DeleD Community Edition

[Shard]

Hi guys,

I am very new to this 3D stuff, and along the way I have tried a couple of level editors (Cshop & GameSpace), each with varying degrees of frustration. I came upon Deled via the DBPro forums.

A couple of days ago I downloaded your “Lite” version, and up to now have been very impressed with it. I have no doubt that within a few weeks I will purchase your Pro version.

Being a typical “end-user”, I dived into the product first and then looked at the manual only when I was forced into it. The couple of tutorials that some of the forum members have put up have also been immensely helpful.

So, now to a couple of things that I feel would make it product easier and more intuitive to work with:

1) I think it would be nice if I had the option to have the objects in the front, side, and top views rendered as solid. Wire frame has its uses, but I feel that the views tend to become confusing as more and more objects are added.

2) It would be nice if I could overtype things like the object size and position in the object inspector.

3) When I am scaling or moving an object in one of the views, it would be useful to have the object inspectors position and sizes updated in real time. At the moment they only seem to get updated once the edit has been completed.

I really do think that you have got the basis of a really great product here, and with the other things that are proposing to do in subsequent releases, I am confident that you will end up with one of the best level editors out there.

Keep up the good work and good luck with the project.

[Paul-Jan]

Hi Shard,

Welcome to these forums, and thanks for the feedback!

I think (2) and (3) would make most valuable extensions to the current functionality, thank you for suggesting them!

I am not too sure about (1), as a large object would completely block access to any faces behind it (doesn't even have to be large, somewhere in your z-order there is very probably some object that occludes faces behind it). Or would you suggest using some kind of transparency or variable z-order? I agree the wireframe representation can be kind of cumbersome with lots of objects (especially after triangulation), but I simply don't know any practical ways of implementating a different representations. If I'm wrong here please correct me, or point me to any other program that actually implements something like you have in mind. Your input is most appreciated!

[note how, when I say "z-order", I refer to screen-space here, not world space -> in other words, I am referring to whatever axis points into the screen for that particular 2d view ]

[Shard]

Hi Paul-Jan,

If you take a look at GameSpace (assuming that you can get past it's hideous interface), you can see that all views can be rendered as solid. An option in the rendering properties also allows you to mark it as invisible so that it is neither selectable nor rendered. This can reduce “clutter” a great deal.

Another thought occurs to do with positioning, and that is a sort of “drop” facility. For instance:

Assume I had a created the “floor” of a room, and then wanted to position some other sort of object onto it. If I could simply “drop” it and have it come to rest on the “floor”, rather than me having to manipulate it to its “vertical” resting place, I think it could make things a good bit easier.

Failing that, maybe some kind of property I can set that that would not allow me to push one particular object through another?

What do think?

Regards,

Pete.

[granada]

Some nice ideas going on here

dave
_________________
AMD Phenom(tm)IIx6 1090t Processor 3.20 GHS
8.00 GB memory
Windows 7 64 bit
Nvida Geforce GTX 580

[Daaark]

[Paul-Jan]

Ah cool, thanks. I'll take a look at the gamespace way of handling this, and discuss things with Jeroen.

Your other idea (collission detection/response and gravity (or just explicit 'drop') in a 3D editor) sound like a really nice and fresh concept. I am not too sure yet how it should respond in collission situations. For example, when I want to move a chair through a table, should it not be able to get past the table at all (only ok if the collission detection is very easy to turn on and off, say with a hotkey you have to keep pressed down while moving), should the move action be cancelled if I release it in the middle of a table, or should the chair 'pop' to the other side of the table. The first option sounds most appealing at the moment, what do you guys think?

Also note how this does sound a lot like PRO only functionality Next thing you know we'll be adding full fledged physics handling into our 3d editor: create a room, load some prefab furniture and literally toss everything into the room

[Paul-Jan]

Vampyre, care to elaborate a bit?

[Shard]

Hi Paul-Jan,

My view is that the simplest implementation possible would be the most favourable for usability.

So, I would tend to go with being able to mark an object (maybe in its properties) as not being able to pass through another object. In that case, given your example of a chair, it should not be able to pass through the table at all if I had set its properties accordingly.

To get the chair to the other side of the table I would simply have to move it around the object and not try to go through it.

As far as the "drop" object is concerned, once again the simplest implementation possible would be the favourite, and I would guess that any routines would be able to make use of the same ones needed to prevent one object being able to pass through another.

While I think that the ideas would be a nice to have, I would hate to see your product lose focus by adding physics engines or layers of complexity.

Having seen some of the astounding work produced by other people on the forum using your product, it is obvious to me your development plans are certainly hitting the mark.

Remember that I am coming to this as a very inexperienced 3D user, and so my comments will be nowhere near as valid as some of the other guys.

... and as a matter of interest, I am more than happy to pay the price you are asking for the pro version. I will however be carrying on with the lite version initially until I manage to get my brain around it all. Given the size of my brain and the breadth of my talent, this could be a while yet

Pete.

[Paul-Jan]

I totally agree with your views, the 'physics support' was just banter

Also, feel free to stick with Lite for as long as you like, it's all up to you to decide whenever you want to go pro