The icons in mpt seem to be getting a little bit dated: sixteen colours aren't all that necessary any more. What about just grabbing something like the Tango icon theme (http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Library), which is free and open for use and sticking that in? I can guarantee that the interface will feel a lot more professional straight away.
I don't see much relation between the use of icons and professionalism.
This Tango theme is a nice set, but way too huge for MPT, which is barely using icons.
You can find the two old ones, and one OMPT version in this file btw :
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/modz/mpt_icons.zip
I actually like the old icons alot, because they're simple and recognisable. OpenMPT shows that its a simple yet powerfull application where the focus has been put on workability instead of appearance.
The new icons do look good though, but I just think its not that necessary.
Well, i'd also prefer a bit more modern icons. they don't have to differ in shape or something, but they could be recolored to 256c or "mixed" colors...
I'm happy to redo all of the mpt icons from scratch, at 24bit. They'll hardly change the size of the binary, too... I don't dislike the icons per se. I just think that they can be updated, like the rest of the program. There is, after all, a little bit of a tendency for music software to be very visual. =)
I still think that mpt has one of the best interfaces around, though: it does what you expect it to do, using standard controls. It doesn't get in the way of actually writing music. Let's just pretty it up and bring it into line with all the other professional software out there.
Well, I don't really know how easy this is for the programmers to change, but you'll have my vote. :)
Maybe Rewbs or Relabsoluness can give more insight. They're the ones that'll have to make it :)
I apologize for my stupid post above. Of course MPT is not 'barely using icons'.. So I checked all icons used inside the program.
Most of them are quite simple, but very effective in their meaning. So I prefer to keep it that way. I've experienced a bit too often that re-designing in favour of a 'new' look results in a nice button, but at the same time quite unclear what it stands for.
Color-resolution is another thing. Because it also effects filesize. If the same button is converted from 16 to 256 colors, it results in more data to read. So more time to build up a page on the screen. I know, things are processed fast enough, but that's not the point.
The change should make sense. Buttons are too small for a photo, so often only a few colors are used.
It would be silly, to represent a button with a grey background and a black play-triangle on it, as a bitmap with 24 million colors.
I understand, SZ. However, I've done some testing. I made up a 24bit 16x16 PNG image, filled with an 80% opaque rainbow spectrum. It's file size is 342b. Then, I made the same image using 16 colours, and saved it as a BMP (which is the format used in mpt). It's size is 246b. Now, a difference of 100b isn't all that much... As an example of aesthetic pleasing-ness, take a look at the four images below.
24bit PNG
(http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~vanoub01/mpt/play.png)
(http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~vanoub01/mpt/stop.png)
16 colour BMP
Yes, they're GIFs, but you get the idea. And they're actually only 2bit images.
(http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~vanoub01/mpt/play.gif)
(http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~vanoub01/mpt/stop.gif)
I'm sure you'll agree that these icons look nicer, and don't detract any meaning. In fact, they're probably more widely useful, as they'll show up on any background colour.
Quotesaved it as a BMP (which is the format used in mpt)
If so, a major difference turns up : transparency or not.
Because afaik the BMP format doesn't support that, while GIF, ICO or PNG do.
What generally happens is that the "transparent" area is just a colour which isn't drawn. Normally, it's defined by what's in the top-left corner (at least, that's what Delphi does). This is essentially the same transparency as is offered by GIFs - one bit transparency. The huge advantage of PNGs is that they offer 8bit transparency: a colour value now has four components: red, green, blue, and alpha. This allows you to do nice fade outs and anti-aliasing and such. Basically, everything can look much prettier. =) The ICO format now supports this (to a limited extent) as well: however, issues arise when you migrate to earlier versions of Windows which don't support these enhancements.
The BMP format is generally used for icons in programs because it is so well understood and implemented (but not efficient). Essentially, it records every colour value of every pixel as a series of bits (hence bitmap). Formats like PNG, however, only record what's necessary in a very compact way, without losing any information.
we don't even need 8bit transparency in modplug :D but indeed, your icons look much better imho... go on =) maybe there's the possiblity to include custom icon sets like in other programs...?
2 BvO
I know about compression, if that's what you're talking about. :)
Of course 100b doesn't seem much, but looking at the percentage, it's another thing.
QuoteNormally, it's defined by what's in the top-left corner (at least, that's what Delphi does)
If I want transparency I use Irfan View. I can click on any pixel in the bitmap to make that color transparent. Other editors use the background layer for that.
You're talking about gradients. Then the alpha-channel is an elegant solution.
2 Jojo
Custom icon sets are still way ahead, I'm afraid. Afaik the present icons are embedded in the executable now.
Heh, yes, i guessed that it wouldn't be possible in the near future :D
But what do you think about these icons?
(http://sagagames.de/ithumb/show.php?iconstm43.png)
bvanoudtshoorn
You know, this type of request has been asked countless times, even before OMPT was in cycle. And every time each request went no where or bluntly got shot down.
I strongly feel this is due to a lack of understanding and time on how to actually implement this into he current structure of the program. But that's just the technical excuse in my eyes.
I think there's a general consensus of a certain amount of fear in change around here. The issue has been argued with every point humanly possible, mostly against the proposition. Which in the end is really sad and nonsupporting to the individuality of the user.
Should the rest of us go ignored because a few tech types want to keep MPT looking like a DOS screen? I think that's mildly arrogant to say the least.
It's not healthy to stifle one's sense of creativity. And if a simple icon set does the trick, then so be it. Yes, the ultimate aim of the software is to compose music, in which it does rather well. A few cosmetic changes will not destroy that. Rather, quite possibly for some, improve it. I understand the respect for logic here, but sometimes it's a nice to break away and paint the fence a new color, for no greater reason other than to have fun and gain some visual stimulation.
I say (as I've said before) let them have their icons with an option to install/uninstall. I don't see why it should disrupt any one's work flow. If you want them, load them, if not simply bypass.
With all due respect Sam Zen, you need to simply let this one go. You already know that the fabric of life and everything in it is continuously changing. Try to be more supportive with this. Whether you realize this or not, you carry a certain amount of clout with the makers that be. Don't let your personal opinions steer the progress that is JUST beginning to bud, that would be rather self-centered.
Trust me all, if I had the knowledge to do this, MPT would have been totally fashionable before it even hit open source.
bvanoudtshoorn, I've offered the very same thing you have to no avail for over 4 years. I had a direct connection with the original author. Tech types just won't budge when something doesn't carry a logical reasoning. In dealing with creating art above code, I never understood this one.
Who knows, maybe this time...
Rewbs, my most talented friend, how long can you ignore this? You can virtually have all the setup work at your doorstep, you just have to implement it!
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"
Some complains, etc...
Rewbs, my most talented friend, how long can you ignore this? You can virtually have all the setup work at your doorstep, you just have to implement it!
Matt, do you really think that a post like this will make it okay to implement now?
Really, if I'd be the programmer and it would've been on my to-do list, then this would be a reason to delete it off. The last thing I'll do is honour a request written in the way you just did.
Oh, and don't get me wrong here... A simple icon change is nothing I'm against, but the way you've posted that message litterally makes my hairs go stand up.
Also don't forget that the programmers have a life too. They have like a million things they want to implement, and they only have time to do one at a time. I'm sure they don't mind changing this, if its really that simple, but there are other things they prefer to do first. Is it that hard to understand?
Matt Hartman
fear in change - tech types - mildly arrogant - fabric of life - rather self-centered ...
With all due respect.. I'm ROFL.
But don't prescribe me how supportive I have to be..
'Nuff Said. (Captain Beefheart)
@Matt Hartman
I have to agree with LPChip here.
Who the hell are you to call the devs,or as you like to put it "tech types", arrogant?
FYI these guys have a live outside MPT and are doing this for free.
Perhaps the devs feel that this is an unnecesary feature or they'd just like to put their energy into improving other things first,either way it's their choice to make,not yours,and if you feel it is yours to make i suggest you start learning to code.
People should be a bit more gratefull for the time and energy these guys have so kindly invested in improving MPT.
I don't really mind the looks of the MPT buttons... I would like them to be bigger tho.
IIRC, Olivier could be slightly arrogant at times, but to call the current developers arrogant is well arrogant in itself! Of course it's hard to take the statement seriously when you say MPT looks like a DOS program. It doesn't. It looks more like Windows 95, but with flat buttons (if you enabled flat buttons).
I think the best thing to do is to re-write the whole app from start, ignoring MFC and open source and calling it ReOpenModPlug.
Quote from: "älskling"I think the best thing to do is to re-write the whole app from start, ignoring MFC and open source and calling it ReOpenModPlug.
Something I've been thinking of too, except that it doesn't have to get a namechange. OpenMPT ver 2.0 would do :)
I've also discussed this idea with Rewbs for more than a year back, and although he was very excited about the idea, he also told me that he doesn't have the time nor skills to do such big thing. We tried to put together a team of different developers that could cope with these different parts but it never got from the ground, simply due to the lack of time.
Quote from: "älskling"I think the best thing to do is to re-write the whole app from start, ignoring MFC and open source and calling it ReOpenModPlug.
As they say in the jungle: "If Modplug works, don't fix, or definitely don't rewrite Modplug"
Quote from: "dBlues"Quote from: "älskling"I think the best thing to do is to re-write the whole app from start, ignoring MFC and open source and calling it ReOpenModPlug.
As they say in the jungle: "If Modplug works, don't fix, or definitely don't rewrite Modplug"
In the jungle they should stick with Modplug 1.16 and live happily ever after.
Whoa... You know, I never really meant to spark so much angst with this. From my perspective as a computer science student (programmer) and web developer (designer and coder), I like things that are functional _and_ pretty. So I thought that MPT could do with some prettification. That being said, I've had to put this on the backburner. The back-most burner, in fact, what with exams, and all sorts of work etc. Rest assured, there has been some progress made. I hope to get it done by the end of the year. =P
Personally, I'm not too fussed about the look. I just saw an opening for contribution, and I wanted to take it. To tell you the truth, with the work I've done in user interface design, most of the time users don't even notice when the icons change. They say that it "feels a bit better", but they can't put their finger on it. So everyone who was happy with the old icons will, when I finally finish, probably still be happy with the system, and not notice the change too much.
Having said that I wanted to contribute, I am, of course, happy for any and all help in this area. My initial idea was to base the icons around the Tango! icon set, using their guidelines and what not. But I've been lazy, and I've only been producing raster images, not SVGs. But IMHO, I don't see mpt using svg icons in the near future. =)
Quote from: "älskling"Quote from: "dBlues"Quote from: "älskling"I think the best thing to do is to re-write the whole app from start, ignoring MFC and open source and calling it ReOpenModPlug.
As they say in the jungle: "If Modplug works, don't fix, or definitely don't rewrite Modplug"
In the jungle they should stick with Modplug 1.16 and live happily ever after.
When we are talking about software this complex, that works very good and is not impossibly twisted and messed up (like some C-programmed spaghetti piles are) so it can be further developed, there is no reason to re-write everything. It would be wasting of time and resources.
Quote from: "dBlues"
When we are talking about software this complex, that works very good and is not impossibly twisted and messed up (like some C-programmed spaghetti piles are) so it can be further developed, there is no reason to re-write everything. It would be wasting of time and resources.
While I understand that it's not feasible to re-write from scratch, I have to disagree.
Quote from: "älskling"Quote from: "dBlues"
When we are talking about software this complex, that works very good and is not impossibly twisted and messed up (like some C-programmed spaghetti piles are) so it can be further developed, there is no reason to re-write everything. It would be wasting of time and resources.
While I understand that it's not feasible to re-write from scratch, I have to disagree.
Indeed, but that would simply be because currently the code just doesn't allow for certain requests that have been made. The code has been written to a certain fixed format that doesn't allow much advanced changes.
For that reason alone we've talked about starting from scratch.
Everyone, take a deep breath.
I didn't say anything that warrants such a shame on you response. Rather, I spoke my mind, yes opinionated as it is, it's what I'm thinking nonetheless and why not share that?
I've been around for awhile, at times more active than others. Every time a request to aesthetically improve the program comes along I notice it's the same group of people quickly right there to give a million and one reasons why it should not happen. Not to mention in a very dismissive tone, which is like it or not a bit arrogant. This doesn't mean I hate anyone or am even slightly agitated. It's kinda like an "what's up with that".
This is a community supported program, that is, as long as you personally agree with the consensus of the dudes that are taking the reins on this. Boo hoo.
Simply put, you "guys" that ARE improving the Tracker, and trust me I greatly appreciate and respect all the efforts. But at the same time, you are the same lot that are perfectly happy with keeping the ancient interface the way it is. It's current state is so far past subjective. I understand the argument of function to a certain point. But it's made out that the two junctions can't cross each other, which if you look at any other program in the same category, is greatly false.
People like myself, are literally limited to the wants and desires of the folks that are revamping the tracker. Both a comforting and uneasy thought at the same time. The only reason is because you all are more talented in this area. I personally lack the understanding and patience it requires and make no bones about admitting that.
Speaking from a visual standpoint however, I often wonder if you collectively realize your weakness and are willing to approach the wants of others who don't always share in your personal viewpoints of where the tracker should go?
I tell you, if this were a capitol venture, you would have very little say. The customer is always right and you perform where the demand is rather than where you personally position it.
I'm pleased that the consideration to start the tracker from ground up is being considered. That shows some collective forward thinking branching out from self imaging.
Now...
Sam, you usually are the quick one to give argument to any such changes that don't personally validate your understandings of format and logical function. And I actually have to agree with you to some of your more liberal viewpoints. But every now and then here you come with your reasoning's as to why things should manifest the way you personally see them and that should be well for everyone else. I don't think so man. That is in fact, like it or not, self centered. I'm just calling you out on it.
This is a community with walks of life all over the world. And guess what. You can roll on the floor laughing all night but it won't change the formula of different folks different strokes. It is far more productive to share in the enthusiasm of the possibilities rather than expand on the limitations as if it were written in stone. Something you do more often then not.
Every improvement the tracker has gained has been on the back end. I understand given the time and resources available, efforts are typically positioned this way. But good god men, we've been through a dozen or more versions and not one commonly realized effort has been made to address a series of aesthetic requests. Who cares if it's less "important". Shit, it's friggin solid fun and inspirational to change things up a bit, to paint the town!
My ultimate realization is that on the front end, the tracker is about as dry as these forums. There has to be some correlation here.
And yes, at times, it does shpork me a little. :twisted:
Fire at will.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"... But at the same time, you are the same lot that are perfectly happy with keeping the ancient interface the way it is. It's current state is so far past subjective. I understand the argument of function to a certain point. But it's made out that the two junctions can't cross each other, which if you look at any other program in the same category, is greatly false.
Good points here Matt. But the thing is, you grow pretty sceptic over the years to ever see as 1)open 2)functioning 3)up to modern standards tracker as Modplug. All I am saying is, dont spend too much time on feature like pretty GUI, in expense of more important features, which can improve usability and introduce modern features. For me, it is great to have a light, clear (not cluttered with gradients and other fancy stuff), memory-efficient GUI. MFC sucks sometimes, ok, but if it takes too much time to replace it, dont. MFC can be used to target Vista also, so it is not a problem.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"I tell you, if this were a capitol venture, you would have very little say. The customer is always right and you perform where the demand is rather than where you personally position it.
I wouldn't compare an open tracker software to commercial software, the situation is completely different.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"I'm pleased that the consideration to start the tracker from ground up is being considered. That shows some collective forward thinking branching out from self imaging.
Its great that it turned up, so we can bury this idea right now.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"Sam, you usually are the quick one to give argument to any such changes that don't personally validate your understandings of format and logical function. And I actually have to agree with you to some of your more liberal viewpoints. But every now and then here you come with your reasoning's as to why things should manifest the way you personally see them and that should be well for everyone else. I don't think so man. That is in fact, like it or not, self centered. I'm just calling you out on it.
A bit unnecessary? I think everyone has a right for an opinion. And it is good that we dont take all feature requests for granted, it is right to question them. By all means brainstorm until you drop, without any critique, but after that, always criticize.
And everyone makes mistakes, it is inherently human, and therefore we are entitled to it. Of course, nobody wants to admit being wrong :shock: (also inherently human:) ).
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"Every improvement the tracker has gained has been on the back end. I understand given the time and resources available, efforts are typically positioned this way. But good god men, we've been through a dozen or more versions and not one commonly realized effort has been made to address a series of aesthetic requests. Who cares if it's less "important". Shit, it's friggin solid fun and inspirational to change things up a bit, to paint the town!
I think if you are a very visual person, it can get to you to use an unpolished interface. By all means, change icons and colors, add skin support, do whatever, but do it on low priority.
2 Matt
QuoteI spoke my mind, yes opinionated as it is, it's what I'm thinking nonetheless and why not share that?
Quote..why things should manifest the way you personally see them and that should be well for everyone else.
We're just discussing matters here, hopefully on an equal level. Indeed sharing opinions. But..
The first quote is about yourself. You are just speaking your mind. Fine.
The second quote is about me. Now a strange turn of projection takes place. No longer am I also speaking my mind,
but I'm supposed to pretend that my personal view is good for everyone else...
Quote..not one commonly realized effort has been made to address a series of aesthetic requests.
Aesthetics ? Now we're talking ..!
More aesthetic value of MPT ? I would support it. But so far this has often been requested with imo the wrong arguments.
For example, it is coupled to : "improvement of MPT". A fancy skin or better icons doesn't 'improve' working with MPT.
But they don't have to. An aesthetic GUI is a purpose on its own, parallel to funcionality.
I just can't keep my big mouth shut anymore....
I personaly like the simplistic look of ModPlug. A clean, simple, descriptive userinterface without bloated superhuge icons a0nd a lot of fancy eyecandy.
The only change I have done to the userinterface is to set the background color to 192,192,192 and I tick off the use small fonts checkbox.
I'm not directly against improving the userinterface a little but I think that as long as there are other features in the queue just cosmetic changes to the userinterface that don't have anything to do with useabillity these changes are not neccesary.
My tip to those who can't handle the icons is to use a tool like restorator to change the icons on the executable or to learn some coding and start a fork of OpenMPT.
PS! I don't see the point in dressing up a program like a little girl dresses up her doll. If there where more womans using OpenMPT perhaps... (shitt - I guess I really blew it with this comment... flamewar here I come ;) )
Hmm... I've already used reshacker to change the bootsplash. =) I'll get back to work on those icons. Soon. =)
I checked out your website. But 'Stay' is linked to the 'Beautiful to me' file.
Reshacker is a nice one...
Oops! Thanks for picking up on that. And yes, reshacker is very nice... I use it for doing all sorts of things to all sorts of apps. =)
I checked mptrack.exe ( v.48 ) with it and noticed at 'Icon group 200' the same bitmap as 'Icon group 201'. Quite silly.
So a fine opportunity to replace the second one with another icon. Because adding things is often more complicated.
Before this, I used an external 32x32 ico-file, I made from the splashscreen, to indicate it being the latest beta-version.
I managed to insert this ico-file with reshacker, instead of the 2nd duplicate, providing a 2nd choice of program-icon.
A first experiment, while playing safe, because the executable stays at the same file size.
Adding more Icon groups is another step.
The version of beta .48 with this tweak :
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/mptrack_x.exe
Sam_Zen:
The link doesen't seem to work.
Everybody:
I just wanted to add my two cents. I am one of those who do like OMPT to be a little more like a "little girl dresses up her doll". :wink: I can't argue from a technical standpoint, I just feel that change is good when it comes to this dept. :D
Sorry. Updated.
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/mptrack_2.exe
EDIT : Sorry, file removed, a while ago. (31-7-08)
It's indeed time for a new icon set. It will happen... this weekend. :)
Maybe we can have contributions/suggestions/competition to pick the new icons?
Or even better -- customizable icons!! ;D
Quote from: Harbinger on May 28, 2014, 19:42:24
Maybe we can have contributions/suggestions/competition to pick the new icons?
If by that you mean that everyone could contribute an icon or two, I can already tell that this would lead to an inconsistent mess. Right now, all icons are from the same icon pack or at least the same style as that icon pack was being used.
If people want to use their own icons, they can still do that the same way as before, actually it's easier because there is no longer a requirement to use paletted bitmaps.