DR problem

[Tels]

I can see I'm on the losing end here. What you are effectively saying is that any name will do even if it misleads people. Like me. You could call it a giraffe and we would eventually get used to it but that doesn't mean it's a good word to use.

 

Anyway, let's not get sidetracked on this except,as I said, I believe in the value of words and I don't think this is a good one for this use. I yield.

 

I have to agree that the name "layers" in a 3D environment only makes sense when the stuff you put into them is actually in different layers. So you canuse layers to make a 2D environment into a (limited) 3D one.

 

However, they way I understand they are used in DR, it is really just like a a "selection group", so the name layer is a misnomer. (the "kitchen" layer for instance, can interleave with the "basement" layer and they don't have to be physically on different heights which I would expect for real layers).

 

Tho I also agree with Fidcal that the name will probably not change *sigh*

[Fidcal]

And NH's use of the phrase 'peeled away' suggests that he may regard them as actual layers which is what I'm afraid of. People will think the word 'layer' means that they are layers. These groups are not layers like layers of rock or floors of a house or layers in a cake - they are more like a selection of some individual currants in the cake anywhere amongst all the other currants in the cake and not in any particular layer. You cannot 'peel away' any group of these currants as they may be anywhere. Even if you only select currants in one layer of the cake that does not define the layer of the cake because new currants added to that layer will not be included unless you also remember to select them. I see a lot of users over the coming years misunderstanding this.

 

[EDIT] Komag too! thinks these are layers you can peel away!

[New Horizon]

And NH's use of the phrase 'peeled away' suggests that he may regard them as actual layers which is what I'm afraid of. People will think the word 'layer' means that they are layers. These groups are not layers like layers of rock or floors of a house or layers in a cake - they are more like a selection of some individual currants in the cake anywhere amongst all the other currants in the cake and not in any particular layer. You cannot 'peel away' any group of these currants as they may be anywhere. Even if you only select currants in one layer of the cake that does not define the layer of the cake because new currants added to that layer will not be included unless you also remember to select them. I see a lot of users over the coming years misunderstanding this.

 

lol For heavens sake, I and everyone else here understand how they work. I can think spatially in the 3d view, but the 2d grid is something different....and that's where the layer system is used. I don't flounder around in the 3D view assigning objects and brushes to groups. If all the views were 3d, yes...I would agree...groups all the way, but or all intents and purposes, it's flat. I just don't have a problem with the word layers, it makes perfect sense on a 2d grid. There is way too much thought being put into thinking through 3d space. If greebo wants to change the name, he can...it's still going to do the same job guys...and in a 2d sense, the word is perfectly fine. It's just when people start arguing semantics of whether or not we should be treating it as a 3d or 2d space that causes the issue.

 

If you take it for what it is, a 2D image, it is easily treated as a layer...if others can only understand it as a 3d world...then groups make sense. I'm indifferent. I see the validity of both.

[greebo]

Maybe I should make the name configurable in the user.xml?

 

Seriously, if you are really fond of that change, I can rename the term "Layer" to "Group".

[SneaksieDave]

In Blender, a layer is whatever you make it. In DR it's the same; it could be all kitchen cutlery if you want. Can be layers in a geometric sense, or in the sense of similarity, or whatever. No prob with the term here... I just want that Select All Within functionality. Now that's important.

 

 

"What's in a name?"

[Fidcal]

Yes, I seriously think you should change it to 'Group'. Most newcomers will only know the normal dictionary defintion of the word layer : A relatively thin sheetlike expanse or region lying over or under another. And suppose you actually wanted to add such layers? What would you call them?

[greebo]

I don't really care either way. If we can agree on "Group", then so be it. What do the others think?

 

However, in the code it will always be the "LayerSystem", no way for me to go through all these code renaming.

[Komag]

I definitely prefer "Layer", it makes much more sense to me, and has a nice flavor. "Groups" is boring. I seriously doubt anyone will ever actually get confused about it.

 

And I don't appreciate having sentiments put in my mouth either, sorry Fidcal but, while I usually think you are right in your Dark Mod ideas and proposals and I usually strongly support your input, I think you're off base on this issue.

 

My analogy to human anatomy supports my clear understanding of how the layers in DR actually work. If you take off the musculatory "layer" of the body, that removes all the muscles in 3D space, in front of and behind the different bones all throughout the body. No one would be confused, thinking the muscles were literally only on top or something. It makes perfect sense, no confusion necessary.

 

I could live with "Groups" but I think it's a rediculous and unnecessary change.

[SneaksieDave]

There's a possibility that "Groups" might be reserved (or should be) for other things. I'm just going back to years' on discussion we've had for DR regarding grouping of different items (door + knob + func_static + triggered sound + light + whatever)... which though, can essentially be handled by Layers now, especially with a Select All function, so they're essentially the same... So I digress, run and hide.

[Fidcal]

@Komag : you conceptualize this completely differently from me so from your earlier post it seemed to me that you thought of these layers as layers of skin, etc, like peeling off onion skins. Even talking about peeling off layers seems to suggest a misunderstanding to me. However, I now see you do not mean that (I think!) but just see the word differently to its common useage.

 

I stand absolutely on all that I have said that Dark Radiant 'layers' are not actual layers, strata that lay above, below, beside other layers. That is an irrefutable fact. The word is likely to mislead the vast majority of new mappers who will never use a 3D modelling program.

[Komag]

But EVERYTHING with computers is metaphoric. What's a "map"? What's a "brush"? What's a "patch"? What's "caulk"? What's a "patch"? What's a "clip"? What's a "console"? What's an "entity"? Almost all of those words are used in DR (and most game editing) quite differently from how Webster's dictionary defines them.

 

People who are new to mapping may not intrinsically know what we mean by the word "brush", but the moment we tell them, there's no more problem. Same thing with layers. Everyone is not going to be misled by it any more than they are going to be misled by "patch" not actually patching anything.

 

I propose that we all just sit on this for about a week. Then vote for the rename or not at that point. I'm uncomfortable with some quick change today which would feel rushed through to me.

 

EDIT - BEAR's recent screenies post has the conceptual use of "layers" as DR uses it:

"Still looks a little rough, especially without proper lighting but I'm trying to do it in layers and the layer I'm on is adding decoration (molding/doors/windows etc). "

[BEAR]

I don't want to get in the middle of this discussion but I didn't actually mean it like that, I meant layers of effort not DR layers

 

The way I've got layers atm is the church in one, the tower in one and the terrain in one, just to make the orthogonal views less insane. I've considered though doing layers as floors of a building if I were do be making one big enough to need it.

[Fidcal]

@Komag: that's a very good point. My view though is that the user might think that 'layers' could actually mean they work like layers one over another whereas say 'brushes' can't really be assumed to be something else - you just have to learn that the word doesn't actually mean a brush to the user (a brush being an applicator, a tool) But we're stuck with 'brush' whereas 'layer' we might do something about. To me DR layers are group filtering.

 

Anyway, again I yield. I think it's wrong to use words that might be misleading. I think one should always choose the best, most accurate description for a feature.

[AluminumHaste]

I have to agree that the name "layers" in a 3D environment only makes sense when the stuff you put into them is actually in different layers. So you canuse layers to make a 2D environment into a (limited) 3D one.

 

However, they way I understand they are used in DR, it is really just like a a "selection group", so the name layer is a misnomer. (the "kitchen" layer for instance, can interleave with the "basement" layer and they don't have to be physically on different heights which I would expect for real layers).

 

Tho I also agree with Fidcal that the name will probably not change *sigh*

 

Not necessarily I use layers both ways. I use them when seperating floors in a house, but I also use it to add all monster clipped brushes, and caulked haul brushes etc on separate layers. For the top down view it's useful for me to be able to separate the layers of the different floors so that I can work on one floor at a time and "shutting off" the other floors makes selecting and moving stuff around much easier.

 

Another thing I can think of adding is a Parent->Child

->Child

->Child

Etc relationship as this would allow us to have say floor 1, 2, 3 and all the windows in the house on separate layers but can all be a part of the "House" layer. Photoshop does this with layer groups.

[AluminumHaste]

In Blender, a layer is whatever you make it. In DR it's the same; it could be all kitchen cutlery if you want. Can be layers in a geometric sense, or in the sense of similarity, or whatever. No prob with the term here... I just want that Select All Within functionality. Now that's important.

"What's in a name?"

 

Yeah I took a stab at that and my head exploded trying to follow the code.

[Komag]

I don't want to get in the middle of this discussion but I didn't actually mean it like that, I meant layers of effort not DR layers

 

Oh I know, I just meant to just show that you used the word "layers" somewhat metaphorically

 

-------

 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I've caused any hard feelings. Again, I could live with "groups" if others also voted that way.

[SneaksieDave]

People who are new to mapping may not intrinsically know what we mean by the word "brush"

Heh, just conjured a momentary trip down memory lane... I still remember when it first became "brush" (at least to my knowledge). We were all busy editing Doom, using "sectors", while hotly anticipating Quake. Then that came, and for a while I do distinctly remember my mindset: "Brush? WTF is a brush? 'The hell kind of name is that? What are we painting a picture or someshit?"

 

Anyway, back to the bickering.

[STiFU]

Back, when the suggestions for the layersystem came up, I actually had a totally different idea of what it should look like, than it does now (sorry Greebo). I was thinking of a tree-structure like Al-Haste also just mentioned. In this context the word layer would also make much more sense (but would still not be correct). The way the layersystem is implemented now, I must agree with Fidcal on this one. It's sadly just selection groups...

 

Imagine features like "Expand Selection to parent" or a popup saying "reduce selection to child", letting you choose between the different childs of the current Selectionnode. A treestructure for Selection would make mapping hilariously intuitive and quick. This would be a real layerbased system with "(Selection-)Nodes" instead of our known "Layers" from the current implementation. The root of the tree would then be the worldspawn and the leafs either single brushes/entities or the lowest selectiongroup.

Edited July 10, 2008 by STiFU

[OrbWeaver]

If the term "layer" is good enough for every other 3D application on the planet, it's good enough for us. Familiarity to the user base is far more important than semantic masturbation.

[sparhawk]

Maybe "Selection Group" would be a better name, but on many 3d apps, they use the term "Layer" for this, because you can use it like that.

[OrbWeaver]

A layer is universally understood in graphics software to mean "a user-configurable subset of the drawing whose visibility can be toggled as a whole in a single operation". This applies whether your "drawing" is a bunch of 2D pixels, 2D line art or 3D objects, and describes the function of layers in Blender, Inkscape, GIMP, OO Draw, Lightwave, DarkRadiant or any other tool you care to name.

 

The ability to select objects by layer (as opposed to just making them visible or invisible) is a common feature and definitely nice-to-have, but isn't a necessary part of the concept of a layer system.

[Fidcal]

I'd be surprised if Gimp works that way and I'm too tired to look but Paintshop Pro doesn't. In Paintshop Pro they are actual layers, one above the other. You know, like the word erm.. 'layer'. A layer is a special kind of group. Any item in a layer that is above another layer cannot ever be below an item in the layer below - because the layer is above it. It's like peeling off skins - or layers of cellophane with imagery on each - that imagery cannot get onto one of the layers of cellophane below it (unless you move it)

 

BTW let it go on record I am not 'against' the layer feature - it's a great feature and very useful. But it's a system of selection groups that can be anywhere - and not a system of layers.

 

Several hundred million people on the planet know the word - it is in common use. A tiny, tiny minority are modellers and have accepted the misuse of the word which was almost certainly first perverted by a single individual who previously used it in a 2D paint program and didn't understand what it meant.

[OrbWeaver]

I'd be surprised if Gimp works that way and I'm too tired to look but Paintshop Pro doesn't.

 

They work exactly the same way; the only difference between GIMP/Photoshop and Blender/DarkRadiant is the number of dimensions.

 

1. In Gimp/Photoshop, the work exists in 2D space. The layers exist in an additional third dimension, and can contain "objects" (i.e. pixels) located anywhere in the underlying 2D space.

2. In Blender/DarkRadiant, the work exists in 3D space. The layers exist in an additional fourth dimension, and can contain "objects" (i.e. brushes, entities etc) located anywhere in the underlying 3D space.

 

I guess the idea of a fourth spacial dimension is not that easy to understand, but the concept is identical in both cases.

 

Any item in a layer that is above another layer cannot ever be below an item in the layer below - because the layer is above it.

 

Yes, in the extra "layer" dimension. There is no restriction on the location of objects within the two dimensions of the image itself, just like there is no restriction on the location of objects within the 3D world of DarkRadiant/Blender.

 

A tiny, tiny minority are modellers and have accepted the misuse of the word which was almost certainly first perverted by a single individual who previously used it in a 2D paint program and didn't understand what it meant.

 

That may be true, but it is irrelevant. We can argue all day about whether it is a "misuse" of the word or not (although I don't think it is, because of the dimensionality issue I outlined above), but at the end of the day, usability is what counts, and using a standard name for a feature which works the same way in other similar applications is better for usability than renaming it for purely academic reasons.

[SneaksieDave]

Familiarity to the user base is far more important than semantic masturbation.

Too bad Apple cannot seem to realize that.

[Fidcal]

How can GIMP make some imagery in a layer be in front of another layer while other imagery in the same layer is behind? This is how it works in Paintshop Pro:

 

Imagine a scene which is a room with an open window and a view out to the street. Inside the room on the window ledge is a birdcage with a canary in it.

 

Layer 1 : Street

Layer 2 : Window and far wall off room

Layer 3 : Back of cage

Layer 4 : Canary

Layer 5 : Front of cage

 

If you want to add another bird you put it in layer 4 and slide it in behind the front of the cage which is in the layer above, Layer 5. Any canary in Layer 4 cannot be in the street because Layer 4 is always laid over Layer 1 to 3. The only way to get a canary in the street is to put it in Layer 1.

 

If GIMP can have two canaries in Layer 4 yet one is shown behind Layer 2 and 3 then it would be pretty amazing. How would GIMP know which canary goes in the street and which remains in the cage if both are in Layer 4?

 

Dark Radiant can do it; because Dark Radiant layers are not layers. If the above were in Dark Radiant then Layer 4 could have one canary in the foreground and the other in the background. This is because the 'layers' do not have any 'position', they are merely groups of items located anywhere.

 

So, are we saying that a 3D modelling program can have say for Komag's example of a medical body (if the modeller chose)...

Layer 1 : Left eyeball, three fingers, some skin from the back of one leg, a bone in the right shoulder

Layer 2 : Right leg, heart, hair

Layer 3 : Right eyeball, left foot, nose.

 

and so on. I'm not saying there is any sensible reason to do it, I'm just saying that Dark Radiant can do the above and I would not call those layers. Instead, to specifically choose to put all skin in Layer 1, all muscle tissue in 2, bones in 3 might be using the groups in a layer-like way but it does not limit the groups to being layers.