Suggestions:

[rhumbaflappy]

Hi Arno.

I'm suggesting some name changes:

Generic Objects --> Default Library GUIDs
Effect Files --> Effects
User Libraries --> User Library GUIDs
Local Objects --> User MDLs

This is only my personal preference.

Generic Objects could be confused with Generic Buildings... an entirely different thing. Default Library GUIDs is more descriptive.

Effects is simpler, and just as descriptive.

User Library GUIDs because it matches the Default Library GUIDs description.

User MDLs, because it actually describes what we're placing... MDLs instead of GUID-referenced library objects.

Also, It might be helpful if the Latitude, Longitude, and GUID labels ( under Object properties ) was made an edit box ( interactive ) to allow us to quickly place altered latitude, longitude and GUIDs of our own choosing, even if FS is choosing the location for us.

:)

Dick

[arno]

Hi Dick,

Thanks for the feedback.

My reason for making the lat/lon and GUID non-editable at the moment was to prevent problems. For example if you type in the wrong GUID the tool will not be able to find the matching object name. On the other hand you can also say that that is the risk when you start tweaking it yourself. Maybe the flexibility is indeed better. I will think about it.

[arno]

OK, made the GUID editable now. For the lat/lon, were you thinking about editing the values read from FS or do you think it would also be useful if you could just enter it (without using the connection with FS thus)?

[rhumbaflappy]

Hi Arno.

Perhaps you could have an "Edit" radio button to toggle the edit capability of the GUID, lat and long.

By manually entering a GUID, you can use cut'n'paste from notepad to your utility to add GUIDs... may be useful at times.

As far as the lat and long, slewing to place objects like trees and bushes in a somewhat random pattern could be done by altering a position slightly... easier than slewing sometimes. And, sometimes, users might want to enter lat-long manually... for example, they may have a list of building positions they'd like to enter.

I assume the Default Object list is hard-coded... might be useful in the future to allow an import of a similar list of library GUIDs ( with descriptive names ) from user-made libraries.

Another idea I had that might work here is an object excluder:
Take the FS slew position, center on an object, click a "button", and a small exclude-box is defined in XML... just large enough to exclude an area of a few meters. This would 'place' excludes onto the scenery much like we place objects.

There's lots of options to think of here... but there might be a danger of making the tool too complex. The simplicity of your current tool makes it very good to work with.

Dick

[arno]

Hi Dick,

Perhaps you could have an "Edit" radio button to toggle the edit capability of the GUID, lat and long.

I guess the lat/lon just need a option like the heading has that toggle reading from FS or not. Then you can choose to read it from FS while placing an object or typing it yourself.

I assume the Default Object list is hard-coded... might be useful in the future to allow an import of a similar list of library GUIDs ( with descriptive names ) from user-made libraries.

The default objects are contained in a XML file. So I can easily add new objects (generic.xml). For user libraries all you have to do is tell ObPlacer XML where your XML source is and it will be added to the User Library section.

If someone has suggestions for additional objects in the generic file please let me know, then I can keep my version up to date as well.

Another idea I had that might work here is an object excluder:
Take the FS slew position, center on an object, click a "button", and a small exclude-box is defined in XML... just large enough to exclude an area of a few meters. This would 'place' excludes onto the scenery much like we place objects.

Nice idea, I will put it onto my wishlist. But I need to think a bit how I can add that to the interface easy.

There's lots of options to think of here... but there might be a danger of making the tool too complex. The simplicity of your current tool makes it very good to work with.

Yes, it must stay rather simple to use. It should not become too confusing due to all buttons and options available.