Re: Editor GUI design

Bernd Kreimeier (Bernd.Kreimeier@NeRo.Uni-Bonn.DE)
Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:37:29 +0200 (MET DST)

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:37:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bernd Kreimeier <Bernd.Kreimeier@NeRo.Uni-Bonn.DE>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Editor GUI design

>From: Mike Ruete <>
> Perhaps you should consider the ability to change the camera
>direction to be perpendicular to
Second that. I think texture alignment should work like this:
click on the facet in any view, one view shows the facet with
textures, perpendicular, and the adjacent facets with perspective
correct texture mapping. This is for manually fixing NAT screwups.

>I'd also suggest adding the ability to "grab" a face of a brush
>and move it "in and out" along it's normal.
Agreed. Add to this: create facet from vertex (triangle on a
cube, as many vertices as incoming edges in general), and
collapse facet to vertex. In both cases, you might click on
a facet (i.e. the new one), and again a view perpendicular is
spawned. Moving the vertices in 2D will tilt the plane in 3D.

>I'd code my wire-frame renderer to work in its own
>separate window. This way spawning another view and switching the
>"primary" one would be a lot easier.
This should work within one window as well, with 1 and 4 overlayed
Drawing Panes, or am I mistaken. Anyway, the basic idea is sound:
each renderer is one object with one (part of) the window. I loathe
the windowitis that drowns my desktop in a dozen separate ones,

>I think non-axial views and the ability to (relatively) easily
>create *very* complex brushes is vital.
I agree. Think of (approximations) of pipes/spheres/tanks. It
does not look like creating a six- or many-sided pillar is a
on-stop-shop task in QuakeEd.