I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
want to weigh in on the subject.
The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle with
finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even
get through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
to something like this and actually make progress.
What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if
you want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
then publish your work.
I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
significantly, since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my
boat. They want to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the
day to sit and write things from scratch.
I've been thinking about this and I know a way that we could use Qt Designer
I'll take some time today and prep something small that might be able to
help anyone interested
pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
> I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
> want to weigh in on the subject.
> The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle with
> finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
> little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
> with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even
> get through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
> to something like this and actually make progress.
> What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
> that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
> Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if
> you want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
> then publish your work.
> I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
> significantly, since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my
> boat. They want to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the
> day to sit and write things from scratch.
<pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
> I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
> want to weigh in on the subject.
> The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle with
> finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
> little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
> with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even get
> through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote to
> something like this and actually make progress.
> What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
> that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
> Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if you
> want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and then
> publish your work.
> I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric significantly,
> since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my boat. They want
> to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to sit and
> write things from scratch.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Louai Abu-Osba <m...@louai.org> wrote:
> I'd love to have a tool like that in addition to straight up scripting.
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Paul Griswold
> <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
> > I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
> > want to weigh in on the subject.
> > The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
> with
> > finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
> > little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
> > with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even
> get
> > through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote to
> > something like this and actually make progress.
> > What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
> > that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
> > Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if
> you
> > want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
> then
> > publish your work.
> > I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
> significantly,
> > since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my boat. They
> want
> > to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to sit and
> > write things from scratch.
Continuing this subject, I'd like to see the majority of creation platform development(whether creating dg nodes, programming structures like for loops, or gui design) able to be done with a node-based/gui interface. Of course, its great that the entire application is built on python/kl for when you need to redesign or create an application to fit your needs. But for me, it still currently feels like its missing an interface.
Of course, nothing is stopping users from creating that interface on top of the existing core, which is awesome. It would be nice though, if at least there was an barebones nodebased interface that's meant to be interacted with by users on the fly, where you can create python (and kl) operator nodes without closing and restarting the main application (houdini can do this). Then the development process could be quite an interactive experience.
On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:42:01 AM UTC-4, Paul Griswold wrote:
> I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might > want to weigh in on the subject.
> The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle with > finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a > little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning > with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even > get through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote > to something like this and actually make progress.
> What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE > that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how > Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if > you want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and > then publish your work.
> I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric > significantly, since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my > boat. They want to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the > day to sit and write things from scratch.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM, josh <j...@lightmapper.com> wrote:
> Continuing this subject, I'd like to see the majority of creation platform
> development(whether creating dg nodes, programming structures like for
> loops, or gui design) able to be done with a node-based/gui interface. Of
> course, its great that the entire application is built on python/kl for
> when you need to redesign or create an application to fit your needs. But
> for me, it still currently feels like its missing an interface.
> Of course, nothing is stopping users from creating that interface on top
> of the existing core, which is awesome. It would be nice though, if at
> least there was an barebones nodebased interface that's meant to be
> interacted with by users on the fly, where you can create python (and kl)
> operator nodes without closing and restarting the main application (houdini
> can do this). Then the development process could be quite an interactive
> experience.
> What do you guys think?
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:42:01 AM UTC-4, Paul Griswold wrote:
>> I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
>> want to weigh in on the subject.
>> The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
>> with finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know
>> a little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
>> with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even
>> get through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
>> to something like this and actually make progress.
>> What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
>> that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
>> Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if
>> you want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
>> then publish your work.
>> I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
>> significantly, since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my
>> boat. They want to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the
>> day to sit and write things from scratch.
*THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION--Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE reply to the
sender immediately. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited.*
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Daxx <dax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it should be exactly like Nuke/Houdini or any drag and drop node
> based software but with the amazing power and flexibility of Fabric Engine.
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM, josh <j...@lightmapper.com> wrote:
>> Continuing this subject, I'd like to see the majority of creation
>> platform development(whether creating dg nodes, programming structures like
>> for loops, or gui design) able to be done with a node-based/gui interface.
>> Of course, its great that the entire application is built on python/kl for
>> when you need to redesign or create an application to fit your needs. But
>> for me, it still currently feels like its missing an interface.
>> Of course, nothing is stopping users from creating that interface on top
>> of the existing core, which is awesome. It would be nice though, if at
>> least there was an barebones nodebased interface that's meant to be
>> interacted with by users on the fly, where you can create python (and kl)
>> operator nodes without closing and restarting the main application (houdini
>> can do this). Then the development process could be quite an interactive
>> experience.
>> What do you guys think?
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:42:01 AM UTC-4, Paul Griswold wrote:
>>> I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
>>> want to weigh in on the subject.
>>> The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
>>> with finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know
>>> a little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the beginning
>>> with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to even
>>> get through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
>>> to something like this and actually make progress.
>>> What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
>>> that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
>>> Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there if
>>> you want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
>>> then publish your work.
>>> I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
>>> significantly, since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my
>>> boat. They want to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the
>>> day to sit and write things from scratch.
I would say +1 one month ago :). But now my feeling is mixed.
I'm lucky as I can learn Creation Platform every days ;). So I totally
understand that it is not easy to start to learn it if you've got only one
or two hours available in the week (as it is often the case for beta
testers).
From this perspective, being able to play with it from a UI a la
Dreamweaver/QtDesigner make totally sense to me. My concern is that I don't
think it will help you to really understand how things are working first.
Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always be easy if you miss some
important concepts. I remember when I was a beta tester of Moondust/ICE, I
really didn't build anything serious with it. Beta testing was more to
learn the logic around this new piece of technology (and I think it is the
main reason why we subscribe to a beta test program).
Having say that, I would love to be able to create/edit nodes from a node
graph interface, or to define their widgets using a Qt UI. But first
Creation Platform foundations need to be strong enough!
We need to add some dedicated documentations to help you understand how
Creation Platform can help to build your tools. There are already several
good blog articles and lot of information in the docs. But a more general
introduction could help for sure. The good news is that I'm currently
working on such Creation Platform 101 course :).
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Daxx <dax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Louai Abu-Osba <m...@louai.org> wrote:
>> I'd love to have a tool like that in addition to straight up scripting.
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Paul Griswold
>> <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
>> > I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all might
>> > want to weigh in on the subject.
>> > The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
>> with
>> > finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
>> > little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the
>> beginning
>> > with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to
>> even get
>> > through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
>> to
>> > something like this and actually make progress.
>> > What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of GUI/IDE
>> > that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
>> > Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there
>> if you
>> > want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
>> then
>> > publish your work.
>> > I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
>> significantly,
>> > since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my boat. They
>> want
>> > to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to sit
>> and
>> > write things from scratch.
Now that you guys mention that and Guillaume is here, would something like
Nanode, a project of Guillaume be integrated into Creation? that'll be
awesome, I work all day in houdini so I love my nodes and building complex
systems using that, when I first saw the nodes in fabric I immediately
thought that we could layout nodes and build this, I would totally love
that.
guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say +1 one month ago :). But now my feeling is mixed.
> I'm lucky as I can learn Creation Platform every days ;). So I totally
> understand that it is not easy to start to learn it if you've got only one
> or two hours available in the week (as it is often the case for beta
> testers).
> From this perspective, being able to play with it from a UI a la
> Dreamweaver/QtDesigner make totally sense to me. My concern is that I don't
> think it will help you to really understand how things are working first.
> Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always be easy if you miss some
> important concepts. I remember when I was a beta tester of Moondust/ICE, I
> really didn't build anything serious with it. Beta testing was more to
> learn the logic around this new piece of technology (and I think it is the
> main reason why we subscribe to a beta test program).
> Having say that, I would love to be able to create/edit nodes from a node
> graph interface, or to define their widgets using a Qt UI. But first
> Creation Platform foundations need to be strong enough!
> We need to add some dedicated documentations to help you understand how
> Creation Platform can help to build your tools. There are already several
> good blog articles and lot of information in the docs. But a more general
> introduction could help for sure. The good news is that I'm currently
> working on such Creation Platform 101 course :).
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Laforge
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Daxx <dax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Louai Abu-Osba <m...@louai.org> wrote:
>>> I'd love to have a tool like that in addition to straight up scripting.
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Paul Griswold
>>> <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
>>> > I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all
>>> might
>>> > want to weigh in on the subject.
>>> > The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
>>> with
>>> > finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know a
>>> > little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the
>>> beginning
>>> > with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to
>>> even get
>>> > through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to devote
>>> to
>>> > something like this and actually make progress.
>>> > What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of
>>> GUI/IDE
>>> > that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like how
>>> > Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there
>>> if you
>>> > want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
>>> then
>>> > publish your work.
>>> > I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
>>> significantly,
>>> > since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my boat.
>>> They want
>>> > to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to sit
>>> and
>>> > write things from scratch.
Doing something similar to Nanode is definitively possible yes, but not by
integrating it. Nanode evaluation graph system is really (really) not as
good as Fabric Core one :). Nanode graph evaluation is done in Python, so
you can't evaluate some branches in parallel for example. But building a
node graph editor a la Houdini would be great for sure !
Guillaume
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alvaro Castaneda <varo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Now that you guys mention that and Guillaume is here, would something
> like Nanode, a project of Guillaume be integrated into Creation? that'll be
> awesome, I work all day in houdini so I love my nodes and building complex
> systems using that, when I first saw the nodes in fabric I immediately
> thought that we could layout nodes and build this, I would totally love
> that.
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Guillaume Laforge <
> guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would say +1 one month ago :). But now my feeling is mixed.
>> I'm lucky as I can learn Creation Platform every days ;). So I totally
>> understand that it is not easy to start to learn it if you've got only one
>> or two hours available in the week (as it is often the case for beta
>> testers).
>> From this perspective, being able to play with it from a UI a la
>> Dreamweaver/QtDesigner make totally sense to me. My concern is that I don't
>> think it will help you to really understand how things are working first.
>> Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always be easy if you miss some
>> important concepts. I remember when I was a beta tester of Moondust/ICE, I
>> really didn't build anything serious with it. Beta testing was more to
>> learn the logic around this new piece of technology (and I think it is the
>> main reason why we subscribe to a beta test program).
>> Having say that, I would love to be able to create/edit nodes from a node
>> graph interface, or to define their widgets using a Qt UI. But first
>> Creation Platform foundations need to be strong enough!
>> We need to add some dedicated documentations to help you understand how
>> Creation Platform can help to build your tools. There are already several
>> good blog articles and lot of information in the docs. But a more general
>> introduction could help for sure. The good news is that I'm currently
>> working on such Creation Platform 101 course :).
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Laforge
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Daxx <dax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Louai Abu-Osba <m...@louai.org> wrote:
>>>> I'd love to have a tool like that in addition to straight up scripting.
>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Paul Griswold
>>>> <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote:
>>>> > I sent this to the guys at Fabric directly & was told you guys all
>>>> might
>>>> > want to weigh in on the subject.
>>>> > The problem I have with Fabric/Creation is that I constantly struggle
>>>> with
>>>> > finding time to do anything with it. I'm not much of a coder (I know
>>>> a
>>>> > little Actionscript, PHP, Javascript, etc.) so I started at the
>>>> beginning
>>>> > with Helge's asset browser tutorial, but I've never had the time to
>>>> even get
>>>> > through that. There's simply not enough time in my schedule to
>>>> devote to
>>>> > something like this and actually make progress.
>>>> > What do you guys think about Creation/Fabric having some sort of
>>>> GUI/IDE
>>>> > that will let people build out an interface visually? Sort-of like
>>>> how
>>>> > Dreamweaver works for the web is how I imagine it. The code is there
>>>> if you
>>>> > want to see it, but you also can drag things around as a designer and
>>>> then
>>>> > publish your work.
>>>> > I think something like that would broaden the reach of Fabric
>>>> significantly,
>>>> > since I'm guessing there are a lot of folks out there in my boat.
>>>> They want
>>>> > to get involved, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to sit
>>>> and
>>>> > write things from scratch.
My concern is that I don't think it will help you to really understand how
> things are working first. Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always
> be easy if you miss some important concepts.
Do I really have to ?
I think in the future there will be at least two different kind of Fabric
user, the one that really want to dig into the system and change everything
in the code and the one like me or Pau,l in this case, who wants to build
stuff with it.
So if creating my tools won't always be easy , I think it should be :)
Over time those different kinds of users will emerge. At this point in time, we are still building the solid foundation that a GUI editor would be based off of.
It is completely possible to build a node based GUI on top of CP, and something we have plans to tackle, but it does tend to constrain you to building a certain set of functionality. ICE, for example, is not a general purpose programming environment. ICE is good for setting up evaluation graphs, but not much good at handling other kinds of problems like manipulation.
The architecture of the core engine was designed to facilitate completely dynamic applications that can change structure at runtime. That's why we built everything on top of a compiler. We see that in the future, applications could be built from a mixture of python defined nodes, which are hand crafted, and data driven nodes, generated from preset files. The graph could be built by assembling these nodes in an editor.
Phil
From: creationplatform@googlegroups.com [mailto:creationplatform@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Daxx
Sent: October-12-12 1:34 PM
To: creationplatform@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Visually develop?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Guillaume Laforge <guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com<mailto:guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
My concern is that I don't think it will help you to really understand how things are working first. Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always be easy if you miss some important concepts.
Do I really have to ?
I think in the future there will be at least two different kind of Fabric user, the one that really want to dig into the system and change everything in the code and the one like me or Pau,l in this case, who wants to build stuff with it.
So if creating my tools won't always be easy , I think it should be :)
I agree, but for now Creation Platform is for TDs (and not beginner ones)
and for developers interested in computer graphics. For "artistic TDs", the
tool are not there yet.
But for developers, Creation Platform is really starting to offer great new
things, so I hope at one point, artistic TDs will also be interested and
able to use it!
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Daxx <dax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Guillaume Laforge <
> guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My concern is that I don't think it will help you to really understand how
>> things are working first. Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always
>> be easy if you miss some important concepts.
> Do I really have to ?
> I think in the future there will be at least two different kind of Fabric
> user, the one that really want to dig into the system and change everything
> in the code and the one like me or Pau,l in this case, who wants to build
> stuff with it.
> So if creating my tools won't always be easy , I think it should be :)
as someone who works with ICE daily, i thank you for a platform/foundation
first! i agree, ICE is not a general purpose environment and it has been
coerced into working in ways it wasn't designed to do well.
if i understand what CP is now... i make the higher level graph interface,
i decide how i want create, and you guys provide the raw processing power
and that engineering which i couldn't even begin to imagine doing.
i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who
just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini,
softimage, and maya). i am
s
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Phil Taylor
<Phil.Tay...@fabricengine.com>wrote:
> Over time those different kinds of users will emerge. At this point in
> time, we are still building the solid foundation that a GUI editor would be
> based off of. ****
> It is completely possible to build a node based GUI on top of CP, and
> something we have plans to tackle, but it does tend to constrain you to
> building a certain set of functionality. ICE, for example, is not a general
> purpose programming environment. ICE is good for setting up evaluation
> graphs, but not much good at handling other kinds of problems like
> manipulation.****
> ** **
> The architecture of the core engine was designed to facilitate completely
> dynamic applications that can change structure at runtime. That’s why we
> built everything on top of a compiler. We see that in the future,
> applications could be built from a mixture of python defined nodes, which
> are hand crafted, and data driven nodes, generated from preset files. The
> graph could be built by assembling these nodes in an editor. ****
i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who
just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini,
softimage, and maya). i am... *interested in changing the way i work in
hopes to improve it not simply porting it.*
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> as someone who works with ICE daily, i thank you for a platform/foundation
> first! i agree, ICE is not a general purpose environment and it has been
> coerced into working in ways it wasn't designed to do well.
> if i understand what CP is now... i make the higher level graph interface,
> i decide how i want create, and you guys provide the raw processing power
> and that engineering which i couldn't even begin to imagine doing.
> i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who
> just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini,
> softimage, and maya). i am
I find myself in much the same boat as Paul Griswold. Actually, I made a
similar suggestion a while back, but I don't think many people saw it.
I understand the argument that creation platform is still developing the
base from which such a gui would be developed, and so it is reasonable that
we would have to wait for such a thing, but I disagree with the notion that
a gui like this would only be useful to non-developers. I thoroughly
believe it is possible to develop a gui that combines the ability to
visually design your interface, with a node based gui for developing and
inspecting code that can easily be used hand-in-hand with fully developed
traditional ide features in the same package, that would accelerate the
work of advanced programmers and newbies alike.
Even at this early stage I think it would be useful to all to have a very
simple gui that is essentially a list of common features that one might
want in their application, from which you simply select those you want, hit
enter and voila you have the ground work done for you. Such a list might
include a list of import/export formats, a choice of navigation schemes, a
choice of common ui layouts, whether you want a timeline etc. Surely this
is faster than typing up such common functionality, or even cutting and
pasting from existing code, and it would in no way hinder one's ability to
customize the results. Of course, I'd be willing to trade such convenience
for faster development of the Creation Platforms foundations, but it may be
that it wouldn't be hard to develop such a thing.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hmm, my draft was missing the last sentence...
> i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who
> just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini,
> softimage, and maya). i am... *interested in changing the way i work in
> hopes to improve it not simply porting it.*
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> as someone who works with ICE daily, i thank you for a
>> platform/foundation first! i agree, ICE is not a general purpose
>> environment and it has been coerced into working in ways it wasn't designed
>> to do well.
>> if i understand what CP is now... i make the higher level graph
>> interface, i decide how i want create, and you guys provide the raw
>> processing power and that engineering which i couldn't even begin to
>> imagine doing.
>> i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users
>> who just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini,
>> softimage, and maya). i am
sure, i can see value in a wizard but i personally would not like to see
the fabric team make a dreamweaver like interface to CP. i have used
dreamweaver many years ago and i hated the code it made and i feel like i
was in a box. as long as i wanted to make a webpage a certain way i was ok,
but if i wanted to try new things i was stuck. i dont see CP as that, i see
it as a very wide box with the top open and one of the sides missing.
with that said, if someone wanted to license CP to create an application to
help make applications with CP then market it, i think thats awesome and
shows exactly the choice that fabric team is offering.
s
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Francis Bezooyen
<bluestrip...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I find myself in much the same boat as Paul Griswold. Actually, I made a
> similar suggestion a while back, but I don't think many people saw it.
> I understand the argument that creation platform is still developing the
> base from which such a gui would be developed, and so it is reasonable that
> we would have to wait for such a thing, but I disagree with the notion that
> a gui like this would only be useful to non-developers. I thoroughly
> believe it is possible to develop a gui that combines the ability to
> visually design your interface, with a node based gui for developing and
> inspecting code that can easily be used hand-in-hand with fully developed
> traditional ide features in the same package, that would accelerate the
> work of advanced programmers and newbies alike.
> Even at this early stage I think it would be useful to all to have a very
> simple gui that is essentially a list of common features that one might
> want in their application, from which you simply select those you want, hit
> enter and voila you have the ground work done for you. Such a list might
> include a list of import/export formats, a choice of navigation schemes, a
> choice of common ui layouts, whether you want a timeline etc. Surely this
> is faster than typing up such common functionality, or even cutting and
> pasting from existing code, and it would in no way hinder one's ability to
> customize the results. Of course, I'd be willing to trade such convenience
> for faster development of the Creation Platforms foundations, but it may be
> that it wouldn't be hard to develop such a thing.
I agree with Guillaume and Steven for the most part.You only loose out on
learning some key concepts by trying to get around the dirty work. If there
WERE an interface builder(ewww not that xcode thing) to be made, why not
just make an app that converts .ui file from Qt designer to .py files or
something along those lines. (I think there is one but it doesn't work that
well). Either way devs aren't going to get away from coding, that's why you
are a developer right?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you mean a wizard?
> sure, i can see value in a wizard but i personally would not like to see
> the fabric team make a dreamweaver like interface to CP. i have used
> dreamweaver many years ago and i hated the code it made and i feel like i
> was in a box. as long as i wanted to make a webpage a certain way i was ok,
> but if i wanted to try new things i was stuck. i dont see CP as that, i see
> it as a very wide box with the top open and one of the sides missing.
> with that said, if someone wanted to license CP to create an application
> to help make applications with CP then market it, i think thats awesome and
> shows exactly the choice that fabric team is offering.
> s
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Francis Bezooyen <bluestrip...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I find myself in much the same boat as Paul Griswold. Actually, I made a
>> similar suggestion a while back, but I don't think many people saw it.
>> I understand the argument that creation platform is still developing the
>> base from which such a gui would be developed, and so it is reasonable that
>> we would have to wait for such a thing, but I disagree with the notion that
>> a gui like this would only be useful to non-developers. I thoroughly
>> believe it is possible to develop a gui that combines the ability to
>> visually design your interface, with a node based gui for developing and
>> inspecting code that can easily be used hand-in-hand with fully developed
>> traditional ide features in the same package, that would accelerate the
>> work of advanced programmers and newbies alike.
>> Even at this early stage I think it would be useful to all to have a very
>> simple gui that is essentially a list of common features that one might
>> want in their application, from which you simply select those you want, hit
>> enter and voila you have the ground work done for you. Such a list might
>> include a list of import/export formats, a choice of navigation schemes, a
>> choice of common ui layouts, whether you want a timeline etc. Surely this
>> is faster than typing up such common functionality, or even cutting and
>> pasting from existing code, and it would in no way hinder one's ability to
>> customize the results. Of course, I'd be willing to trade such convenience
>> for faster development of the Creation Platforms foundations, but it may be
>> that it wouldn't be hard to develop such a thing.
agreed and there is personal preference and style involved in this too... i
use wizard style code generation when learning a new API but after a while
i start from scratch or if speed is an desired i will use the template code
but change the style the code was generated in.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Matthew Murray <mattanimat...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Over time those different kinds of users will emerge. At this point in
> time, we are still building the solid foundation that a GUI editor would be
> based off of. ****
> It is completely possible to build a node based GUI on top of CP, and
> something we have plans to tackle, but it does tend to constrain you to
> building a certain set of functionality. ICE, for example, is not a general
> purpose programming environment. ICE is good for setting up evaluation
> graphs, but not much good at handling other kinds of problems like
> manipulation.****
> ** **
> The architecture of the core engine was designed to facilitate completely
> dynamic applications that can change structure at runtime. That’s why we
> built everything on top of a compiler. We see that in the future,
> applications could be built from a mixture of python defined nodes, which
> are hand crafted, and data driven nodes, generated from preset files. The
> graph could be built by assembling these nodes in an editor. ****
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Guillaume Laforge <
> guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com> wrote:****
> My concern is that I don't think it will help you to really understand how
> things are working first. Even with a UI, creating your tools won't always
> be easy if you miss some important concepts. ****
> Do I really have to ?
> I think in the future there will be at least two different kind of Fabric
> user, the one that really want to dig into the system and change everything
> in the code and the one like me or Pau,l in this case, who wants to build
> stuff with it.
> So if creating my tools won't always be easy , I think it should be :)
GUI is sine qua non but it can't be good if the core isn't yet at its best.
And I totally second Paul on the idea that working too soon on the GUI
affects the way you work on the core.
No - I definitely do not mean a dreamweaver style "I will control
everything you do" type wizard.
The kind of solution I envision would take some time and effort to convey
properly - time I don't have, but the thrust of it is to automate the
creation of repetitive and common code or tasks, and provide the user with
some visually based ways of developing their code, but without constraining
them to particular paradigms and processes down the road... That's the goal
anyway.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you mean a wizard?
> sure, i can see value in a wizard but i personally would not like to see
> the fabric team make a dreamweaver like interface to CP. i have used
> dreamweaver many years ago and i hated the code it made and i feel like i
> was in a box. as long as i wanted to make a webpage a certain way i was ok,
> but if i wanted to try new things i was stuck. i dont see CP as that, i see
> it as a very wide box with the top open and one of the sides missing.
> with that said, if someone wanted to license CP to create an application
> to help make applications with CP then market it, i think thats awesome and
> shows exactly the choice that fabric team is offering.
> s
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Francis Bezooyen <bluestrip...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I find myself in much the same boat as Paul Griswold. Actually, I made a
>> similar suggestion a while back, but I don't think many people saw it.
>> I understand the argument that creation platform is still developing the
>> base from which such a gui would be developed, and so it is reasonable that
>> we would have to wait for such a thing, but I disagree with the notion that
>> a gui like this would only be useful to non-developers. I thoroughly
>> believe it is possible to develop a gui that combines the ability to
>> visually design your interface, with a node based gui for developing and
>> inspecting code that can easily be used hand-in-hand with fully developed
>> traditional ide features in the same package, that would accelerate the
>> work of advanced programmers and newbies alike.
>> Even at this early stage I think it would be useful to all to have a very
>> simple gui that is essentially a list of common features that one might
>> want in their application, from which you simply select those you want, hit
>> enter and voila you have the ground work done for you. Such a list might
>> include a list of import/export formats, a choice of navigation schemes, a
>> choice of common ui layouts, whether you want a timeline etc. Surely this
>> is faster than typing up such common functionality, or even cutting and
>> pasting from existing code, and it would in no way hinder one's ability to
>> customize the results. Of course, I'd be willing to trade such convenience
>> for faster development of the Creation Platforms foundations, but it may be
>> that it wouldn't be hard to develop such a thing.
sorry, i didn't mean to connect dreamweaver example here, lets forget about
that. a wizard can be useful to reduce the repetitive tasks but is less
visual than what i think you are imagining.
maybe this type of project is the best way to learn, since you need to
understand everything about CP if you want to avoid the constraining issue
you mention.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Francis Bezooyen <bluestrip...@gmail.com>wrote:
> No - I definitely do not mean a dreamweaver style "I will control
> everything you do" type wizard.
> The kind of solution I envision would take some time and effort to convey
> properly - time I don't have, but the thrust of it is to automate the
> creation of repetitive and common code or tasks, and provide the user with
> some visually based ways of developing their code, but without constraining
> them to particular paradigms and processes down the road... That's the goal
> anyway.
I haven't had a chance to dive in yet, but didn't see any support for
NURBS curves or surfaces in the documentation. Anything planned along
these lines?
Hi Francis,
I just want to point out that, I think the very next release after you asked for more pre-built functionality we implemented the Basic3DDemoApplication.
By basing your applications off Basic3DDemoApplication, you automatically get many application services setup for you, including Viewport, Camera, Camera Manipulation, Grid, Persistence, Undo Redo, Selection, menu bars etc...
(BTW: I don't like the name. It needs to be renamed to something more general purpose)
All you have to do is pass 'setupUndoRedo = True' to the constructor and you get the undo system setup for you. We refactored all of our demos to use this class, and in the process reduced the volume of source code of each demo significantly, while adding application services.
This was a direct response to your request. It's not quite a GUI based wizard, but I think an appropriate solution.
Over time, there will be base classes for applications that fit a given category, providing more of the bones of your apps.
Visual graph editing will be an application service that can be provided in the same way that 'undo' is now. Some applications will use it, and some won't, so it has to be an option. There is some refactoring needed to enable a pure visual workflow for setting up scenes. Its high on my priority list to get that refactoring done.
Phil
From: creationplatform@googlegroups.com [mailto:creationplatform@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Francis Bezooyen
Sent: October-12-12 3:53 PM
To: creationplatform@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Visually develop?
I find myself in much the same boat as Paul Griswold. Actually, I made a similar suggestion a while back, but I don't think many people saw it.
I understand the argument that creation platform is still developing the base from which such a gui would be developed, and so it is reasonable that we would have to wait for such a thing, but I disagree with the notion that a gui like this would only be useful to non-developers. I thoroughly believe it is possible to develop a gui that combines the ability to visually design your interface, with a node based gui for developing and inspecting code that can easily be used hand-in-hand with fully developed traditional ide features in the same package, that would accelerate the work of advanced programmers and newbies alike.
Even at this early stage I think it would be useful to all to have a very simple gui that is essentially a list of common features that one might want in their application, from which you simply select those you want, hit enter and voila you have the ground work done for you. Such a list might include a list of import/export formats, a choice of navigation schemes, a choice of common ui layouts, whether you want a timeline etc. Surely this is faster than typing up such common functionality, or even cutting and pasting from existing code, and it would in no way hinder one's ability to customize the results. Of course, I'd be willing to trade such convenience for faster development of the Creation Platforms foundations, but it may be that it wouldn't be hard to develop such a thing.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com<mailto:car...@gmail.com>> wrote:
hmm, my draft was missing the last sentence...
i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini, softimage, and maya). i am... interested in changing the way i work in hopes to improve it not simply porting it.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com<mailto:car...@gmail.com>> wrote:
as someone who works with ICE daily, i thank you for a platform/foundation first! i agree, ICE is not a general purpose environment and it has been coerced into working in ways it wasn't designed to do well.
if i understand what CP is now... i make the higher level graph interface, i decide how i want create, and you guys provide the raw processing power and that engineering which i couldn't even begin to imagine doing.
i dont think its the right time for purely artistic end users or users who just want to work exactly like the established tools (a la houdini, softimage, and maya). i am
