Austria
There is some discussion going on in the team about Express versions.
But right now, no. There isn't a express solution available.
[Blog] MediaPortal 2 progress report (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Albert
- Start date
But right now, no. There isn't a express solution available.
For those that don't have visual studio, a free alternative is sharpdevelop SharpDevelop @ic#code
This should open a visual studio project
This should open a visual studio project
Interested by the report above, I clicked the MP2 link on the right side of the home page, only to be greeted by a page telling me I wasn't authorized. Is it just me that finds that a bit strange? I would have expected it to lead to further public info on MP2 (plans, roadmaps etc) rather than directly into the development forum. I also wondered why development is hidden on a high-profile open source project? I wouldn't have expected to be able to post in the developers fora, but to read them, yes. In the end it's no big deal - just seemed a little user-unfriendly, that's all.
I will be straight about the why.
It's because of the annoying big amount of ungrateful "gimme that now! - that shit is not working - you did need that long for this crap?" users.
There were open MP2 forums. There allready was a tech preview.
The result was that users frustrated our founder frodo to a level where he then left the team.
So we concluded to dissable all public MP2 forums, and work on it in the team internal section until we have a basic alpha version ready for the community.(svn sourcecode is still available for everyone)
Thats the "why".
- Thread starter
- #45
AW: Re: MediaPortal 2 progress report
Ok that's the "why", but I-loop, can you then please remove the link? That isn't a good advertisement if we have broken links on our homepage.
Ok that's the "why", but I-loop, can you then please remove the link? That isn't a good advertisement if we have broken links on our homepage.
I'm going to ask this here since there doesn't seem to a better place:
If I'm interpreting the SkinEngine code correctly there is currently no way to specify a custom effect (.fx file) from xaml. Is the correct? IMO it's one of the most important features of the new Engine, are you planning on adding it for the alpha release so that skinners can start playing with it?
It looks like it's coming along nicely, I'm looking forward to development being opened so I can contribute myself
If I'm interpreting the SkinEngine code correctly there is currently no way to specify a custom effect (.fx file) from xaml. Is the correct? IMO it's one of the most important features of the new Engine, are you planning on adding it for the alpha release so that skinners can start playing with it?
It looks like it's coming along nicely, I'm looking forward to development being opened so I can contribute myself
- Thread starter
- #48
AW: Re: MediaPortal 2 progress report
Why do you think it would be good to write an own effect? Effects are mostly used from brushes, which are code deep in the SkinEngine. Which effect do you want to write yourself?
The most probable usage of an own effect would be an own brush. And you CAN add your own control and brush classes. See the special controls in the SkinEngine. So over that way, you should be able to use your own effects.
I'm going to ask this here since there doesn't seem to a better place:
If I'm interpreting the SkinEngine code correctly there is currently no way to specify a custom effect (.fx file) from xaml. Is the correct? IMO it's one of the most important features of the new Engine, are you planning on adding it for the alpha release so that skinners can start playing with it?
It looks like it's coming along nicely, I'm looking forward to development being opened so I can contribute myself
Why do you think it would be good to write an own effect? Effects are mostly used from brushes, which are code deep in the SkinEngine. Which effect do you want to write yourself?
The most probable usage of an own effect would be an own brush. And you CAN add your own control and brush classes. See the special controls in the SkinEngine. So over that way, you should be able to use your own effects.
Perhaps 'important' was the wrong word. 'Cool' would have been better.
I can think of many reasons to allow custom effects. How about a greyscale overlay (the file for which is already present in MP2), or drop-shadow for text or any number of other effects which are simple to implement as a pixel shader but impossible/very difficult any other way. If the shaders can be passed a timing paramter (allowing animation) then a whole new dimension of effects is opened up with custom transitions and animated backgrounds etc. I'm genuinely suprised it hasn't been considered, it looks like it would be fairly easy to add a generic brush that allows effect files to be speicified by URI. Having to add them via a plugin in is not an idela solution IMO.
Importantly to my mind it is also a feature that XBMC doesn't have and could potentially give MP2 an advantage in skin hotness Unless I'm completely misunderstanding how effect files are used in MP2?
I can think of many reasons to allow custom effects. How about a greyscale overlay (the file for which is already present in MP2), or drop-shadow for text or any number of other effects which are simple to implement as a pixel shader but impossible/very difficult any other way. If the shaders can be passed a timing paramter (allowing animation) then a whole new dimension of effects is opened up with custom transitions and animated backgrounds etc. I'm genuinely suprised it hasn't been considered, it looks like it would be fairly easy to add a generic brush that allows effect files to be speicified by URI. Having to add them via a plugin in is not an idela solution IMO.
Importantly to my mind it is also a feature that XBMC doesn't have and could potentially give MP2 an advantage in skin hotness
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding how effect files are used in MP2?
- Thread starter
- #50
AW: Re: MediaPortal 2 progress report
If you look at how WPF works, you'll understand how MPF works (MPF is our own implementation of a library which is similar to WPF but especially designed to match our MediaCenter needs).
In WPF/MPF, you have "brush" primitives which can be used to render almost any graphical object. For example, you can use a brush to render a text label.
There are several brushes, a solid color brush, a linear gradient brush, a radial gradient brush, image brushes, a visual brush and a video brush. All those brushes can be used on any graphics object, for example you can use a video brush to render a custom shape.
It is even possible to apply a brush not only to a single graphics object but to an object like a panel, for example, do modify its opacity.
Like (almost) all control properties in MPF, brush parameters can be animated.
Is that what you mean? With the linear gradient brush for example, you can draw your greyscale.
So, for my understanding, IF it should be necessary to have your own shader, you'll probably want to implement an own brush.
Perhaps 'important' was the wrong word. 'Cool' would have been better.
I can think of many reasons to allow custom effects. How about a greyscale overlay (the file for which is already present in MP2), or drop-shadow for text or any number of other effects which are simple to implement as a pixel shader but impossible/very difficult any other way. If the shaders can be passed a timing paramter (allowing animation) then a whole new dimension of effects is opened up with custom transitions and animated backgrounds etc. I'm genuinely suprised it hasn't been considered, it looks like it would be fairly easy to add a generic brush that allows effect files to be speicified by URI. Having to add them via a plugin in is not an idela solution IMO.
Importantly to my mind it is also a feature that XBMC doesn't have and could potentially give MP2 an advantage in skin hotness
If you look at how WPF works, you'll understand how MPF works (MPF is our own implementation of a library which is similar to WPF but especially designed to match our MediaCenter needs).
In WPF/MPF, you have "brush" primitives which can be used to render almost any graphical object. For example, you can use a brush to render a text label.
There are several brushes, a solid color brush, a linear gradient brush, a radial gradient brush, image brushes, a visual brush and a video brush. All those brushes can be used on any graphics object, for example you can use a video brush to render a custom shape.
It is even possible to apply a brush not only to a single graphics object but to an object like a panel, for example, do modify its opacity.
Like (almost) all control properties in MPF, brush parameters can be animated.
Is that what you mean? With the linear gradient brush for example, you can draw your greyscale.
So, for my understanding, IF it should be necessary to have your own shader, you'll probably want to implement an own brush.