Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Krice
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

1
Devlogs & Projects / What features you miss in pixel editors?
« on: January 30, 2021, 05:46:05 pm »
It seems like each editor has their set of features and none of them has most of the typical features. At least I feel like something is always missing. What I miss are two I guess basic features. First one is drawing with right (secondary) mouse button (color or eraser etc). This for some reason is "context menu" in many programs, or something like that. As a developer I know this feature would be really easy to add as an option.

The second feature is tiling which is some kind of (easy!) way to see if the tile is repeating smoothly from the edges. In some editors you have this as N x N tiles preview. This is also really easy feature to do. I don't know. Does anyone else find this annoying? That you have editors which are quite nice, but they are just missing some features that makes life easier. Of course I'm in the slow process of putting all these in my editor, but I find there are other features and things which are way harder to program and they make it non-trivial to release new pixel editors.

2
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 05, 2017, 09:07:14 am »
I think this is not worth the trouble. The source code is anyway in what I call a "transition phase C++" in which the programmer is moving from C to C++ but is doing most things the wrong way. Well that alone was not a reason to quit, but those pesky libraries. I think they could these days release raw .lib and include files for MSVC, because there is only Windows 10, right? When everyone knows how difficult it is to compile misc. shady linux libraries in Windows.

3
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 04, 2017, 03:45:01 pm »
Getting libpng was quite easy, but not only png file support is not used in the project, but pngsupport.cpp has errors that prevents compiling it. Great way to release source code. Guess I can just exclude it from the project, but I even spent time to write a new error handler to replace Wobbly (wobbly.h, also missing from the project). Now I have to figure out how to handle that impy.h.

4
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 04, 2017, 01:03:27 pm »
Quote from: yrizoud on August 04, 2017, 08:52:18 am
Now, if your original question was guenuine, you can see if Evilpixie looks more like what you want to do.

It's missing X11/xpm.h, png.h and impy.h. They are all external image libraries and no idea if they could somehow compiled/installed on Windows. I think you need at least png support to load and save images I guess.

5
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 04, 2017, 06:53:06 am »
Quote from: Ai on August 04, 2017, 05:31:32 am
It's just that a platform that is made by devs for devs, where you can look into everything and see how it works, is naturally dev-friendly

You don't even know what you are talking about. Linux is based on old, outdated system that was and is a huge mess and that's why we have these bloated open source projects which are developed in incredibly slow pace and they still, after years of development, have long lists of bugs. Programming in linux is unnecessary difficult and unstable, which leads to a "solution" where everything is compiled frequently, because they can't make anything that has a minute of backward or forward compatibility.

6
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 04, 2017, 06:35:49 am »
Quote from: RAV on August 03, 2017, 01:27:26 pm
The most important factors to good software is the combination of developer engagement with user feedback. That's the sort of Open that matters most.

I find this comment hilarious, because my experience is that open source developers are notoriously bad at listening people. A great example is Blender 3D and so called ngon case. I think we had to ask ngon feature for almost 10 years until the developers finally decided to add it, and after that everyone realized it was a good decision. The "reason" why it was opposed was just because it didn't "fit" to Blender's "style". Another example was when I asked Gimp's developers if they could add line drawing tool in Gimp, but they said no, because it's shift+pen to draw lines.

I think the reason why open source developers refuse to listen user feedback is that they don't have to. It's simple. In most cases they get their money anyway, from donations and other sources. It doesn't matter what they do, in fact some projects must be a dream job, because you don't have any kind of responsibility to provide working solutions and they still get enough money. And they can always throw that "hack it yourself" argument when everything else fails.

7
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 03, 2017, 07:13:52 am »
Quote from: Ai on August 02, 2017, 11:16:36 pm
It means Windows-specific bugs hang around because no-one wants to bother with developing on Windows.

There is no such thing as "Windows-specific" bugs. If you write a program that doesn't have bugs it works on any platform. The most common reason why some bugs appear on other platforms are subtle differences in memory layouts. They are still actual bugs in all platforms. From open source perspective it may look like Windows is not a preferable platform, but in reality majority of programs are developed on it. It's just commercial often, and freeware (closed source).

One of many things I noticed about Gimp's source code that it's using some kind of 'make' magic to link header files without actual directory structure. Something like #include "file.h" doesn't tell in which directory the header is. I don't know but it sounds like a bad practice. It also makes impossible (or hard) to set up a IDE project for source files.

8
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 02, 2017, 04:16:53 pm »
Quote from: Ai on August 02, 2017, 02:39:37 pm
The reason I mention Linux is because opensource software is, in the overwhelming majority, developed on Linux. That's where the best development infrastructure is

Just by reading Gimp's source code doesn't tell me it's the best. More like worst. Gimp has never been a number one choice for most artists, because it's buggy (crashes randomly) and slow, and is missing some basic features. Those are characteristic to open source projects which most are linux based.

9
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: August 02, 2017, 06:28:58 am »
Gimp has two sets of instructions on how to build it (for Windows) and both of them are somewhat vague and bad in explaining what and why you need to do something. Gimp is also possibly designed only for 'make' and never supposed to work in any kind of IDE. I don't know if it's really worth the trouble to go through all that installing for stuff it needs, but since there are Windows builds it must be possible somehow. The source code itself is a sad example of old school C with tons of quirky macros, user defined data types etc. I think it's 700K lines for only a pixel art program. Makes you wonder how it's even possible to make something that bloated.

10
General Discussion / Re: Hackable pixel editors?
« on: July 31, 2017, 10:28:22 am »
Maybe I could find out how difficult it is to compile Gimp. It could be fun to try at least? Gimp doesn't need a lot of fixes to become good (and useful for pixel art), so it could be worth it. It's not like it's impossible to build it, right?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4