@wlbragg:
Canvas is great for lots of things. You're not wrong.
wlbragg wrote in Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 am:As far as "nicer looking", the "look" is determined by the developer. Because you can use a texture on the canvas it is really unlimited in design capability and can be made to look any way you want it to. Canvas is also much more flexible and has more options. So what your referring to "Ubuntuish" would have been by design and could be made with any look you desire.
Yeah, if I do a shit-ton of work to design new images for each and every thing (remember, I am a worse artist as a monkey without fingers!) PUI is easy to skin using XML, I can make whatever color scheme I want (such as the IDG theme)
wlbragg wrote in Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 am:As far as "simpler" I think once you work with canvas as much as you have with PUI you would find it just as simple, and more flexible. I've seen some PUI dialog that are pretty complex and not easy to understand.
LMAO! I have worked with Canvas for
years, have you seen my Airbus and MD-11 display units? Those are complexity like the moon! But writing a few simple XML lines is much faster and easier than complex nasal for everything... not mentioning the fact that nasal as HORRIBLY SLOW property I/O. So now I have to optimize all the property I/O - and lets say you aren't using IDG PropertyTreeSetup like IDG aircrafts do - this suddenly becomes a bigger task! All for a simple little dialog. Also lots of these complex dialogs you don't understand happen because people try to add functionality that should be handled by something else into the dialog (like the generic autopilot, implements basic mode handling into the dialog itself - this is beyond silly!) PUI in its base is extremely simple.
wlbragg wrote in Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 am:But it does need developers to step up and start using it and creating content that can be extended and reused. I think that might help more people adopt its use. The Shuttle is make good use of "canvas" and it is really effective.
Again I disagree and so have most devs I've spoken to who work on Canvas - we all tend to do canvas a bit differently. For example, Pinto and Leto I spoke most recently too - both have each their own Canvas systems. Also I have my own IDG Display Framework V1 (and V2 coming soon!). Because they are all best suited for our programming style, and implementation. Why do you think complex addons for
every flight sim avoid generics and build their own? Because SPECIALIZED systems are always better than Generic.
But - if there was an easy way using XML to make dialogs into Canvas, that would be acceptable because it is modular and easy to understand. And yes there is something to take PUI dialog into Canvas, but its in my opinion broken as formatting is all messed up and some dialogs look totally weird. (Also not updated in YEARS!)
Sorry, you are totally wrong here: XML is a simple language, and general. PUI is modular, requires no frameworks or setup. It just works. Very very easy. In fact, editing dialogs was one of the first things I ever learned! Canvas on the other hand, requires knowledge of nasal, knowledge of performance optimization, knowledge of property I/O management that doesn't reduce the frames so much, etc. Its A LOT of work! There is a reason I, and Thorsten, and Leto, and Pinto have taken lots of time to refine and optimize our Canvas' because its VERY VERY complex - but also very powerful.
@C-FABP
That's PUI.
Carry on with what you are doing.
Kind Regards,
Josh