical order or numerical order. Changing the order is not possible, and in this case, with a lot of variables in dynamic fields, it takes time to find what you are looking for.
10- Screen size of TGB main window is not adjustable. There are specific ratios in preferences and full screen options with those ratios, but maximizing the window is disabled. Also having a custom window size is impossible. I hated the fixed window size at first sight and I still cannot find a logical reason not to have flexibility.
#6
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 03:57
6. Simple idea is to just split your tile map into smaller chunks, a couple of minutes in paint... It would be helpful add more about "how" you would improve the editor...any 1660x1600 tilemap with 500 images will take some serious work unless there is a magic "make" button...
7. Editing the animation I understand, but an in-built editor? This is an game engine, not an art application. Linking to a art program I don't really understand, it doesn't take long to open it up manually, hell even set up a windows shortcut if your that keyboard oriented.
8. I think I explined why pixel collision doesn't work as well in TGB in another thread so I'm sure you can find that there. You can also change the collisions per frame, just takes some hefty coding and clever use of the onFrameChange callback.
9. I agree with all of that, alphabetical order would be nice.
10. Never bothered me but cant see why it cant be changed.
Overall good comments and helpful, but put it all on one thread please ;) Also there is too much comparison with GM. I realise that you can only compare to what you used before but there is a lot of things TGB that GM doesn't.
Luke Larson
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 04:10
10. In TGB 1.5 the screen can be adjusted to however you like it.
7. I agree with Tom. It's not an art tool. Just edit your images outside of TGB and click the reload textures button under edit (I believe this is a 1.5 only feature also but I could be wrong).
Benjamin Grauer
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 07:42
6) I totally agree with you. In fact, the tile editor was quite good in 1.0 days, but it wasn't directly into the level builder. I didn't saw that as something bad, but someone wasn't of my opinion.
So they made another one into level builder, but far less reliable :|
8) If performance doesn't break down, I would appreciate it. But I think I can manage without non-convex or pixel perfect collision. And if I can't, I'd split up the the characters into multiple collision polygons.
10) It is now, with 1.5.
06/21/2007 (4:22 am)
Tom PerryMember Posted: Jun 21, 2007 03:57
6. Simple idea is to just split your tile map into smaller chunks, a couple of minutes in paint... It would be helpful add more about "how" you would improve the editor...any 1660x1600 tilemap with 500 images will take some serious work unless there is a magic "make" button...
7. Editing the animation I understand, but an in-built editor? This is an game engine, not an art application. Linking to a art program I don't really understand, it doesn't take long to open it up manually, hell even set up a windows shortcut if your that keyboard oriented.
8. I think I explined why pixel collision doesn't work as well in TGB in another thread so I'm sure you can find that there. You can also change the collisions per frame, just takes some hefty coding and clever use of the onFrameChange callback.
9. I agree with all of that, alphabetical order would be nice.
10. Never bothered me but cant see why it cant be changed.
Overall good comments and helpful, but put it all on one thread please ;) Also there is too much comparison with GM. I realise that you can only compare to what you used before but there is a lot of things TGB that GM doesn't.
Luke Larson
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 04:10
10. In TGB 1.5 the screen can be adjusted to however you like it.
7. I agree with Tom. It's not an art tool. Just edit your images outside of TGB and click the reload textures button under edit (I believe this is a 1.5 only feature also but I could be wrong).
Benjamin Grauer
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 07:42
6) I totally agree with you. In fact, the tile editor was quite good in 1.0 days, but it wasn't directly into the level builder. I didn't saw that as something bad, but someone wasn't of my opinion.
So they made another one into level builder, but far less reliable :|
8) If performance doesn't break down, I would appreciate it. But I think I can manage without non-convex or pixel perfect collision. And if I can't, I'd split up the the characters into multiple collision polygons.
10) It is now, with 1.5.
#7
Vedat Karakaplan
Member Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:13
11- "Exit TGB - restart TGB" is not cute. Every time you edit game.cs either you have to exit and restart TGB or open a different project and then reopen the actual project. This restarting process is necessary, but there can be a solution for making it simpler like a reset button, or a short cut to open an empty (temporary) project and reopen the actual project. Dragging mouse here and there because of tasks like turning TGB on/off is boring.
12- Creating a resource package is still not easy. It could have been possible to create a resource package with a few clicks, nevertheless in current version of TGB you have to follow a lot of steps such as creating folders, cs files, copying template codes, etc to have a resource package. I believe resource package creation process can be easily simplified to streamline workflow.
13- Finding/selecting a specific object on scene view is difficult. Object tree view in project tab somewhat helps, but it could have been easier to find the object if they had their scripting names next to their td2 tags. And it is not possible to sort the objects in object tree alphabetically. So if you are looking for a specific td2StaticSprite in a game with say 5000 objects, you have to start from the top of the object tree list, and check every td2StaticSprite, skipping all other 4000 scattered objects by scrolling. And it is highly probable to skip your td2StaticSprite somewhere in between other objects while scrolling. Object tree view should be improved.
There can be some further additions such as viewing mouse coordinates in scene view window or having a restart button in play level screen but those are minor changes and I am not going to mention those. The above were the issues I noticed when I started reading the documentation and using TGB. I do not want to compare Game Maker and TGB, however most of the issues I mentioned above are solved in Game Maker. TGB is very new compared to Game Maker, and it is of course a long way to the top, but what I believe is that positive critism coming from users should be evaluated as a tresure by TGB team, because we are the ones who actually use these builders to program games. We reflect our needs. So no hard feelings.
06/21/2007 (4:24 am)
Topic: It's a long way to the top (page 3/3) Vedat Karakaplan
Member Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:13
11- "Exit TGB - restart TGB" is not cute. Every time you edit game.cs either you have to exit and restart TGB or open a different project and then reopen the actual project. This restarting process is necessary, but there can be a solution for making it simpler like a reset button, or a short cut to open an empty (temporary) project and reopen the actual project. Dragging mouse here and there because of tasks like turning TGB on/off is boring.
12- Creating a resource package is still not easy. It could have been possible to create a resource package with a few clicks, nevertheless in current version of TGB you have to follow a lot of steps such as creating folders, cs files, copying template codes, etc to have a resource package. I believe resource package creation process can be easily simplified to streamline workflow.
13- Finding/selecting a specific object on scene view is difficult. Object tree view in project tab somewhat helps, but it could have been easier to find the object if they had their scripting names next to their td2 tags. And it is not possible to sort the objects in object tree alphabetically. So if you are looking for a specific td2StaticSprite in a game with say 5000 objects, you have to start from the top of the object tree list, and check every td2StaticSprite, skipping all other 4000 scattered objects by scrolling. And it is highly probable to skip your td2StaticSprite somewhere in between other objects while scrolling. Object tree view should be improved.
There can be some further additions such as viewing mouse coordinates in scene view window or having a restart button in play level screen but those are minor changes and I am not going to mention those. The above were the issues I noticed when I started reading the documentation and using TGB. I do not want to compare Game Maker and TGB, however most of the issues I mentioned above are solved in Game Maker. TGB is very new compared to Game Maker, and it is of course a long way to the top, but what I believe is that positive critism coming from users should be evaluated as a tresure by TGB team, because we are the ones who actually use these builders to program games. We reflect our needs. So no hard feelings.
#8
Member Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:44
Wow,
Why didn't you post this in one thread? Or better yet, why didn't you just email it to them.
I'm happy that your such a great programmer but your opinion shouldn't take up 3 posts.
Your not that important
Matthew Langley
Employee Posted: Jun 20, 2007 22:43
Some great constructive feedback (even if a little too paralleled to GameMaker in my opinion), though I' dhave to agree with Charlie... that you could simply post this in one thread, even multiple posts, not sure why you created three separate threads? The only reason I could imagine is if you expected to have plenty of responses and wanted to keep them separate for that reason, though even in that case I believe one thread one be more than adequate.
To me posting in multiple threads when you could have easily posted it in one is slightly dis-respectful and often starting off requesting changes and wanting your suggestions to be heard, being disrespectful is not exactly the best start. Please compile these into one thread and I can delete the rest.
Beyond that point, I think you give some great criticism.
Before I respond to any of it, would you please let us know which version of TGB you are basing these reviews on. I noted a couple points that seem like they've been addressed in the 1.5 beta (and upcoming release) so before I ask multiple times if you've tried 1.5 please let me know if this is based off of 1.5.
After that (and you compile this into one thread) I would really enjoy discussing some of these with you. Many of these are issues and usability quirks that we have known about for a while, though some of them I'd like to get further information on (as well as share information on).
Tom Perry
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 03:32
For 11, at least in 1.5 (haven't used the others in a while), it reloads all the scripts when you press play, so i suggest trying the beta.
13 can also be addressed by "locking" some of the layers. for example if you don't want to beable to click on background images, "lock" the layers that those images are in.
Can't really comment on 12, I've never made a package. Again, this should really all be one thread, it would make comments easier without having to move between. Any chance you can repost the other 2 in this one?
Edited on Jun 21, 2007 03:59
Benjamin Grauer
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 07:52
13) It's true that object tree could be of some use for selecting objects if they had name or class next to their object numbers.
Edited on Jun 21, 2007 07:52
Luke Larson
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 09:00
Objects in the tree do display their name if they have one. If you are one who tends to name all of your objects, unlike me, then you shouldn't have a problem. Otherwise I agree, maybe a class name or something.
06/21/2007 (4:27 am)
Charlie MalbaurnMember Posted: Jun 20, 2007 21:44
Wow,
Why didn't you post this in one thread? Or better yet, why didn't you just email it to them.
I'm happy that your such a great programmer but your opinion shouldn't take up 3 posts.
Your not that important
Matthew Langley
Employee Posted: Jun 20, 2007 22:43
Some great constructive feedback (even if a little too paralleled to GameMaker in my opinion), though I' dhave to agree with Charlie... that you could simply post this in one thread, even multiple posts, not sure why you created three separate threads? The only reason I could imagine is if you expected to have plenty of responses and wanted to keep them separate for that reason, though even in that case I believe one thread one be more than adequate.
To me posting in multiple threads when you could have easily posted it in one is slightly dis-respectful and often starting off requesting changes and wanting your suggestions to be heard, being disrespectful is not exactly the best start. Please compile these into one thread and I can delete the rest.
Beyond that point, I think you give some great criticism.
Before I respond to any of it, would you please let us know which version of TGB you are basing these reviews on. I noted a couple points that seem like they've been addressed in the 1.5 beta (and upcoming release) so before I ask multiple times if you've tried 1.5 please let me know if this is based off of 1.5.
After that (and you compile this into one thread) I would really enjoy discussing some of these with you. Many of these are issues and usability quirks that we have known about for a while, though some of them I'd like to get further information on (as well as share information on).
Tom Perry
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 03:32
For 11, at least in 1.5 (haven't used the others in a while), it reloads all the scripts when you press play, so i suggest trying the beta.
13 can also be addressed by "locking" some of the layers. for example if you don't want to beable to click on background images, "lock" the layers that those images are in.
Can't really comment on 12, I've never made a package. Again, this should really all be one thread, it would make comments easier without having to move between. Any chance you can repost the other 2 in this one?
Edited on Jun 21, 2007 03:59
Benjamin Grauer
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 07:52
13) It's true that object tree could be of some use for selecting objects if they had name or class next to their object numbers.
Edited on Jun 21, 2007 07:52
Luke Larson
Member Posted: Jun 21, 2007 09:00
Objects in the tree do display their name if they have one. If you are one who tends to name all of your objects, unlike me, then you shouldn't have a problem. Otherwise I agree, maybe a class name or something.
#9
I would prefer separated topics rather than these enormous posts.
06/21/2007 (8:16 pm)
It's really confusing now.I would prefer separated topics rather than these enormous posts.
#10
06/22/2007 (10:56 am)
Some people did not like it and took it disrespectful. I really could not decide which one was better, but when someone replies just to say "you are not important" without saying anything on your work of days and mail of hours, you feel as if you are evil and change what you did. Unfortunately the threads in these forums are not editable or deletable by authors so I don't count this compilation as a real solution but whatever. What I think is that the most important thing we should discuss here is not the aesthetic of the threads or someone's degree of importance, BUT the comments we made and how TGB can be improved. The one (Charlie's) on how it looks was more than enough for me. But thanks Benjamin; it is nice to hear that at least someone prefers the previous one to this one.
#11
06/22/2007 (11:43 am)
I didnt really like the "your not that important part"... it sounded really harsh from my POV ... but i agree that your comments are pretty constructive... even tho, some of them are adressed already.
#12
06/26/2007 (2:06 pm)
This is what I was talking about in 7. Look at this shot from 1.5 animation builder. The images are 16x16. It is impossible to see and tell which image is the right one for the next frame. There are three different sizes of the images on this screen but none of them is the original size . A zoom option for available images is necessary. And by the way, while defining the images by cell method, it doesn't accept 16 as cell width or height . There is a lower bound like 20 or 25 or something which is determined by I don't know what and when I enter 16 as width or height, it changes the value to the lower bound immediately. In order to have the right width and height, I count the number of cells from the main image, and use cell count X/Y instead, and when I enter those values, it sets the cell width and height to 16. Isn't it weird? This weirdness is in 1.5.
#13
06/26/2007 (3:51 pm)
Couldnt you split the image map into smaller ones? The 16 cell size is still weird and should be fixed but your art would be more managable if the different colour dudes where split up for example 
#14
One of the main reasons I asked you to do so is (as others have mentioned) some of the issues you have listed have now been fixed in 1.5, so compiling all of them to a single thread to respond to them as a group is a good s tarting point.
At this point I have no problem (and would even support) splitting these out. In fact feel free to post a thread per each valid point (minus the ones that have been addressed, unless you feel it should be addressed further).
From time to time we get new users who spam a bunch of posts quickly, so as a precaution we usually discourage creating many threads at one, though I can tell you are serious about giving constructive feedback and it is definitely appreciated.
06/27/2007 (8:22 am)
Quote:The one (Charlie's) on how it looks was more than enough for me. But thanks Benjamin; it is nice to hear that at least someone prefers the previous one to this one.
One of the main reasons I asked you to do so is (as others have mentioned) some of the issues you have listed have now been fixed in 1.5, so compiling all of them to a single thread to respond to them as a group is a good s tarting point.
At this point I have no problem (and would even support) splitting these out. In fact feel free to post a thread per each valid point (minus the ones that have been addressed, unless you feel it should be addressed further).
From time to time we get new users who spam a bunch of posts quickly, so as a precaution we usually discourage creating many threads at one, though I can tell you are serious about giving constructive feedback and it is definitely appreciated.
#15
I'd say valid as completely separate threads:
1
2 & 3
4
5 (I beleive this has been solved adequately for you in 1.5?)
6
7 (Agree with many of these, we need to merge some of the features in our editor from 1.1.3 to the new one in 1.5)
8 (definitely should have it's own thread, lots to talk about here)
9
10 (this has been fixed in 1.5 adequately?)
11 (this has been fixed in 1.5 adequately?)
12 (agreed)
13 (definitely agreed)
I will delete the former two threads, though if you create threads for each of these I will still leave this one, thing this is a good thread.
06/27/2007 (8:27 am)
Recommended splitting of threads:I'd say valid as completely separate threads:
1
2 & 3
4
5 (I beleive this has been solved adequately for you in 1.5?)
6
7 (Agree with many of these, we need to merge some of the features in our editor from 1.1.3 to the new one in 1.5)
8 (definitely should have it's own thread, lots to talk about here)
9
10 (this has been fixed in 1.5 adequately?)
11 (this has been fixed in 1.5 adequately?)
12 (agreed)
13 (definitely agreed)
I will delete the former two threads, though if you create threads for each of these I will still leave this one, thing this is a good thread.
#16
Strangely, I couldn't convert my v1.5 30 days trial version to an unlocked one. I have a commercial TGB v1.1.3 license but I don't have a ignition key. And it needs a key to be unlocked... I simply cannot concentrate on v1.5 because there is a "TGB TRIAL VERSION" banner at the bottom left of the screen written with big fonts. It makes me nervous to see that after paying for a license. And the counter keeps counting down...
06/27/2007 (11:53 am)
I think I will wait till the official release of v1.5 to split the threads. There are some new issues which should be mentioned and some solved ones which should be discarded as you pointed out. Strangely, I couldn't convert my v1.5 30 days trial version to an unlocked one. I have a commercial TGB v1.1.3 license but I don't have a ignition key. And it needs a key to be unlocked... I simply cannot concentrate on v1.5 because there is a "TGB TRIAL VERSION" banner at the bottom left of the screen written with big fonts. It makes me nervous to see that after paying for a license. And the counter keeps counting down...
#17
07/02/2007 (1:55 pm)
7) About animation editor : the 1.5 is less better than the 1.1.3 animation editor, I don't understand myself why they felt the need to change it for a far less efficient one ("If it ain't broken, don't fix it." ^^'). 
#18
I'd particularly like to the dynamic fields changed so that they are selected when you first click in them, or when you tab between them. And a button to sort them by name, or order added would be nice.
10/23/2007 (11:29 pm)
Great thread - lots of useful suggestions in here.I'd particularly like to the dynamic fields changed so that they are selected when you first click in them, or when you tab between them. And a button to sort them by name, or order added would be nice.
Associate Scott Burns
GG Alumni
Why did you go to the trouble of creating 3 different threads for this? You could have just added the rest by posting in one thread.