New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tiles are not imported correctly from a GM project #175

Closed
egofree71 opened this Issue Dec 3, 2014 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@egofree71
Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 3, 2014

If you open a gmx project with LateralGM, when you save the project, it will set always the following constant for the tile's name : inst_.

If you try to open the project again with GM studio, you will get an exception. This is because it needs an ID. GM studio puts an alpha-numeric id, but it works fine with Enigma Id. (For instance : name="inst_10000002"). This is the same solution used for instances.

There is also another problem : it's not possible to move imported tiles with LateralGM. I've found that's because the depth in GM studio is set by default to 1000000. If you set the value to zero, it's possible to move again tiles.

@egofree71

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@egofree71

egofree71 Dec 4, 2014

Collaborator

I've partially fixed the problem. The bug with the tile's name is fixed, but there is still the problem with the depth value.

Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 4, 2014

I've partially fixed the problem. The bug with the tile's name is fixed, but there is still the problem with the depth value.

@egofree71

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@egofree71

egofree71 Dec 4, 2014

Collaborator

For the depth, i've found the problem : you can move only tiles which have the same depth as the current layer. The depth of the layer is set in the 'add' tab. This not intuitive and logical for modifying tiles. I will add a depth field in the modify tab. It will be a drop down will all the depths of the tiles in the current room. It is implemented more or less this way in GM Studio.

Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 4, 2014

For the depth, i've found the problem : you can move only tiles which have the same depth as the current layer. The depth of the layer is set in the 'add' tab. This not intuitive and logical for modifying tiles. I will add a depth field in the modify tab. It will be a drop down will all the depths of the tiles in the current room. It is implemented more or less this way in GM Studio.

@IsmAvatar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsmAvatar

IsmAvatar Dec 4, 2014

Owner

That's the original behavior of GM up through version 8. It was never intuitive, but it prevented you from accidentally overwriting or deleting a tile on another layer. I'd be happy to see improvements.

Owner

IsmAvatar commented Dec 4, 2014

That's the original behavior of GM up through version 8. It was never intuitive, but it prevented you from accidentally overwriting or deleting a tile on another layer. I'd be happy to see improvements.

@egofree71

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@egofree71

egofree71 Dec 4, 2014

Collaborator

IsmAvatar:
As i understand the depth is useful to deal with tiles in the same position, but it should not be mandatory to select a tile. I would suggest that for selecting a tile first we test if there is a tile with the depth of the current layer and if no tiles are found we test if there is a tile regardless of its depth.

Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 4, 2014

IsmAvatar:
As i understand the depth is useful to deal with tiles in the same position, but it should not be mandatory to select a tile. I would suggest that for selecting a tile first we test if there is a tile with the depth of the current layer and if no tiles are found we test if there is a tile regardless of its depth.

@IsmAvatar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsmAvatar

IsmAvatar Dec 4, 2014

Owner

Another possibility is a toggle button (or checkbox) that turns on/off the ability to interact with tiles on different layers than the current one.

Owner

IsmAvatar commented Dec 4, 2014

Another possibility is a toggle button (or checkbox) that turns on/off the ability to interact with tiles on different layers than the current one.

@RobertBColton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RobertBColton

RobertBColton Dec 5, 2014

Collaborator

If it is going to be a checkbox just do it like I did it in places in the PreferencesFrame. Use the JCheckBox as the label for the edit field, just like with enabling and picking a background color for search results.

Checkbox Label

Collaborator

RobertBColton commented Dec 5, 2014

If it is going to be a checkbox just do it like I did it in places in the PreferencesFrame. Use the JCheckBox as the label for the edit field, just like with enabling and picking a background color for search results.

Checkbox Label

@egofree71

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@egofree71

egofree71 Dec 5, 2014

Collaborator

In GM Studio, they have put a checkbox 'Hide other layers' next to the tile layer id. I think it's even better.

Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 5, 2014

In GM Studio, they have put a checkbox 'Hide other layers' next to the tile layer id. I think it's even better.

@IsmAvatar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsmAvatar

IsmAvatar Dec 5, 2014

Owner

I was thinking of that as well. Maybe a button like the Show button
Other Layers:
[X] Visible
[X] Editable

I'm not sure that I'd want to hide it away in a preferences panel because it's something they might use a little more frequently.

Owner

IsmAvatar commented Dec 5, 2014

I was thinking of that as well. Maybe a button like the Show button
Other Layers:
[X] Visible
[X] Editable

I'm not sure that I'd want to hide it away in a preferences panel because it's something they might use a little more frequently.

@RobertBColton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RobertBColton

RobertBColton Dec 6, 2014

Collaborator

@IsmAvatar I wasn't suggesting hiding it away in the preferences frame, I was simply suggesting to use the JCheckBox as the label.

Collaborator

RobertBColton commented Dec 6, 2014

@IsmAvatar I wasn't suggesting hiding it away in the preferences frame, I was simply suggesting to use the JCheckBox as the label.

@egofree71

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@egofree71

egofree71 Dec 8, 2014

Collaborator

As a first step, i propose to move the 'Depth' field. My proposal is here : http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=2361.0

Collaborator

egofree71 commented Dec 8, 2014

As a first step, i propose to move the 'Depth' field. My proposal is here : http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=2361.0

@IsmAvatar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsmAvatar

IsmAvatar Dec 8, 2014

Owner

Cool. Since the original issue looks resolved, can we close this ticket?

Owner

IsmAvatar commented Dec 8, 2014

Cool. Since the original issue looks resolved, can we close this ticket?

@egofree71 egofree71 closed this Dec 8, 2014

@RobertBColton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RobertBColton

RobertBColton Apr 13, 2016

Collaborator

Just to further comment on this ticket. This is now fully resolved in master because I added the name properties to the GMX reader/writer. It also automatically creates id's for tiles/instances even though GMX does not save those. It is useful for downgrading a GMX to GMK.

Collaborator

RobertBColton commented Apr 13, 2016

Just to further comment on this ticket. This is now fully resolved in master because I added the name properties to the GMX reader/writer. It also automatically creates id's for tiles/instances even though GMX does not save those. It is useful for downgrading a GMX to GMK.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment