Apollo One (2 Viewers)

[FreakyJ]

What about coverflow with the 2D rework coming along? [emoji14]

 

[ge2301]

Btw, do we plan to a "Cover view" again as we had in Titanium?
View attachment 160531

From my point of view it makes sense to add the cover flow to attract as many people as possible. But only a 2D flow as also posted as titanium example.

 

[MJGraf]

Coverflow would be great - there is still this abandoned branch on GitHub. Sorry for the maybe dumb question, but is there any specific difficulty in implementing coverflow or is it just our lack of manpower (which I more than understand...)?

 

[morpheus_xx]

Coverflow would be great - there is still this abandoned branch on GitHub

This old branch in principle only changed the camera definition to a 3D space view (taken from MP1) and adds a "z" value for rotation transform. I think with D2D + Transform3D effect this is no longer required.

Sorry for the maybe dumb question, but is there any specific difficulty in implementing coverflow or is it just our lack of manpower (which I more than understand...)?

It's the lack of manpower We would need some code in our ItemsControls to calculate each items' rotation etc. and making "auto center" working correctly.

 

[wizard123]

Please also don't just start adding views just for the sake of adding them to say ooo eye candy if they don't fit with the overall design. ie. a 3d cover flow here would look severely out of place with everything else being flat and clean in approach.

 

[Lehmden]

Hi.
Any (final) skin definitely should support any view. It's the decision of the User to use it or not. We do all this primarily for the user, also we like and want this ourself...

Personally I can live without CoverFlow as I only use it for demonstration purposes. Especially CoverFlow is something to impress guests and make them think about using MediaPortal themselves. I've seen this really often.... Spectacular 3D effects like CoverFlow, rotating Poster Wall or similar things are to show what's possible and for this are positive for acquiring more users...

I know the main goal of Apollo One is not to be spectacular, but we definitely need such eye candy if we want MP2 to be more popular. With features like PIP or the centralized database we can impress advanced users who knows what's going on under the hood, but the average guy only wants the eye candy....

 

[wizard123]

No i disagree any skin should not support any view, yes if it was to be a core default skin then i would agree and let the user decide but that distinction has not been made and this is not as of yet the default skin so it should not be adding views or any other elements if they do not fit with the design just for the sake of it as it ends up looking like a cobbled together pile of junk and why would any designer want to be part of a skin team that implements anything even if it looks pants.

 

[Lehmden]

We agree that we don't agree... If a skin is not able to support all views it isn't complete imho... MP2 is advertising with the fact that every plugin will work with every skin right from the beginning, but isn't able to support a handful of views?

 

[offbyone]

Lehmden, in MP2 a skin alone via XAML can define new kind of views that other skins never even knew about. So there is no way l(ike in MP1) to "support" all "views". Two skins can look 100% different in MP2. This has nothing to do with supporting all plugins.

 

[wizard123]

Supporting every plugin and supporting every view are completely different things, views implemented should be based on the design not just because they can be. If you implemented a view into a design and it did not fit/ looked terrible you would not use said view so why would you need it there and as offbyone says there are no set specific views in mp2 you can add the relevant views to which you design to fit the skin.