Skin/Theme Engine...Free?
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Just so you all know how far along we are (if you're interested)
here's a screenshot of one of our programs in development using the engine. It was skinned with 3 lines of code!:
The skin is a mish-mosh of XP and Mac elements... It's only temperary:
The picture really doesn't do it justice... Everything except groupboxes support mouseovers. It uses very advanced methods to have gadgets using REAL transparency... not just background-brush erasing ... Although it does fall back on simple background-brush erasing if the parent gadget isn't skinned...
Anywho, it's far from being finished... we need to develop a format/editor and there is much to do!
Maybe non-client skinning!
here's a screenshot of one of our programs in development using the engine. It was skinned with 3 lines of code!:
The skin is a mish-mosh of XP and Mac elements... It's only temperary:
The picture really doesn't do it justice... Everything except groupboxes support mouseovers. It uses very advanced methods to have gadgets using REAL transparency... not just background-brush erasing
... Although it does fall back on simple background-brush erasing if the parent gadget isn't skinned...Anywho, it's far from being finished... we need to develop a format/editor and there is much to do!
Maybe non-client skinning!
looks very nice, i admit most of my code is just boring old squarish windows old style look (hey, as huey lewis said, it's hip to be square )
can you create round corners on parent windows (especially bottom side)
once done i'd like to give it a try
)can you create round corners on parent windows (especially bottom side)
once done i'd like to give it a try
( PB6.00 LTS Win11 x64 Asrock AB350 Pro4 Ryzen 5 3600 32GB GTX1060 6GB)
( The path to enlightenment and the PureBasic Survival Guide right here... )
( The path to enlightenment and the PureBasic Survival Guide right here... )
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
@thefool
I'm not sure when it will be completed, we have plenty of other projects we are working on as well...
One thing that's taking extra long is I avoid using any hooks... Most skin engines I see use them, and it can cause major problems if the engine(or a program using it) doesn't close properly...
Instead, I'm subclassing everything, which is more difficult, but much more solid.
As for the price, I liked the suggestion of using MUI's licensing/pricing system. Their method is taking the price of the program you plan to sell and multiplying it times a number... I believe that's fair.
@blueznl
As of now it doesn't skin any non-client areas, that means to changing the title-bar or the window borders. I will add that functionality in later versions. My first release will skin (at least) Checkboxes, RadioButtons, GroupBoxes, PushButtons, TabControls and Static text. Once most major controls are skinnable I will work on ScrollBars and the Window itself...(don't try this at home)
@everyone
I'm glad there's interest in this sort of engine. Originally we were developing it as an in-house tool because nothing good was available, and believe me, I've tried all available engines that work with PB...
SkinMagic - Painfully slow... Real transparencies don't work... Crashes your computer after about 10-15 uses...
ActiveSkin - looks beautiful, but isn't for sale anymore... If you try it out for more than a basic project, you'll know why. It glitches terribly.
SkinCrafter - Again, real transparencies don't work... and for $300 they should!
DirectSkin - Pretty near perfect, but for unlimited distrobution with a single application... over $9,000... that's per application! But it doesn't matter because they might not even "approve" your project.
I'm not sure when it will be completed, we have plenty of other projects we are working on as well...
One thing that's taking extra long is I avoid using any hooks... Most skin engines I see use them, and it can cause major problems if the engine(or a program using it) doesn't close properly...
Instead, I'm subclassing everything, which is more difficult, but much more solid.
As for the price, I liked the suggestion of using MUI's licensing/pricing system. Their method is taking the price of the program you plan to sell and multiplying it times a number... I believe that's fair.
@blueznl
As of now it doesn't skin any non-client areas, that means to changing the title-bar or the window borders. I will add that functionality in later versions. My first release will skin (at least) Checkboxes, RadioButtons, GroupBoxes, PushButtons, TabControls and Static text. Once most major controls are skinnable I will work on ScrollBars and the Window itself...(don't try this at home)
@everyone
I'm glad there's interest in this sort of engine. Originally we were developing it as an in-house tool because nothing good was available, and believe me, I've tried all available engines that work with PB...
SkinMagic - Painfully slow... Real transparencies don't work... Crashes your computer after about 10-15 uses...
ActiveSkin - looks beautiful, but isn't for sale anymore... If you try it out for more than a basic project, you'll know why. It glitches terribly.
SkinCrafter - Again, real transparencies don't work... and for $300 they should!
DirectSkin - Pretty near perfect, but for unlimited distrobution with a single application... over $9,000... that's per application! But it doesn't matter because they might not even "approve" your project.
Last edited by PolyVector on Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You have to qualify to buy their product?PolyVector wrote:DirectSkin - Pretty near perfect, but for unlimited distrobution with a single application... over $9,000... that's per application! But it doesn't matter because they might not even "approve" your project.
Amazing. 8O - but I guess there is some solid reason.
Your skinning app looks pretty awesome. And the explanation about your approach was appreciated and educational, thanks.
Hope things get off to a flying start when you release it.
@}--`--,-- A rose by any other name ..
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
@polyvector: I wouldnt buy anything if it cant be used for more than 1 product.. Thats just my personal oppinion. Single developer licenses are the best after my oppinion. Imagine if you should pay Fred an amount of money every time you release a piece of software programmed with pb 
Whatever, its your decision that matters.
As i have suggested once, you could also make it free for those who own a registered PureBasic
(nah. jsut for fun.)
I just say that i wouldnt be happy buying stuff that i only can use once. (ok now.. cola is something different. And i use it twice! It comes in(1) and it comes out(2) )
Whatever, its your decision that matters.
As i have suggested once, you could also make it free for those who own a registered PureBasic
(nah. jsut for fun.)I just say that i wouldnt be happy buying stuff that i only can use once. (ok now.. cola is something different. And i use it twice! It comes in(1) and it comes out(2) )
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
I suppose the idea is that a skin-engine would be used in commercial software to give it a more professional design... This would increase sales and make a one time fee per application well-worth it... It would also make the cost of the engine more proportional to how much it's benefitting a company...
I find it funny that spare-time developers are willing to pay 15% of every sale to emetrix.com but avoid per-app licenses...
I believe that if somebody is interested enough in a professional look, this won't be an issue... if they don't consider it essential, it'll always be free for their free-ware projects...
What I'm really worried about is I don't like the idea of a large company comming along and making X number of apps using my engine with X number of developers, and simply buying a 1-user-license...
I find it funny that spare-time developers are willing to pay 15% of every sale to emetrix.com but avoid per-app licenses...
I believe that if somebody is interested enough in a professional look, this won't be an issue... if they don't consider it essential, it'll always be free for their free-ware projects...
What I'm really worried about is I don't like the idea of a large company comming along and making X number of apps using my engine with X number of developers, and simply buying a 1-user-license...
large companies cant use 1 developer license.
What i meant was, if a single developer uses this software, he needs one license. If a company with multible developers come, then they need a company license.
Like with pb. If you develop or is the only programmer you need only 1 license, if you have a company with 5 developers, they need 1 PB each.
What i meant was, if a single developer uses this software, he needs one license. If a company with multible developers come, then they need a company license.
Like with pb. If you develop or is the only programmer you need only 1 license, if you have a company with 5 developers, they need 1 PB each.
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
I'll think about using a per-developer license system... What do you think is a fair price?
I could also have an option between the two licensing structures... that way you could choose what fits your needs best... A higher per-developer fee, or a smaller per-app fee
Maybe that'd make everyone happy...
I could also have an option between the two licensing structures... that way you could choose what fits your needs best... A higher per-developer fee, or a smaller per-app fee
Maybe that'd make everyone happy...
i dont know whats a fair price. But not so high, that spare-time and hobby developers cant afford it. Maybe You could make a license for hobby-programmers also.
But the higer pr. developer or smaller pr. app seems like a good idea. But only if the hobby-license exist.
You should define the "hobby" programmer yourself.
jsut an idea, though
But the higer pr. developer or smaller pr. app seems like a good idea. But only if the hobby-license exist.
You should define the "hobby" programmer yourself.
jsut an idea, though
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
what i meant was:
Somme hobby programmers come up with the right idea. Then they can sell their software. Many hobby programmers has done that. So i meant: If they are not a part of any company(except if it is a one man company), then they can use that. So you could make it like this:
Pr developer:
Single developer (one man company,cheap)
Multible developers (very small company,a little more expensive as single dev)
Multible dev. (Medium,more exp. that very small)
Multible dev. (Large, even more exp.)
pr app:
APP license
but thats just 1 way to do it.
Also, this wouldnt be bad, and is much simplyer:
single dev license
and
one app license
but its all up to you. Do you have an idea of the price yet?
Somme hobby programmers come up with the right idea. Then they can sell their software. Many hobby programmers has done that. So i meant: If they are not a part of any company(except if it is a one man company), then they can use that. So you could make it like this:
Pr developer:
Single developer (one man company,cheap)
Multible developers (very small company,a little more expensive as single dev)
Multible dev. (Medium,more exp. that very small)
Multible dev. (Large, even more exp.)
pr app:
APP license
but thats just 1 way to do it.
Also, this wouldnt be bad, and is much simplyer:
single dev license
and
one app license
but its all up to you. Do you have an idea of the price yet?
-
PolyVector
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:17 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact: