 |
DeleD Community Edition
Forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pfo
Member
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject: DeleD MetaData idea... |
 |
|
Thought I'd start a new topic for this because it was off-topic in the last post.
| Quote: |
PFO: Yeah, something along that lines has crossed our minds as well, there are other editors out there that offer similar functionality and it is very convenient.
I was just wondering how to manage the 'metadata of the metadata' (i.e. the field definitions). You'd want to store those in the DMF as well, to enable other people to interpret your field contents, but then again: you'd want to conveniently reuse your data model across different maps as well. So that means you probably want to store the definition in some generic repository on your machine as well.
And when I say data model, I do mean data model in the classical sense, as the field definitions would be divided in different entities.
p.s. I propose we use 'metadata' to refer to the data model, and 'user data' to refer to the actual contents... |
That's cool, I'm glad I'm not the only one who might find this useful. Managing the metadata structure in a centralized repository is great idea (much like the .DML material list). I don't think you necessarily have to save the MetaData format information with the file, the programmer should know what types of data elements should be present in a given data structure.
I also had another interesting idea. With the newer DeleD version, level development time is very significantly reduced, especially with the ability to select vertices in 3D, and use the dialogs to fine tune things. To me, it seems the only design bottleneck is in lighting. When I make a new level in DeleD, first I make all the geometry. Then I do all the textures. Lastly, I do lighting and save my mesh with a different copy in case I want to make changes to the orignal geometry. Therein lies the problem- in case I want to make changes to the original geometry. The only difference before and after lighting is the triangulation, once it happens editing becomes more difficult if not impossible.
So here's my idea: Lightmapping can only be done for the purpose of previewing, and when desirable results are achieved, they can be saved only to a file of a different name other than the current file being edited. If you make your level, texture and try out the lighting, then 2 days later want to add some things, you don't have to go back to the old saved copy to do so. Basically, DeleD would force you to have a master copy in non-lightmapped mode, and it could export that copy with its lightmaps when told to do so.
Any feedback is appreciated, and keep up the great work |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul-Jan
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 3066
Location: Lage Zwaluwe
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great summary of the workflow problem introduced by the lightmapper triangulation.  And yes, something along the lines of your proposed solution is definitely needed!
Similar solutions have been suggested before by other users as well. What it comes down to is that lightmapping should act as some sort of 'export' action, because it irreversibly affects geometry. The main reason why Jeroen and me are a bit hesistant in implementing it, is that the impact on the UI (both on the outside and inside) is quite big (for instance, lightmapped view mode would most likely have to be replaced by some 'review of last lightmapped level'), and we want to do it right.
Like you said, feedback is most appreciated!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
