4027 replies to this topic

[Segovia11]

rev309 is up (Release Candidate):

 

- remove sorting via drag&drop for now. This might be added in the future but it introduced to much hassle at the moment

 

I look forward to its return.

The feature was a fantastic upgrade.  

[fripounet]

apparently you want to give vpx some "modernity", so why not go through qt Creator ?

Edited by fripounet, 06 September 2021 - 07:53 PM.

[Segovia11]

 

Fuzzel, why would you want to rid of the drag & drop feature when it is working with non critical bugs?  Those non critical bugs were active in past versions!

 

     

 

It is not a non critical bug that was active in the past

layers vanish visibly in their entirety as several of us have already displayed
and you can no longer get to the layers the objects are in, nor can you add new layers.
I think perhaps you are not understanding what the feature is, nor what the bug with it is?

 

 

 

I beg to differ

 

During my version 308 test I could not replicate any of your past bug reports. except for the disappearing layers which was present up to version 270. It was not a critical bug, I never had any destructive problems during table creation periods throughout.

 

However, version 309 appears to have resloved the layer disapearing act when you assign to select layers. Although, it was a brief test & time will tell during table author testing periods.

 

I look forward to the drag & drop feature return as it was a fantastic addition to the new layers code module. 

 

Thankyou devs for all the work that you have done, it's most appreciated.

 

     

Edited by Segovia11, 06 September 2021 - 11:10 PM.

[wiesshund]

 

 

 

I beg to differ

 

 

 

Really?

 

Considering that could be reproduced at will over and over, by multiple persons

 

Before saving and reopening

 

After saving and reopening

 

 

After reordering layers saving closing and reopening

 

And then randomly out of the blue that seems to reoccur only when it wants to, after trying to shuffle layer/element order around
Unless Fuzzel secretly programmed sex into the editor, in which case Good Job!

 

I would say having those things happen is pretty critical and not something to ignore.

Nor do i think Fuzzel should be held hostage by that either when he can take that feature as a stand alone project and wade through it at his leisure
when he isnt juggling 20 other aspects of VPX at the same time

[Segovia11]

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ

 

Really?

 

I would say having those things happen is pretty critical and not something to ignore.

Nor do i think Fuzzel should be held hostage by that either when he can take that feature as a stand alone project and wade through it at his leisure
when he isnt juggling 20 other aspects of VPX at the same time

 

 

I did my test with version 308 & my tables were not destroyed at the time when the layers disappeared. It was a little inconvenient, but workable. 

Sometimes the layers would disappear when you manually assigned an object to a layer, and sometimes it would not disappear. 

I treated this as a non-critical bug as my table was never harmed or destroyed by the bug and it was never detrimental to the final save. 

All I needed to do was save the table, close it down & reopen it again. The layers would then reappear, I then worked a routine that would prevent the layers from disappearing again. 

I decided not to treat the bug as a critical bug & I made that call based upon my interactive period with version 308.

That's the way I categorized the bug.  I notice that you decided to treat it as a critical bug & that's a fair call from your point of view.

 

 

      

Edited by Segovia11, 07 September 2021 - 07:44 AM.

[hauntfreaks]

 

 

The 1st part i 100% disagree, 10.6 layers are inadequate, i do not have one single table that fits in the constraints of 10.6's layering system

For the 2nd part, the comment is asinine
If you think Toxi and Fuzzel are doing this for forums clicks or something, your head just isnt screwed on straight

 

since april 2020, it has been focusing on its layering system, which worked very well with 10.6.

the time devoted to this, would have more prolific to integrate a real dynamic 3d real time camera, full space with a wire mode like that of fp.

I don't even know if webp is supported by 10.6.....

 

quote me a table which could not be recreated with 10.6 due to technical constraints of the editor ?

 

my work organization

I don't need to have dozens of layers ......

 

1: guides

2: lights

3: active components (kickers, targets ...)

4: ramps

5: plastics

6: other mini pf if necessary.....

7: pegs and rubbers

8; GI

9: mini pf if necessary.......

10: toys

 

the screws , I never put them on , so I save unnecessary polygons....

 

why is an FP guy even in a VPX thread? let alone asking for stuff that wouldnt be part of the natural order of the softwares development... AKA skipping over many other things
go play with your 10+ year old dead software that its creator wont even give you guys the time of day.... let alone the source code

as for 10 being enough lays, sure it can be worked around..... but there are tables being built that would benefit going beyond 10 layer deep.... 

[Darkiller]

 

 

 

My question may seem a bit strange, especially in this thread which is all about continued 10.7 beta improvements but would you reckon at this very stage of 10.7 development, does it make more sense to use 10.7 (current rev 308) to play our tables... or would you say for "playing only" at this stage it is best to still use 10.6 final?

 

 

 I dont have a 10.6 exe on any of my PCs anymore, and actually have not had one for a while
For playing, 10.7 is pretty much a smooth sail, it is only for authoring that is has some issues.
and they are only a few very specific issues, it isnt bug city

 

 

Cool - thanks for your input mate!

[wiesshund]

 

 

The 1st part i 100% disagree, 10.6 layers are inadequate, i do not have one single table that fits in the constraints of 10.6's layering system

For the 2nd part, the comment is asinine
If you think Toxi and Fuzzel are doing this for forums clicks or something, your head just isnt screwed on straight

 

since april 2020, it has been focusing on its layering system, which worked very well with 10.6.

the time devoted to this, would have more prolific to integrate a real dynamic 3d real time camera, full space with a wire mode like that of fp.

I don't even know if webp is supported by 10.6.....

 

quote me a table which could not be recreated with 10.6 due to technical constraints of the editor ?

 

my work organization

I don't need to have dozens of layers ......

 

1: guides

2: lights

3: active components (kickers, targets ...)

4: ramps

5: plastics

6: other mini pf if necessary.....

7: pegs and rubbers

8; GI

9: mini pf if necessary.......

10: toys

 

the screws , I never put them on , so I save unnecessary polygons....

 

 

So, i really gotta ask here.

Have you even tried TESTING 10.7?
Besides make launching it once for 5 seconds as a passing fancy?
Which does not count as TESTING

 

Because i am not sure if you either threw out the biggest science fiction story just now, or the biggest lie, maybe someone else can determine that?

The layering system has not even remotely been the focus of 10.7
It has been a huge improvement, and aside from this last little feature Fuzzel wanted to add, it has worked very well over all
And just because FP is stuck with that archaic layering system does not mean VPX need be

But if you think the layers have been the pinnacle of 10.7 development and that Toxie and Fuzzel and whom ever else lends a hand coding have been off in a corner
spanking the money over layers all this time, you are either absolutely delusional or i dont know what.

 

There is virtually no aspect of VPX that has not been updated or optimized or improved in some way
Sound, lighting physics image use, data management application performance, rendering tweaks the UI and bunches of other things.

And yes, we got layers, as many or as few of layers as we damned well like

 

And you're going to spout off with that?

May as well just say that every post the devs made and every update they made available was all a lie, and we are all on massive quantities of lsd and cant tell the difference.

 

Maybe, oh i dunno, like try actually testing it and paying attention to the changes and contributing bug reports and such and factual observations like most everyone else
in this thread does instead of writing grimm's faerie tails
 

Edited by wiesshund, 07 September 2021 - 08:48 AM.

[fripounet]

 

 

 

The 1st part i 100% disagree, 10.6 layers are inadequate, i do not have one single table that fits in the constraints of 10.6's layering system

For the 2nd part, the comment is asinine
If you think Toxi and Fuzzel are doing this for forums clicks or something, your head just isnt screwed on straight

 

since april 2020, it has been focusing on its layering system, which worked very well with 10.6.

the time devoted to this, would have more prolific to integrate a real dynamic 3d real time camera, full space with a wire mode like that of fp.

I don't even know if webp is supported by 10.6.....

 

quote me a table which could not be recreated with 10.6 due to technical constraints of the editor ?

 

my work organization

I don't need to have dozens of layers ......

 

1: guides

2: lights

3: active components (kickers, targets ...)

4: ramps

5: plastics

6: other mini pf if necessary.....

7: pegs and rubbers

8; GI

9: mini pf if necessary.......

10: toys

 

the screws , I never put them on , so I save unnecessary polygons....

 

 

So, i really gotta ask here.

Have you even tried TESTING 10.7?
Besides make launching it once for 5 seconds as a passing fancy?
Which does not count as TESTING

 

Because i am not sure if you either threw out the biggest science fiction story just now, or the biggest lie, maybe someone else can determine that?

The layering system has not even remotely been the focus of 10.7
It has been a huge improvement, and aside from this last little feature Fuzzel wanted to add, it has worked very well over all
And just because FP is stuck with that archaic layering system does not mean VPX need be

But if you think the layers have been the pinnacle of 10.7 development and that Toxie and Fuzzel and whom ever else lends a hand coding have been off in a corner
spanking the money over layers all this time, you are either absolutely delusional or i dont know what.

 

There is virtually no aspect of VPX that has not been updated or optimized or improved in some way
Sound, lighting physics image use, data management application performance, rendering tweaks the UI and bunches of other things.

And yes, we got layers, as many or as few of layers as we damned well like

 

And you're going to spout off with that?

May as well just say that every post the devs made and every update they made available was all a lie, and we are all on massive quantities of lsd and cant tell the difference.

 

Maybe, oh i dunno, like try actually testing it and paying attention to the changes and contributing bug reports and such and factual observations like most everyone else
in this thread does instead of writing grimm's faerie tails
 

 

the changes are known to everyone; it appear at the head of the post (change log)

half is for the reworked UI.( there was no need , because 10.6 was very good)

fixing bugs does not constitute an upgrade. the functionalities remain the same, except that it are corrected

vpx is always on dx9.

I am not complaining about vpx 10.7, I am criticizing the management of layers.

with vp 10.6 a right click was enough to select its layer, it was very simple and rational

with 10.7 it's completely absurd

Edited by fripounet, 07 September 2021 - 01:24 PM.

[Segovia11]

Dear forum/Devs,

                            non-critical bug report for version 309 Layers. 

 

The following procedure should not be followed when working with Layers

 

Procedure A

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign a bumper to the New layer.

3. Assign bumper001 to bumper001 in the New layer1  :-  bumper001 in the layer disappears. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

4. Assign the same bumper001 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5. Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

Procedure B

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign bumper001 to the new layer.

3. Assign bumper002 to bumper001  :-  bumper001 creates a directory & bumper002 sits inside of bunper001 (bumper001 is now a directory). 

4. Assign bumper002 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 & Bumper002 objects remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5 Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

The test table was saved without fault & the file size did not inflate.

 

The Layers program is a great feature that has been designed for VisualPinbal & is used as a directory so that you can organize your object library.

The Layers Program works well if you avoid procedures A & B which sits above.

 

Thank you Devs for the work that you do.

 

 

     

Edited by Segovia11, 07 September 2021 - 04:15 PM.

[fuzzel]

 

 

 

The 1st part i 100% disagree, 10.6 layers are inadequate, i do not have one single table that fits in the constraints of 10.6's layering system
For the 2nd part, the comment is asinine
If you think Toxi and Fuzzel are doing this for forums clicks or something, your head just isnt screwed on straight
 

since april 2020, it has been focusing on its layering system, which worked very well with 10.6.
the time devoted to this, would have more prolific to integrate a real dynamic 3d real time camera, full space with a wire mode like that of fp.
I don't even know if webp is supported by 10.6.....
 
quote me a table which could not be recreated with 10.6 due to technical constraints of the editor ?
 
my work organization
I don't need to have dozens of layers ......
 
1: guides
2: lights
3: active components (kickers, targets ...)
4: ramps
5: plastics
6: other mini pf if necessary.....
7: pegs and rubbers
8; GI
9: mini pf if necessary.......
10: toys
 
the screws , I never put them on , so I save unnecessary polygons....
 

 
So, i really gotta ask here.

Have you even tried TESTING 10.7?
Besides make launching it once for 5 seconds as a passing fancy?
Which does not count as TESTING
 
Because i am not sure if you either threw out the biggest science fiction story just now, or the biggest lie, maybe someone else can determine that?

The layering system has not even remotely been the focus of 10.7
It has been a huge improvement, and aside from this last little feature Fuzzel wanted to add, it has worked very well over all
And just because FP is stuck with that archaic layering system does not mean VPX need be
But if you think the layers have been the pinnacle of 10.7 development and that Toxie and Fuzzel and whom ever else lends a hand coding have been off in a corner
spanking the money over layers all this time, you are either absolutely delusional or i dont know what.
 
There is virtually no aspect of VPX that has not been updated or optimized or improved in some way
Sound, lighting physics image use, data management application performance, rendering tweaks the UI and bunches of other things.

And yes, we got layers, as many or as few of layers as we damned well like
 
And you're going to spout off with that?
May as well just say that every post the devs made and every update they made available was all a lie, and we are all on massive quantities of lsd and cant tell the difference.
 
Maybe, oh i dunno, like try actually testing it and paying attention to the changes and contributing bug reports and such and factual observations like most everyone else
in this thread does instead of writing grimm's faerie tails
 
 

the changes are known to everyone; it appear at the head of the post (change log)
half is for the reworked UI.( there was no need , because 10.6 was very good)
fixing bugs does not constitute an upgrade. the functionalities remain the same, except that it are corrected
vpx is always on dx9.
I am not complaining about vpx 10.7, I am criticizing the management of layers.
with vp 10.6 a right click was enough to select its layer, it was very simple and rational
with 10.7 it's completely absurd

I like to add absurd features...

[fuzzel]

 

Dear forum/Devs,

                            non-critical bug report for version 309 Layers. 

 

The following procedure should not be followed when working with Layers

 

Procedure A

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign a bumper to the New layer.

3. Assign bumper001 to bumper001 in the New layer1  :-  bumper001 in the layer disappears. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

4. Assign the same bumper001 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5. Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

Procedure B

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign bumper001 to the new layer.

3. Assign bumper002 to bumper001  :-  bumper001 creates a directory & bumper002 sits inside of bunper001 (bumper001 is now a directory). 

4. Assign bumper002 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 & Bumper002 objects remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5 Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

The test table was saved without fault & the file size did not inflate.

 

The Layers program is a great feature that has been designed for VisualPinbal & is used as a director so that you can organize your object library.

The Layers Program works well if you avoid procedures A & B which sits above.

 

Thank you Devs for the work that you do.

 

 

     

 

Thanks for the repro steps. It took me a while to understand what's causing this. It should not be able to link elements to other elements in the layers treeview. That is fixed in the next build though

Edited by fuzzel, 07 September 2021 - 04:46 PM.

[fuzzel]

rev310 is up (Release Candidate):

 

- fix disappearing layers/elements in the layers dialog

[Segovia11]

 

 

Dear forum/Devs,

                            non-critical bug report for version 309 Layers. 

 

The following procedure should not be followed when working with Layers

 

Procedure A

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign a bumper to the New layer.

3. Assign bumper001 to bumper001 in the New layer1  :-  bumper001 in the layer disappears. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

4. Assign the same bumper001 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 object remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5. Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

Procedure B

1. Add a new layer.

2. Assign bumper001 to the new layer.

3. Assign bumper002 to bumper001  :-  bumper001 creates a directory & bumper002 sits inside of bunper001 (bumper001 is now a directory). 

4. Assign bumper002 to a different layer or the same layer  :-  all layers disappear. Bumper001 & Bumper002 objects remains on the table & does not disappear. 

5 Close table & reopen to recover from the non-critical bug.

 

The test table was saved without fault & the file size did not inflate.

 

The Layers program is a great feature that has been designed for VisualPinbal & is used as a director so that you can organize your object library.

The Layers Program works well if you avoid procedures A & B which sits above.

 

Thank you Devs for the work that you do.

 

 

     

 

Thanks for the repro steps but I don't get it. What do you mean with "3. Assign bumper001 to bumper001 in the New layer1"

If I create a new layer and assign one or more bumpers to that new layer everything works as expected. It doesn't matter if I use the context menu "Assign to selected layer" or by draggin&dropping the bumper from one layer to another one. You should not be able to create sub elements in the layer's treeview. Only layers can have sub items.

 

 

 

The following should have been added to procedure A & B, which I forgot to mention:-

 

Procedure B

I carelessly selected the bumper that was in the layer prior to assigning the second bumper. To my surprise, this managed to manufacture a sub-element in the layers' treeview. 

At first, I thought, nice one, I can manufacture a sub-element in a layer. However, I was wrong, you & the non-critical bug have confirmed that. When you attempt to move it out of the sub-element all layers disappear.  - The bug is harmless & all layers are reset after re-opening the Table again. 

 

Procedure A

Once again, I carelessly selected the bumper that was in the layer prior to assigning the same bumper. All Layers would instantly disappear after pressing the assign selected element.  - The bug is harmless & all layers are reset after re-opening the Table again. 

 

If you are careful during selection & the right elements are selected everything works as expected. 

 

 

 

   

[wiesshund]

If i understand correctly the above

 

Pick object A, put it in layer NEW

 

Then pick object B and accidentally pick object A as well
and put into layer NEW, with object A already having been added previously
and layer panel bugs out until table or vpx is reloaded (seem to remember that bug from a while back)

if i am understanding the problem correctly?

seems ok in 310 so far

 

will try and see if i can break it some how

[fuzzel]

If i understand correctly the above
 
Pick object A, put it in layer NEW
 
Then pick object B and accidentally pick object A as well
and put into layer NEW, with object A already having been added previously
and layer panel bugs out until table or vpx is reloaded (seem to remember that bug from a while back)
if i am understanding the problem correctly?
seems ok in 310 so far
 
will try and see if i can break it some how

It doesn't have to be a new layer. With 309 and below you can just select any object in a layer then select another element in the editor and use 'assign to selected layer' and boom you have an element under under another element. Doing that multiple times and the complete treeview is empty.

[Segovia11]

If i understand correctly the above

 

Pick object A, put it in layer NEW

 

Then pick object B and accidentally pick object A as well
and put into layer NEW, with object A already having been added previously
and layer panel bugs out until table or vpx is reloaded (seem to remember that bug from a while back)

if i am understanding the problem correctly?

seems ok in 310 so far

 

will try and see if i can break it some how

 

Create a new Table with 309

 

1. Add two bumpers & one light to the Table

 

2. Add a new layer.

 

3. Select the new added Layer & Assign one bumper to that new layer.

 

4. In the Layer double click the bumpers name.  This must be selected before moving onto No5 below.  (Table authors can select the object from the layers, which is a good attribute.)

 

5. Then on the Table select the second bumper or the light.

 

6. Assign that selected object. 

 

7. It manufactured a sub-element in the layers tree view.

 

8. Table users will need to avoid this until the bug is rectified. 

 

The bug is harmless & all layers will reset after re-opening the table again.

 

     

Edited by Segovia11, 07 September 2021 - 08:02 PM.

[Thalamus]

310 is out, no reason to discuss 309 anymore.

[wiesshund]

Ok did that step by step
Seems to be fixed in 310

 

tried to purposely make a massive mess out of it

but i only got the expected mess of things randomly thrown into what ever layer

so seems good so far

i need to know where are we at on the latest vpinmame.dll on sam build and without sambuild?

this isnt the vpinmame beta thread, it has its own thread but we are at

 

VPinMAME-sc-3.4-285-78a4934-win-x86

For SAMbuild

and

 

VPinMAME-3.4-285-78a4934-win-x86

For non SAMbuild

[gtxjoe]

i need to know where are we at on the latest vpinmame.dll on sam build and without sambuild?

 

Please review the VPinmame beta thread and then ask question there, if needed.   https://www.vpforums...showtopic=27063