TreeThing

[jfrazierjr]

Heh. Ain't no way I'm using system lookandfeel. It took me an annoyingly long time to get Nimbus working and I ain't replacing it with something that looks terrible. I'd sooner have it broken on macs. Lol!

ummm .... nevermind.. not quite sure where my brain was....for some really odd reason, I thought you were using the "default".... but just for the record.... when I say SystemlookandFeel, I don't mean the really ugly "metal" one, but the "systemlookandfeel" which will check the actual OS in use and pick the correct LAF for that OS meaning that it appears "fairly close" to the actual OS's buttons, dropdowns, etc. In any event, the Nimbus LAF looks pretty darn good, so... well.. nevermind!!!

Thanks for the tip on the missing create folder thing. I'll take a look into that.

I was going to upload a new version yesterday which is hopefully fixed for Paul but as I was checking the exe I noticed it was behaving differently to the one in the developing environment. For some reason when I try to load up a large template or background image (4k x 4k ish) it just has the busy cursor for about 3 seconds or so and then just goes back to normal as if I never even sent the request. Although it loads smaller images fine.
It's quite odd. It loads them up fine in NetBeans. :S So... gonna try and see if I can get to the root of that problem before I update.

[Ramah]

Here's an updated version for test purposes. Mainly to see if the Save Layers option is now working correctly on macs.

As I said in my previous post, this is suffering from a low memory allocation for some reason. I'm not sure what the upper limit is on size right now but if I attempt to load a 4k x 4k template in it refuses to play ball. If you want to get bigger forests the only option right now is to wrap it in an exe maker and allot more memory to the program that way. I'll do this myself in later version if I cannot sort out why the heap is being a git.

On this version I've now put most of the workhorse routines into swingWorkers, which means you need a reasonably up to date version of JVM to run it (version 6 I believe). I would think that most would be ok there though. The swingworkers have allowed me to finally put in a status bar that can relay update messages. I'm still early on in the process though so for now, whenever a process is in operation I've disabled all the controls to stop it being interrupted and throwing up errors. I aim to peel away this disabling in future updates so that button presses will reset the workers or whatever.

So if Paul or anyone with a mac could test this please and let me know if the Save Layers option works now I'd appreciate it. Cheers.

[paulbhartzog]

963 won't even run. Apple's "Software Updatae" control panel provides it's own version of Java, currently at:

java version "1.5.0_30"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_30-b03-389-9M3425)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_30-161, mixed mode, sharing)

and won't update beyond that.
:-/

[bradlavario]

There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees...

[Ramah]

963 won't even run. Apple's "Software Updatae" control panel provides it's own version of Java, currently at:

java version "1.5.0_30"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_30-b03-389-9M3425)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_30-161, mixed mode, sharing)

and won't update beyond that.
:-/

Hmm... well that's odd. Although I did add a line to the code based on something JoeJr posted about a mac command...

System.setProperty("apple.awt.fileDialogForDirecto ries", "true"); //Hopefully solves missing "Create new directory" button on macs.


I can't see why it would cause a problem but meh. I'll remove that line, shore up any massive problems with the current code and post up a new test version. Thanks for trying Paul.

EDIT: Unless of course the reason for the problem is the swingworker code that I mentioned in the previous post. I'm pretty sure I read that it requires version 6 of Java although that has been out for over two years so I wouldn't have though it would be a problem. You said you were a Java programmer? Are you able to work with swingworkers?

EDIT 2: I just did a brief search and I see that some people say that mac Java 1.5 reached the end of its life two years ago (although it still seems to be updated)? So maybe no swingworker support there?
Is 1.6 only for Intel based 64-bit macs? Zzz... so confusing.

[jfrazierjr]

There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees...

For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their please.

[jfrazierjr]

EDIT 2: I just did a brief search and I see that some people say that mac Java 1.5 reached the end of its life two years ago (although it still seems to be updated)? So maybe no swingworker support there?
Is 1.6 only for Intel based 64-bit macs? Zzz... so confusing.

Reasons I won't own a Mac: if you want to upgrade to the latest version of Java, you have to buy the newest Mac OS X version.

[Ramah]

Really? Wow, that sucks a bit. :s

[ravells]

Hi Ramah,

Quick question....sometimes the trees are really pixellated and sometimes they look great. I think it has something to do with the size of the .png mask. Is there some sort of optimum size for the png mask to work to?

best

Ravs

[Ramah]

Hi Ramah,

Quick question....sometimes the trees are really pixellated and sometimes they look great. I think it has something to do with the size of the .png mask. Is there some sort of optimum size for the png mask to work to?

best

Ravs

Do you mean on different brush sets? Or the same brush set can sometimes appear pixellated? I would guess you mean different brushsets.

I myself experienced this on one set I made where the brushes were crazily sharp with seemingly no anti-aliasing going on. I remade the set and they came out fine. I never tried to replicate the problem but I always assumed it was something to do with when the program translates the brush pngs into the sizes required by the program. When I first took this project up I arbitrarily decided that the brushes should have widths between 5 and 30 pixels - anything smaller was insane and anything bigger just seemed too much. So the program takes whatever pngs you supply and scales them to suit these dimensions.
Since then I've done very little experimentation as to what makes optimum size brushes - I always seem to have too many other things to fix on it. It may well be that if you can create your brush pngs at 30 pixels across then they will look their best. Maybe if you just shrink your brushes a gnat's gonad in PS first they will come out ok.
Sorry I can't be more specific here. I'll add it to my checklist of things to do.