Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                            < back - search archive  browse archive images

I was the TENTH person to download it!!!

Martin,

I just spotted a note in the code that PNG is deprecated in the viewer. Is this a good time to drop it? No problem if not, but a chance to simplify the code is always a good thing.

Actually I would have expected PNG to be the preferred format. What was the rationale behind the choice?

I also wondered why there was a choice in the first place? Does it affect the user in some way which format these images are shown in?

The PNG option in the file viewer stores the screenshots as PNG image files on disk. The alternative BITMAP option stores them in memory as bitmaps for a much faster display.

Whether to remove the PNG option is one of many questions which an active OT/MEC group might want to consider. I tend to adopt the IIABDFI approach (if it ain't broke don't fix it).

I'm making good progress with a new file format for transfers to OT/MEC, I should be able to post a scruff release in a day or two. You will then be able to load Jim's .box files into OT/MEC to test the file viewer

Thanks for popping back, I was beginning to wonder if you had fallen off your bike.

<snip>Yes indeed! Though I think a view from the whole community would be valuable. <snip>

Things have changed a lot since this software was written, storage is inexpensive and processors a lot faster.  I doubt very much that  PNG would be required just to reduce storage space (!) but is it going to improve anything to remove it?

...  I doubt very much that  PNG would be required just to reduce storage space (!) but is it going to improve anything to remove it?

But if it is deprecated (i.e. due for removal) anyway, it is 400 lines of code I can just delete instead of spending time on when there are so many other things for me to do.

Have you found that it needs spending time on?

He says without ever having properly tried it.

One area I definitely need some help with is TortoiseHg and the Sourceforge web site.

Hahahahaha - you don't NEED to try it - you KNOW this code like the back of your paw.

I was hoping that simply replacing the directory-list controls would get the file viewer working in OT/MEC more or less as-is. Once a file path is available the rest should work as before.

So ... effort 3 is well under way, and It is already ahead of where version 2 go to  I expect to soon (maybe tomorrow) have something worth looking at. .

EDIT: This issue now overcome in a moderately acceptable way. (I still think I am missing something though. )

I can't help feeling I have missed something, but how it ever worked before I know not.

The file viewer is working fine in T2. Please try it in T2 to confirm that.

EDIT:  AAAAARRRRgGGGGHHhhhhhh! I just looked in the help_sheet and saw all the commented code.
I will push on ...

That's great. Many thanks for doing that.

... but it would be better to do things properly

1. Testing
   The first is that I would not like to release this into the wild until someone with more experience of Templot than I have has given it a spin. I do not know all the wrinkles of functionality, and I may have done something untoward in making the changes. Obviously you could do such a test, but in view of the amount of your time you have spent on this already it would be good if we could call on a "volunteer".
   
2.  OT/MEC "branding"
   On the basis that OT is for open development of Templot, and TMEC is for consenting adults to tinker with in the privacy of their homes, I would like it to be clear that I am working on the former. I noted in one of the earlier posts that there is a rather fetching logo for OpenTemplot. Would you mind if I incorporated that into this version?
3. Versions
   At first I was hoping to graft my changes on top of the latest T2 version before release, but I have a suspicion that would be a lot of work, and you seem keen to get this 'out there' soon. Maybe it is better put on the To-Do list. What would help, though, is if you could let me have the source of T2 as it was last year when you created the first OT (obviously I would not want (or need) the proprietary components, but the code of yours which calls those components would be useful) and also the code for the latest version, also complete to the same extent. By running comparisons on those I can tell
     - what changes were done / are needed to get from T2 to OT, and
     - what changes have been made to T2 since last year (and hence need to be given the same treatment.
   I really should have done the first of these when I started - that would have avoided me missing some of the changes. (Live and learn. Live and learn)
   
4. Version Numbering
   This really does not belong here, but it needs sorting out before we go further, I think.
   In a sudden flash that it became obvious to me (which does not make it right of course) that we ought to keep the version numbers of OT the same as the version of T2 on which it is based. This would make it clear to users what they are using and what they can expect in terms of functionality. This system will work fine as long as OT is a subset of T2 i.e. has no new functions that are not in T2. Considering the contributions you have received so far, I don't think we need to worry unduly about this. Not for some while yet, anyway. I certainly will not be adding new functionality for the foreseeable.
5. mecbox_unit.pas
   I would be happy to add in any changes you would like to send, though I would prefer to have the FV changes bedded in first. It's your choice though.
   

I will make a positive nett contribution soon, I promise! 

Version Numbering:
This really does not belong here, but it needs sorting out before we go further, I think.
In a sudden flash that it became obvious to me (which does not make it right of course) that we ought to keep the version numbers of OT the same as the version of T2 on which it is based.
...
OT/MEC "branding:
On the basis that OT is for open development of Templot, and TMEC is for consenting adults to tinker with in the privacy of their homes, I would like it to be clear that I am working on the former. I noted in one of the earlier posts that there is a rather fetching logo for OpenTemplot. Would you mind if I incorporated that into this version?

I said ...  I would be happy to retire T2 and go ahead only with OT. In which case the obvious branding for OT would be: Templot3

I don't think it would be sensible to try to match OT version numbers with those of T2. Apart from likely different rates of progress, there is an important practical consideration -- after loading a template from file, the version_mismatch routine checks to see if the loaded template is from a version pre-dating the current one. If so it is updated with any new settings introduced between then and now.

By this means, users with legacy BOX files dating back to the dawn of time, can load them into the current version of Templot2 and the loaded templates will become compliant with all other current templates.

With MECBOX transfers now possible, that means that users of OT could also be loading templates dating back to earlier versions of T2. If the version numbers of OT and T2 are in the same range that could lead to problems.

I propose therefore that all possible OT version numbers are in advance of all possible T2 version numbers.

In other words, all T2 development must stop on or before version 2.89. We are currently on 2.24 after 8 years of T2.

And no OT version capable of loading MECBOX files from T2, can exist before version 2.90.

It's odd to be discussing this sort of stuff here. For 40 years I've been deciding this sort of thing myself without reference to anyone else. It takes a bit of getting used to, and it is also quite time-consuming to write it all down like this and wait for responses.

The problem is that T3 will not load .box files from T2, and is unlikely ever to do so. So calling this a BOX FILE VIEWER is potentially confusing

I think it will have to be something like DATA-FILE VIEWER to cover .otbox and .mecbox without mentioning .box .

p.s. not crashing now when I have a folder containing only .otbox files. But clicking load this file didn't do anything apart from clearing the storage box.

p.p.s. re the Lazarus controls. I'm going to have a go at recreating the old Delphi controls programmatically. That was my original intention when I couldn't find a match in Lazarus. I left it undone then because it's not a 5-minute task, and "have a go" is just as likely to mean failure as success.

3620_032202_310000000.png

It's now 890 high, which is too much for some laptops. So that means either reducing the visible part of the list, or a complete re-design. Extra width is possible -- it's currently 1020 and nowadays I allow for up to 1200.

• put ALL files in the list, but the .mecbox files are not shown as images. Instead there is a simple text entry showing the name (and maybe size or whatever) and a link which, on clicking, expands just that one entry to an image if the user chooses to look at it,  AND
  

• Add in another check box so the user can show all .mecbox files at once, somilat to the current 'Show All'
  

As I knew would happen, we've got the topics muddled up again. 

So maybe Layout-File is not so far off? Or a Track-box File? Or TrackPad-File, given that we have a TrackPad already.

We have over 2000 members here and 20-years-worth of long-time users who have been referring to Templot box files for as long as they can remember. "Box files" are common parlance in many a model railway club. We can't change now, .....

You pasted an image bitmap directly into the editor.