DR problem

[Fidcal]

I especially like the line 'a layer can consist of anything you want in a 3D space, whether the parts of the layer are in front, below, above, behind it doesn't matter.'

 

A layer is defined as a group of materials or items that are aligned along a plane, straight, curved, undulating, or even wrapped around (as in an egg shell or skin)

 

A group of stuff that is not aligned in any way is by definition not a layer. In fact it is the opposite of a layer. A layer consists entirely and only in the fact that its contents are aligned.

[sparhawk]

You are aware that this definition only makes sense from a certain point of view. Depening on which objects you put into the LAYER, they might be aligned from one perspective but not from the other.

[Fidcal]

No. The materials or items in a layer are aligned with each other along the layer. It is irrelevant from which direction you view the layer. You can view it from the side edge, the front edge, the top face, or in 3D in the camera from any angle. If you assign the 3rd floor of a 5 storey house to a layer then you can view that layer from north, south, east, west, above, below, or any angle. It does not stop being a layer just because you view it from one side.

 

[Fidcal]

Here are some more examples of layers where the stuff is arranged in layers...

 

And here is an example of a DR not-layer where the stuff is not arranged in any way...

 

 

Bit like using the word organized to describe some stuff that is not organized. And that is why it can be misleading. The word 'brush' is used to denote raw shapes. But the word 'brush' is completely meaningless in that context whereas 'layer' does have meaning in this context.

[Crispy]

They are laid out in an organised, "layered" fashion if you visualise it in 4D where the layer index is the W coordinate (or whatever letter you want to use for the fourth axis, after X and Y and Z).

 

Just like the layers in a 2D image are only "layered" if you visualise the image in 3D. In fact the first image you posted illustrates this perfectly! It's a 3D visualisation of the layers in a 2D image. You increase the dimension count by 1 in each case. If you don't, then you collapse a dimension (like "Flatten Image" in Photoshop) and end up with apparent disorder.

[sparhawk]

Yeah, that's what I mean, but it's hard to explain. At least for me.

 

But fidcal, I find the usage of "brush" a very good example, because it suffers the same problem that you describe. I never understood why the objects in DR are called brushes, because, according to my understanding, they are not that. A brush is something that you paint with, and this you can definitely not do with those objects.

[SneaksieDave]

And on it goes!

 

And here is an example of a DR not-layer where the stuff is not arranged in any way...

Take a look at that in an ortho view.

 

I don't care much either way, but to repeat something from pages ago, "Group" might very well be better suited/reserved for something more like a functional group (should that come to exist), than a "layer" (from an orthogonal perspective) of items for display. When I think of a "group" I think of a small handful of items, and/or things that are functionally related strongly in some way (a door and button combo; a vault and its traps; all of the house guards for a particular location). That's why I am fine with DR's "Layers". They are literally level-wide, not mere groups. And they are an editing tool (with precedent), not a game (or meta-game) relation.

[Fidcal]

Well, I give up. They tell me my IQ is 117 but I haven't any idea what you guys are talking about. It defies commone sense. Probably just a big wind-up right?

 

The brush thing I already explained. It's a stupid name but is out of context so it cannot be confused with anything since it is meaningless when used to label a 'shape'. But 'layer' is quite different since everybody knows what a layer really is. And it is NOT a group of stuff that is not aligned in any way.

 

Let's try to drop it again. Leave it as layers. But don't insult me by trying to persuade me that the DR groups are really 'layered' when they are not. I suggest you delete this thread and let's write it out of history - much like the meaning of 'layer'. I shall unsubscribe from this anyway.

[greebo]

Well, I give up. They tell me my IQ is 117 but I haven't any idea what you guys are talking about. It defies commone sense. Probably just a big wind-up right?

I think you're taking this far too personally. Nobody is saying you're stupid or something.

 

I shall unsubscribe from this anyway.

You're actually subscribed to this actual thread?

[New Horizon]

Well, I give up. They tell me my IQ is 117 but I haven't any idea what you guys are talking about. It defies commone sense. Probably just a big wind-up right?

 

The brush thing I already explained. It's a stupid name but is out of context so it cannot be confused with anything since it is meaningless when used to label a 'shape'. But 'layer' is quite different since everybody knows what a layer really is. And it is NOT a group of stuff that is not aligned in any way.

 

Let's try to drop it again. Leave it as layers. But don't insult me by trying to persuade me that the DR groups are really 'layered' when they are not. I suggest you delete this thread and let's write it out of history - much like the meaning of 'layer'. I shall unsubscribe from this anyway.

 

You're taking this way too seriously and personally Fidcal. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can see your point that they are groups being valid, but I can also see how calling them layers is equally valid. It's a matter of perception and interpretation.

[SneaksieDave]

But don't insult me

C'mon Fid, I hope you're not taking offense to what anyone is saying; I don't recall any specific such thing in the thread.

 

If you consider the layers from orthogonal view, they really are just flat groups/collections/arrangments of things just like in photoshop for instance. And for precedent, here's an example of Blender (don't know if you're familiar with it or not). These are 3D layers, not necessarily textures or anything like that. Just trying to help ease the pain.

 

Edit: Mmmmm... urge to re-re-re-try learning Blender, rising...

[New Horizon]

C'mon Fid, I hope you're not taking offense to what anyone is saying; I don't recall any specific such thing in the thread.

 

If you consider the layers from orthogonal view, they really are just flat groups/collections/arrangments of things just like in photoshop for instance. And for precedent, here's an example of Blender (don't know if you're familiar with it or not). These are 3D layers, not necessarily textures or anything like that. Just trying to help ease the pain.

 

Edit: Mmmmm... urge to re-re-re-try learning Blender, rising...

 

Both points of view are valid. I can see the logic of calling them groups, or calling them layers. Both ideas are valid to me...but it's also for that very reason that I don't see the need to change the name. It's just a matter of how you interpret the information.

 

So, with both sides presenting equally strong arguments(in my opinion)...it boils down to whether or not there is a valid reason to change the name. lol I'm guessing not. Does the name break the functionality? No. Does it go against the conventions established in some other programs? No.

 

If anyone has begun to take offense, it's definitely time to step away from the conversation.

[OrbWeaver]

So, with both sides presenting equally strong arguments(in my opinion)...it boils down to whether or not there is a valid reason to change the name. lol I'm guessing not. Does the name break the functionality? No. Does it go against the conventions established in some other programs? No.

 

That's a point I tried to make earlier: although the concept of a 3-dimensional layer may be difficult to understand (and Fidcal is absolutely right that it does defy "common sense", as do many mathematical generalisations that are named after everyday ideas but extended in non-intuitive ways: groups, rings and fields spring to mind), the use of a standard term used in other applications is a big usability benefit.

 

I don't support renaming layers to "groups", because groups are another feature which I don't believe is yet implemented in DarkRadiant. The purpose of a group is to link several primitives together such that they behave as a single object (i.e. you select one, they are all selected, you move one, they all move etc), whereas the purpose of a layer is to toggle visibility but not to change selection behaviour. They are both important and useful features which should ideally be available separately.

[AluminumHaste]

That's a point I tried to make earlier: although the concept of a 3-dimensional layer may be difficult to understand (and Fidcal is absolutely right that it does defy "common sense", as do many mathematical generalisations that are named after everyday ideas but extended in non-intuitive ways: groups, rings and fields spring to mind), the use of a standard term used in other applications is a big usability benefit.

 

I don't support renaming layers to "groups", because groups are another feature which I don't believe is yet implemented in DarkRadiant. The purpose of a group is to link several primitives together such that they behave as a single object (i.e. you select one, they are all selected, you move one, they all move etc), whereas the purpose of a layer is to toggle visibility but not to change selection behaviour. They are both important and useful features which should ideally be available separately.

 

Yeah I totally agree with that

[Crispy]

Well, I give up. They tell me my IQ is 117 but I haven't any idea what you guys are talking about. It defies commone sense.

The 4D thing I was talking about does defy common sense for anyone who isn't a physicist or mathematician, true. If you've had your brain wrung through the mangle that is a university-level physics or abstract mathematics class, as I and several others in this thread have, then it does make sense... but I guess you'll just have to take my word for that one, if you believe it at all. Everyone struggles to grasp such abstract notions at first, no matter their IQ or whatever. That's why I was required to take maths classes like that even though I'm in a computer science degree, I guess; it trains you to think in highly abstract ways which have little to no bearing on the real world. Which mathematicians and theoretical physicists and programmers have to do a lot.

 

The human brain is not really designed to cope with abstract notions... it has to be significantly rewired. Which is probably to the detriment of other functions, like socialising.

[STiFU]

Just on a sidenote: The 10 Dimensions of String theory explained.

 

(Very interesting and not too hard to follow actually)

[AluminumHaste]

Just on a sidenote: The 10 Dimensions of String theory explained.

 

(Very interesting and not too hard to follow actually)

 

That was sweet, but I love the disclaimer at the end of the video about how this is NOT the accepted view of the 10 dimensions lol