DR problem

[STiFU]

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.

Just to make sure you got me right, I didn't mean to be a picky ass insisting on correct names. I was just trying to push the discussion into the direction of redesigning the Layersystem over all to give the user a more powerfull Selectiontoolset. I acknowledge that it's usefull, but it could arise to much greater power.

Edited July 10, 2008 by STiFU

[New Horizon]

This has gone on way too long.

 

At it's simplest, it's layering. Call it grouping...call it the chicken dance, it doesn't matter. Just stop beating this into the ground. It's called layers in photoshop, it's called layers in illustrator. Why?

 

Because it refers to the layers menu, I don't care about the physical representation of the work on the screen, that just complicates things and has little to do with why layers are called layers. The layers exist 'within the tools menu' that's where the layers exist...not within the work area! I click on my layers tool and I view a stack of named layers. Within those layers however, are groups of objects. Grouped objects exist 'within' layers in the tools menu.

 

I still think layers are more appropriate, because in the end we're assigning grouped objects to a layer within the menu tools.

[greebo]

I was just trying to push the discussion into the direction of redesigning the Layersystem over all to give the user a more powerfull Selectiontoolset. I acknowledge that it's usefull, but it could arise to much greater power.

Sorry, no way I'm going through a redesign of the layer system.

[OrbWeaver]

How can GIMP make some imagery in a layer be in front of another layer while other imagery in the same layer is behind?

 

It can't. You're confusing overlapping in the layer stack with overlapping in world-space coordinates, which is apples and oranges; the two have nothing to do with one another.

 

GIMP imagery cannot overlap on the layer stack; "in front" and "behind" behave exactly as you suggest. They can, however, overlap in the underlying 2D image coordinates.

 

Dark Radiant can do it; because Dark Radiant layers are not layers.

 

No, DarkRadiant can do it because the underlying workspace is 3D, not 2D. Just as GIMP layers can overlap in 2D image coordinates, DarkRadiant layers can overlap in 3D world coordinates. Neither of them can overlap on the layer stack (although I won't even begin to discuss what "overlapping on the layer stack" might mean in a 3D application, it is definable, but even more confusing ).

 

The layers exist 'within the tools menu' that's where the layers exist...not within the work area!

 

Yep, exactly. The inability to overlap in the layers menu is completely independent of the ability to overlap in workspace coordinates (whether 2D, 3D, 4D or 768D).

 

Not that it matters that much; the "familiarity to the userbase" argument holds even without the mathematical basis.

[Fidcal]

Not that it matters that much; the "familiarity to the userbase" argument holds even without the mathematical basis.

No, the user base will come mostly not from modellers but from mappers who will assume the word layer has its normal definition that hundreds of millions of people use. Now they will have to learn that it doesn't have any sensible meaning. They will learn but I prefer that they don't have to learn to use a wrong word but instead use a correct description in the first place. Indeed, the very word 'layer' indicates a grouping of materials and items in one 'seam' or 'level' or 'stratum' whereas in Dark Radiant it means the opposite - not grouped in any particular spatial relationship whatsoever.

 

Basically you're admitting that the word is wrong but to hell with everyone because you are used to it, anarchy is OK and we can call anything whatever we want no matter what confusion or delays ensue because they will eventually get used to using it. I don't agree with that view. I know that as a newcomer when I come to Dark Radiant and see the word 'layers' I expect them to be layers. When I go to the zoo and see 'Elephant enclosure' I expect to see elephants not tree stumps. The zookeeper can argue all day that where he comes from thousands call them elephants but I still think a lot of people would be disappointed.

 

Let us leave it at that. There is no possible way for us ever to agree on this.

[OrbWeaver]

Basically you're admitting that the word is wrong

 

No I'm not. I explained that the term has a sound logical basis, but I would support using it even if it didn't because it's a standard term in similar applications.

 

Let us leave it at that. There is no possible way for us ever to agree on this.

 

Agreed.

[sparhawk]

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.

 

I think you are confusing this issue, because of dimensionality, as Orb pointed out. In 2D you may use concepts like "before" and "behind" but in 3D space it's meaningless, because you would have to define what you mean by this. A layer is behind (or under) another layer only makes sense from a certain point of view. The 2D imagery has this special point of view fixed for you. If you work on a 3D scene, and always look at it from the same angle, you would see the same behaviour as if you are working with a 2D image. The funny thing is, that if you say that "one layer is behind another" you are also introducing a third dimension which doesn't exist except in your brain.

[Fidcal]

No. A layer is 3-dimensional by its very nature.

 

Stop 1000 people at random in the street...

"Here is a 3-dimensional model of a house" (or a 3D representation on a laptop makes no difference)

"Could you have any comprehension what a layer or slice through this house means? If so, describe it"

"Yes it might be a layer that is the height of one floor throughout the house, eg, the 2nd floor, or it might be half a room height. It's height does not matter. It could be a vertical section or any angle. It does not even need to go right through the house but just be a layer in this one room."

"Yes, but what if I turn the model this way. Won't your slice be confusing? Lose all meaning?"

"Of course not. The particular layer is like the layer in a cake - what does it matter from which angle you view the cake?"

 

Stop one million people in the street...

"Here is a 3-dimensional model of a house in which I have selected certain items and painted them red - a chair in this room, a clock in the next room, a wall upstairs, a carpet on the landing, a streetlight outside. How would you describe a name for those selected items?"

"It's just a group of selected items. They have no special relationship other than that they have been selected for this group"

"Yes, but wouldn't you call them a layer?"

"Are you completely fucking mad?"

[greebo]

There must be something unique about this forum. I can't believe how much energy goes into this topic.

[New Horizon]

[Crispy]

There must be something unique about this forum. I can't believe how much energy goes into this topic.

If we could only design an argument boiler that produces electricity based on the heat and triviality of the arguments in this forum, in a similar fashion to a steam-based generator. Then we'd be able to power the world with the energy thus created, freeing up manpower previously utilised in the energy generation industry. This manpower could then be put to work on TDM, causing the mod to be released sooner!

 

Or everyone could just STFU and get back to work.

 

[New Horizon]

Or everyone could just STFU and get back to work.

 

 

[AluminumHaste]

As it stands the functionality is there regardless of it's name, can we PLEASE move on?

[Fidcal]

Yes, now we are in agreement that DR layers are only layers because it says so in the menu so that is why they are in the menu. This Orwellian logic is irrefutable and I yeild. Sorry that should be yield but the jellyfish in my wordprocessor is not working correctly.

[New Horizon]

Yes, now we are in agreement that DR layers are only layers because it says so in the menu so that is why they are in the menu. This Orwellian logic is irrefutable and I yeild. Sorry that should be yield but the jellyfish in my wordprocessor is not working correctly.

 

No, not because the menu says so...because the 'layering' happens in the menu...not the workspace. lol It's the same in any platform. The layers are menu-centric...objects/images or whatever are applied 'within' the menu layers.

[sparhawk]

As it stands the functionality is there regardless of it's name, can we PLEASE move on?

 

Sorry, I didn't know that somebody forced you at the point of a gun to read this thread.

[AluminumHaste]

Sorry, I didn't know that somebody forced you at the point of a gun to read this thread.

 

It's not that, why are we arguing about such a small subject? Isn't there like, I don't know, work do to?

Or is DarkRadiant so close to being finished that it's down to arguing about the little details? That would be cool I guess.

[sparhawk]

It's not that, why are we arguing about such a small subject?

 

Because some may find it interesting?

 

Isn't there like, I don't know, work do to?

 

Well, we don't exactly get paid for it, so I don't see a reason, why poeple shouldn't enjoy themselve while they are here.

[Springheel]

Yes, please, let's promote trivial bickering as way to "enjoy ourselves".

[AluminumHaste]

Yes, please, let's promote trivial bickering as way to "enjoy ourselves".

 

LOL

[OrbWeaver]

Yes, please, let's promote trivial bickering as way to "enjoy ourselves".

 

It works for women.

[AluminumHaste]

It works for women.

 

ZING, it's just that if all the effort that people put into arguing they instead put into, I don't know...say the wiki, we'd have enough articles to rival wikipedia.

[Fidcal]

Well you can write the one about layers. Can't wait to see that one.

[AluminumHaste]

Well you can write the one about layers. Can't wait to see that one.

 

HEHE you're funny But okay I'll bite, here's a first rough draft: http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php/Layers

[AluminumHaste]

HEHE you're funny But okay I'll bite, here's a first rough draft: http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php/Layers

 

Okay I added some more to the article, but time to go home now from work YAY!!!!