On Thursday 24 Oct 2002 4:36 pm, Rolf Dubitzky wrote: > > > Easy. But my engine can do _much_ more already. And of course I don't > > > want to get the features burried because the XML can't handle them ;-) > > > > What kind of things are you talking about here? Is it a case of > > transitions, effects, etc? > > Yes. My goal is neither an engine nor a GUI, I want a video solution. I > will not work on effects for an engine I cannot use in the GUI. If somebody > else wants a gui that ignores half of the features, ok, I would say that > both needs to go hand in hand.
Ok, I see what you mean. Yes, the area of transition/effects dialogs is one that I am still deciding on the best way to do. Though I am sure that for the majority of transitions/effects we will not need any complex structures, so I have been leaning towards making some sort of dialog-builder, which would request the parameters that need to be set for the transition, and would then construct a dialog, complete with preview and a timeline for keyframable values. Yes, like every generalisation that get's made it means just a littlle more work :-) But I believe that it will save effort in the long run. Cheers, Jason -- Jason Wood Homepage : www.uchian.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
