Hi NightCabbage,

> When installing the new beta, should I just install it straight
> over the top of the last one?

Probably not a good idea, since that will likely mess up the uninstall of the old version.

It's easiest to install each beta to its default folder - each beta will go to its own separate folder by default, like this one will install by default to:
C:\Program Files\MoI 2.0 beta Feb-21-2010

Note that the date of the beta is at the end there so that each one is a different folder.

You can have multiple v2 betas installed at the same time side by side that way.


> Or should I uninstall the last one, and the install the new one?

You can do that, or probably the best thing is to just install the new one and leave the last one in place for a while until you're sure that the new one is all working properly.

After a while then uninstall the old one.


> Also, will it keep my settings? (shortcuts mainly)

Yup, your settings including shortcuts are stored in the moi.ini file. Unless you have moved it to be alongside the moi.exe file the moi.ini file is stored in a central place under c:\Documents and Settings\ (or under c:\Users for Vista or Win7) so that each beta is able to see the same moi.ini file and use it.

The only thing that won't come over automatically is if you have installed any custom plugin commands by copying them to the \commands folder. If you have done that, then copy them into the \commands folder of the new beta as well to install them there too.

- Michael

> I thought I'd help out with the V2 documentation.


LOL !

I am here on the forum about 1 week with my new MoI, and I want to say that these days was a pleasure, just because the software is very nice(the inteface and lwo export is the best) and Michael is a very polite person with a bit of humor(important ;), and of course nice guys here too. Wondering my year here and doing nice stuffs with MoI.

That´s it! (srymybrazilian´senglish)



T

Thanks Michael though you know my basic agument that I should have not needed to go through that, to me, wierd UI complex proeedure or this , still incomplete as a method /principle/ idea of "!!!socalled" short cut/plugins update!

It seems all so out of character to the brilliant MoI philosophy.
I cry when I look at the Petr's MoI page in the wikki--so unnatuiral an approach.

Brian

Hi Brian, yes I fully understand your argument, I think we've been over it quite a large number of times now.

It's something that I definitely want to improve!

But unfortunately improvements take time and work to create.

My time is limited... So it is just not possible for me to make every single kind of improvement all at once, some kinds of improvements will take time before I can get to them, and this is one of them.

In the meantime, running that helper program that I posted gets the job done for you and copies the needed files from one folder to the other - it is a pretty simple way to get the job done currently.

For most people, just copying files from one folder to another is not really a big deal.

Currently I just have placed a higher priority on other things such as new modeling tools like the new Inset command, rather than streamlining the plug-in system. At some point in the future though I should be able to dedicate some time to the plug-in system to improve it.

In the meantime, my suggestion would be to actually avoid using any plug-ins and just stick with the built in standard toolset instead. That way you won't run into this issue with needing to copy the plug-in files over.

- Michael

:'(

I just want to say great work Michael for v2!

Between the 1-rail sweep being updated to automatically miter corners and now the Insectoid tool, OH!, and lets not forget the surfacing, this sci-fi junkae now has a great little program for creating his spaceship and other futuristic models!


I really appreciate all your efforts, listening to, and accepting a good amount of our suggestions.

Then there's also the time you took out during development to answer our modeling question - and with GIF diagrams too!

Thanks for your excellent program and excellent support! :-)

-Will

Hi Michael,

Just a quick note to compliment you on the latest Beta & say that I'm looking forward to the final V2 release.

Also of note:
I'm running XP & have noticed that when I do the Uninstall of a previous Beta there's always the actual Beta folder left under C: Programs.
And within that Beta folder is the "commands" folder containing all of the "Add-On Scripts" I'd been running previously.
I just Select All > Cut & then Paste them into the newly installed Beta's "command" folder...
...I then go back & Delete the previous Beta Folder from the C: Programs list...couldn't be simpler!!

I'll also point out that I don't see any of this as a problem.

So not sure if this is just a "Windows XP" only thing, but for others that are having problems with moving or finding their Scripts like Brian...
...maybe have a look at your C: Programs list?
You might just find a whole collection of previous Beta Folders, each containing a command folder with those Add-On Scripts you've added.

Hope this helps, Colin

Hi Colin, thanks!

Yeah the uninstaller will not delete any files that it did not itself place into the folder at install time... I think that's a pretty common procedure for an uninstaller to be conservative about deleting files to avoid data loss.

I think Brian's issue is that he's just not comfortable navigating around the file system in general, or copying files from one folder to another folder.

In the future what I'd like to try is some kind of bulit-in plugin browser that could browse through a list of plugins that were possibly stored on my web server so that they could get updated with new ones as they are created. That should make it more generally friendly and also make it work for someone who is not able to copy files around, but the down side is that it will take a chunk of work to make a nice UI connected to the web so that's why I'm not sure exactly when that will happen.

- Michael

.

Hi Michael,

I'm playing a bit with the inse(r)(c)t tool, and I was wondering if it make sence to also having a separate object with a grooved above zero ?

Hi, Michael

Very very good new beta !!!!

Thanks

Hi PaQ,

> I was wondering if it make sence to also having a separate
> object with a grooved above zero ?

Is there something in particular that would help with?

One thing I was figuring was that with grooved above zero you've got all the pieces created so you can select them and use Edit > Separate to break the inset part out as a separate object if you want.

I kind of try to avoid having too many bazillion options on things when possible, that's why I was trying to have Groove width = 0 do some double duty as the "keep the plug separate" option.

But if it is something that would be used often enough, then I could see putting in an additional option for it.

- Michael

Great feature!
I did not thought I'd see this in V2...

Thanks!

Marc

Hi Michael,

Well it was just to create some SF panels here and there on the space ship.
I do like the one click solution from the groove 0 option, but I also prefer to have a little ofset of the panel to have better details in the shadows/gi.
Wihtout saying it much more easy to manage surfaces on separated object (solids).

> One thing I was figuring was that with grooved above zero you've got all the pieces created so you can select them and use Edit > Separate to break the inset part out as a separate object if you want.

I'll try to figure out that, but I'm not sure if it's so easy, especially when the inset is done on curved surfaces, as you have to rebuild the missing surface under the pieces. (I prefer to keep everyting 'solids' to avoid double faces surfaces at render time)

Hi PaQ, re: option to keep plug separate with groove greater than 0 - I should be able to add that in for v3.

Right now I've told some people that I will not modify the v2 UI any more before the full release so that they know they can translate the current beta without anything shifting on them.

Since that option will require a new control for it, that would also require a UI change so it will have to wait until v3.

I kind of figured that some work on Inset would probably span across into v3, since it was introduced in the very last v2 beta.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

this last beta is not only fast and stable here, but the inset command is big fun to create detail - Superb!

One question: I model a lot in polymodelers and there if I would do a similar action to an inset on - for instance - three connected sides of a cube, the resulting inner polygons would stay selected, so I could repeat the action very fast and easily.
In MoI at this moment, if I want to repeat the inset 5 times for repetitive structures, I have to reselect the "polys"/patches each time which means first selecting the object again, then hit one face (and not an edge accidentally) to get to face mode and then select the other faces. So even in "repeat" mode, this is pretty slow to do what otherwise would be hitting "done" 5 times in a row.

Am I missing something here and it's already doable or would it be possible to have a "keep resulting faces selected" option?

Thank you very much for all your fantastic work!

Thomas Helzle

Interesting thing is how you come up with ideas that are not found elsewhere, at least I have not seen exactly this before.

-FF

Hi Thomas,

> Am I missing something here and it's already doable or would it
> be possible to have a "keep resulting faces selected" option?

Nope, you're not missing anything - currently to apply another inset on the same area again, you will need to make a new selection. If edges are getting in your way frequently when you're trying to do face selections, try to zoom in a bit and also turning off the hidden line display can help a lot for that, there is a checkbox for that in the View palette on the side pane.

re: "keep resulting faces selected" option - well I kind of hate to add in too many options to things, it tends to lead to a clogged up type feeling in the UI and makes it harder to browse through the main stuff.

I don't think there are any other commands that select sub-objects in their generated result, so it may be a bit tricky to add that in. If it were to do it by default, it could possibly cause some unwanted side effects, like possibly the workflow for this example here would become kind of different with deselections needed first:




So I'm not sure, I'd need to think about that for a bit.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

Sure, let's finalise V2 first :) so you can start to work on V3 asap :)