Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Are you talking about the template-based shďp-editing support in MissionComputer 3.3? Try the 4.0 alpha linked in this topic and see if it satisfies your needs.
No, we just mean the way the ship editor's console is arranged. (At least, I do.)
Aah. Much better. nusiance feels ignorant for not downloading the alpha in the first place Yes, that's what I meant.
@trinix, on Aug 18 2007, 11:50 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
So I guess the advantages only comes easily when using real power like Apple's Xcode instead of RB. I know one programer who makes solid, mac looking RB apps, one. Everything else, you can tell it was RB. <Chuckles arrogantly.>
<_<
You'd be amazed how much effort I've put into some of my RB apps to make them as Cocoa-esque as possible. The problem is that RB just wasn't designed for real, good, solid apps. It's always been more of a beginning programmer's outlet; it provides a great library of classes and up to a certain point it's wonderful; unfortunately, I find myself reaching that point frequently with RB, and I'm surprised DA hasn't destroyed his computer out of frustration with its limitations.
On the other hand, its debugger is much better than Xcode's. Oh well. You win some, you lose some. Now that I've discovered Cocoa Bindings, I'm not sure I'll ever look back to RB.
DA: You can implement Carbon methods in Cocoa, which if I'm not mistaken include resource manager methods significantly more usable than RB's ResourceFork class.
I don't get the problem that you guys are talking about with the Ship Editor. The Ship Editor and the Outfit editor looks to be the same design, except for a bit of extra stuff that Ship editor needs to put in tabs. Both look good, no complaints thus far there. The only issues I have at the moment is:
Crashing (And loosing any data along with that because of a lack of autosave and undo/redo features) System/Spöb Editors.
@orcaloverbri9, on Aug 20 2007, 07:39 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
That is my point. Trying to make them Cocoa-esque when you can get the real thing by using the Xcode! Using Xcode will guarantee better Mac compatibility, I'm assuming your no stranger to code, and you can make calls to C/++ and make applications cross platform. I'll tell you guys what Jeff Seibert (maker of EVONE) told me, "It was a mistake not using Xcode to build the application." He's gone off to do other things now, like website design, but I think we all understand that EVONE would have still been around if he had used Xcode, making it more manageable. Perhaps you could do a slow steady move to Xcode. Like creating the resource browser, and having it launch the prebuild RB as the editor for the resources. Eventually nailing down the editors one by one, till completely native. :blink:
Okay, I downloaded the alpha and the ship resource interface is PERFECT! This looks really good, thank you!
That's because, trinix, we are talking about the versions that came BEFORE the alpha. We hadn't downloaded the alpha yet.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 21 August 2007 - 09:56 AM
I'm not certain why XCode keeps being referred to as if it's a language. It's just an editor.
There are a few things MS Visual C++ makes easier than Emacs, but the core of what I can do with each is the same.
Mac programmers: Switch to TextEdit!
This post has been edited by Lindley : 21 August 2007 - 10:06 AM
@lindley, on Aug 21 2007, 10:04 AM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
I'm sorry, I'll clarify for you, Objective C & C/++ created in Xcode. It is the best choice for the Mac platform. If you use it, that makes it easier to keep up with whatever Apple does, like switching to a new chip, Intel. A good example of this is Office for Mac. They are now learning the hard way about why Steve Jobs said use Xcode, a very long time ago. They procrastinated too long, and now the reality smacks them in the head. Office for Mac is now being delayed as one of the reasons.
@trinix, on Aug 21 2007, 07:47 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
Forget compatibility - Cocoa is truly amazing. It just does so much for you. In RB, I would spend as much time making my app feel like a real app and not a quick demo program as I would writing code. Cocoa does all of that for you, leaving you to make the interface and code - you know, the things that change. It really helps break up the monotony that all too often occurs in programming. There's more, too - IB connections/outlets and especially bindings are works of genius. I have almost no glue code in my app - could I say the same with RB, or really any other IDE? Really, I could go on and on about how much better Cocoa is than just about everything out there, but this topic is about MC.
With even my fairly limited Cocoa experience, I can't imagine why anybody would want to use .NET or any of that nonsense. And that's not even taking languages into account...
This post has been edited by orcaloverbri9 : 22 August 2007 - 02:38 AM
@orcaloverbri9, on Aug 20 2007, 08:39 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
The problem is that RB just wasn't designed for real, good, solid apps.
MissionComputer on Mac OS 9 when that was the primary design platform worked quite nicely; it was only once I had to start targeting Mac OS X that it began to get more complicated.
@trinix, on Aug 20 2007, 08:42 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
Crashing (And loosing any data along with that because of a lack of autosave and undo/redo features)
What do undo and redo have to do with losing data to crashes?
System/Spöb Editors.
What problems do you have with these?
@trinix, on Aug 20 2007, 08:53 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
I'll tell you guys what Jeff Seibert (maker of EVONE) told me, "It was a mistake not using Xcode to build the application."
Well, it certainly wasnt a mistake not to use Xcode for MissionComputer, because MissionComputer predates Xcode; even Project Builder, Xcodes predecessor, wouldnt have been appropriate, since almost no one (including me) was yet using Mac OS X for serious work at the time I released MissionComputer 1.0. Remember, the Mac platform you describe existed well before Mac OS X brought Cocoa and other NeXTSTEP ideas into the fold.
Perhaps you could do a slow steady move to Xcode. Like creating the resource browser, and having it launch the prebuild RB as the editor for the resources. Eventually nailing down the editors one by one, till completely native. :blink:
What youre describing would be an absolute nightmare both for users and for me. Youre also missing the point that MissionComputer isnt receiving nearly enough use to justify the time involved in any sort of re-write; even the goals of MissionComputer 4 are really a bit extravagant.
Hmm, I was looking through the alpha today, and I was wondering how difficult it would be to rearrange the weap and spin editor's interfaces to be set up more like the outfit editor's interface. I mean, you did it with the misn and ship editors (which are much nicer now) but I was just wondering if you are going to do the others as well.
Hey I just remembered something: Not too long ago I discovered an open-source, cocoa resource editor called ResKnife. It supports custom editors and curiously included plug-ins for a few EVN resources (though they were incomplete and didn't work). It has a few issues which would need to be ironed out but if anyone is actually interested in developing a cocoa EVN editor I think this would be a great place to start. IMO, a cocoa EVN editor in itself wouldn't really be that useful because we already have MissionComputer which works perfectly well. However, ResKnife is an actual resource editor and has uses far beyond EV - being able to edit plugs with it too would just be an added bonus
Could you translate that for us not-at-all technology inclined?
@guy, on Aug 23 2007, 06:29 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
Wow, awesome find!!! I'll look into it. Gosh, just, wow!
Me: "Huh?"
Technologically inclined person: "Cool!"
If I knew what you were talking about I'm sure I'd be impressed.
Put simply "ResEdit for OSX."
Or close enough.
ResEdit, of course, being the original means of making EV plugins.
Pwnage. That's awesome!
@shlimazel, on Aug 23 2007, 01:44 PM, said in MissionComputer 4.0 second alpha now available:
I mean, you did it with the misn and ship editors (which are much nicer now) but I was just wondering if you are going to do the others as well.
MissionComputer, as it exists now, doesnt have an editor for the wëap resource; what you see when you open it is generated by an RDL script, which involves next to no actual code. An actual editor, like the one for the mďsn resource, or version 4s shďp editor, involves a significant amount of code and interface design, so while providing editors for the remaining resources like wëap is one of MissionComputer 4s goals, it wont happen overnight.
Okay; I just wanted to ask about it. Thanks for clearing that up.