Hey Rory, thanks for the first run of c2lite. It’s great having a new version of cabbage that first into my workflow, even if things aren’t perfect just yet.
This is just a first round of feedback. I didn’t get to do tons of extensive testing, mostly just noting when things went wrong or didn’t seem as expected. I can dig deeper with testing on any of this if you think it seems relevant.
I’ll start with the simple stuff:
- cabbage plugin name doesn’t appear in window title bar, just shows “CabbageLite”
- I can only have one C2 window open at a time (possibly due to how sublime hooks in for the console/debug output? didn’t test standalone yet), had no problems launching multiples from sublime with C1 tho.
- single line groupbox with { } creates issue as mentioned before, even when not a plant or nested. I know it’s an easy fix on my end too, but as I update more of my old effects I really feel like this should behave the same between versions.
- button size or font size is just barely different, a button that’s text displayed fine in c1 now shows “…”, very minor, but maybe worth knowing. example: button bounds(28, 55, 20, 18), text(“Inv”, “Inv”)
- floating point digits displayed in popuptext when range sets step size to 1 (rslider)… popup shows 1.00, 2.00, 3.00 etc.
- gentable doesn’t respond to identchannel for tablecolour changes? didn’t try other fields like bounds yet
- new hrange tabs are too easy to “miss” (maybe even invisible pixels?) and grab the width instead of the limit
- hrange suffers large amounts of lag when grabbing full range to move. This was found on an effect I just dug out of the “basement” tho, it’s possible the problem is something I did dumb.
And some more odds and ends:
- 
An rslider with range(0,0,0,1,.01) doesn’t render properly… tho it also needs color settings set to be visible. It just shows up as a large box. I didn’t go crazy trying the same issue with different widgets or values, just stumbled into this on accident. 
- 
Defines with similar names now behave differently! For example, 
#define RADIO_BUTTON_2 fontcolour:1(255, 255, 255, 255), fontcolour:0(160, 160, 160, 255), colour:0(30, 30, 30, 255), colour:1(255,0,0,255),
#define RADIO_BUTTON fontcolour:1(255, 255, 255, 255), fontcolour:0(160, 160, 160, 255), colour:0(30, 30, 30, 255), colour:1(0,255,0,255),
Works as expected in C1. If I reverse the order of the defines in C1, then all RADIO_BUTTON_2 would have already been replaced by the define for RADIO_BUTTON… BUT the opposite is true in C2, it’s almost like it’s being parsed backwards?!? I’ll probably end up working around this by renaming the first to RADIO_BUTTON_1, but if my suspicions are correct this presents a potentially big compatibility issue that might be really tough to diagnose if/when it surfaces for users randomly.
Lastly, purely aesthetic feedback… I feel like the new hrange tab style is really mismatched now when viewed next to hsliders.


 
      
     I’ll take another look…
 I’ll take another look… The single line groupbox issue was discussed here :
  The single line groupbox issue was discussed here :  
  Lol.  Seriously tho, didn’t consider it a major issue, just reporting what I saw… who knows, maybe it was as simple as a wrong font size somewhere and no one’s pixels had lined up just right yet.  And ironically, I was considering diving in to SVG/PNG gui elements, but probably not until cabbage includes and other such preprocessor “candy” is in.  I want to make sure I do the SVGs in a way that will work best modularly too.
 Lol.  Seriously tho, didn’t consider it a major issue, just reporting what I saw… who knows, maybe it was as simple as a wrong font size somewhere and no one’s pixels had lined up just right yet.  And ironically, I was considering diving in to SVG/PNG gui elements, but probably not until cabbage includes and other such preprocessor “candy” is in.  I want to make sure I do the SVGs in a way that will work best modularly too.


 But either way, if you end up deciding to go with the idea, great… I think it’s logical in many cases, but in some cases I would still rely on the original method.  If not, no worries.  I’m up to I think 19 radiobuttons in a group, and at that scale it just seems to be begging for a better solution.
   But either way, if you end up deciding to go with the idea, great… I think it’s logical in many cases, but in some cases I would still rely on the original method.  If not, no worries.  I’m up to I think 19 radiobuttons in a group, and at that scale it just seems to be begging for a better solution.