General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
It also seems to require a lot of clicks that really seem to be just version of "are you sure?"
Right-click. It negates the need for the confirm option. I assume if it had a manual or readme it would mention this somewhere. Hopefully the full version will have something like that.
I had my doubts and was keeping my expectations low so I wouldn't be crushed when this came out. After messing with this for a couple days and with the program being only in beta, I can't help but be anything than extremely impressed.
I'm on record for saying that the D&D Compendium was enough to keep me happy with my subscription. The character generator is icing on the cake. My only complaint? No Mac support. Boo!
__________________ Jeffrey J. Visgaitis
Creative Director The Inner Circle
Right-click. It negates the need for the confirm option. I assume if it had a manual or readme it would mention this somewhere. Hopefully the full version will have something like that.
Its still stupid design. Since the changes are non-destructive, there's no reason to make the better option harder to find. If I accidentally select the wrong thing, its easy to go back, so why should the program make it harder to go forward.
edit: Of course, this is probably just a mac user ranting about the general windows way of doing things.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Last edited by malraux; 12th November 2008 at 10:35 PM..
I think I read somewhere something about Parallels and Mac and it worked on that or something...not entirely sure though, may have been a different OS.
Its still stupid design. Since the changes are non-destructive, there's no reason to make the better option harder to find. If I accidentally select the wrong thing, its easy to go back, so why should the program make it harder to go forward.
edit: Of course, this is probably just a mac user ranting about the general windows way of doing things.
No, it's just a mac user ranting about the correct way of doing things and then assuming the incorrect way is the Windows way.
I think I read somewhere something about Parallels and Mac and it worked on that or something...not entirely sure though, may have been a different OS.
Yep, but that would require an Intel Processor. My desktop is still using a G5. Aside from that, I have issues with installing a virus magnet like Windows on one of my Macs. I'll do it, but I won't be happy about it.
__________________ Jeffrey J. Visgaitis
Creative Director The Inner Circle
Yep, but that would require an Intel Processor. My desktop is still using a G5. Aside from that, I have issues with installing a virus magnet like Windows on one of my Macs. I'll do it, but I won't be happy about it.
I don't like using a virus like Windows either, but a Windows machine kind of requires it. I was just passing the info along just in case people were interested and it helped them. Use the info or not how you feel safest.
It didn't originally run on my PC. I'm reinstalling my .net files to check. Wish me luck...
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Yes I was looking forward to trying the Visualizer and Builder.
You may need to get the full 230 megs .NEt from Microsoft first as the installer for CB seems to lag when trying to install .NET 3.5 SP1.
As a person who works in the software industry, specifically building custom applications - I can assure you that building an app in .Net makes it so the person who wants to use it needs to be running it.
It's not really a big deal and the .NET software is free. It's like having to install adobe acrobat reader to read PDF files. Big whoop.
__________________ If you know someone is going to grow up to be the next Hitler would you kill him while he was an innocent baby? My paladin would.
Except that I can install adobe acrobat reader (or any other pdf reader) in my ubuntu-running computer
That fact alone is what prevented me from getting a DDI subscription.
I'm not sure what version of .Net the character builder targets, but the Mono project will run most .Net applications on Linux up to a certain version. I think last I heard it was 2.0, but I don't know. Worth a try.
Of course, that also requires that the programmers went out of their way to make the code platform-independent, which is probably not that likely. Most of the stuff you don't need to worry about, but there are some bits that one wouldn't think of if that wasn't one of your goals (e.g. Windows uses \ as a directory separator character while Linux uses /)
I'm not sure what version of .Net the character builder targets, but the Mono project will run most .Net applications on Linux up to a certain version. I think last I heard it was 2.0, but I don't know. Worth a try.
Of course, that also requires that the programmers went out of their way to make the code platform-independent, which is probably not that likely. Most of the stuff you don't need to worry about, but there are some bits that one wouldn't think of if that wasn't one of your goals (e.g. Windows uses as a directory separator character while Linux uses /)
As far as I know and see, the Character Builder uses WPF. Won't work on Mono, and according to the current plans, might never. I am disappointed about that.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
As far as I know and see, the Character Builder uses WPF. Won't work on Mono, and according to the current plans, might never. I am disappointed about that.
Assuming by "WPF" you mean the Windows Forms namespace (been a long time since I coded in .net), I seem to recall a *nix .net project that managed to emulate said namespace, and run apps that depended on it.
One of my teachers was a standard Unix Geek, and he could still run most of the stuff we coded in OOP class.
well, you can allways run it in a Virtual Machine, if you have an old XP disc somewhere... thats what I do. Makes the CB rather useless for netbook level computers with linux, though
Assuming by "WPF" you mean the Windows Forms namespace (been a long time since I coded in .net), I seem to recall a *nix .net project that managed to emulate said namespace, and run apps that depended on it.
One of my teachers was a standard Unix Geek, and he could still run most of the stuff we coded in OOP class.
Now, if I could remember its name
WPF = Windows Presentation Foundation (from the .NET 3.5 framework); the successor to Windows Forms (being mostly a web guy, I haven't fussed with the Windows stuff, but Silverlight is a subset of WPF, which is kind of interesting, because if you reworked the Character Builder into a Silverlight app, then it could run with MS plugins on Windows and OSX, and via Moonlight elsewhere).
WPF = Windows Presentation Foundation (from the .NET 3.5 framework); the successor to Windows Forms (being mostly a web guy, I haven't fussed with the Windows stuff, but Silverlight is a subset of WPF, which is kind of interesting, because if you reworked the Character Builder into a Silverlight app, then it could run with MS plugins on Windows and OSX, and via Moonlight elsewhere).
What drothgery said, except WPF was already available in 3.0.
I don't know how "small" the Silverlight subset is of WPF exactly, but I think the basic templating and binding to XML (or other data) sources should be available in Silverlight, so it is not impossible. The CB has the advantage that it's still mostly for displaying tables and text with a limited amount of images, and doesn't need much access to hardware.
But it would still require tons of work, and I am not too optimistic they'll do that. Maybe fans could start by demanding a "Silverlight Character Sheet Viewer" from WotC that reads the character file and displays it like the regular app?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
What drothgery said, except WPF was already available in 3.0.
... but since Visual Studio 2005 is .NET 2.0 out of the box, and Visual Studio 2008 is .NET 3.5 out of the box, .NET 3.0 development isn't exactly all that common.
... but since Visual Studio 2005 is .NET 2.0 out of the box, and Visual Studio 2008 is .NET 3.5 out of the box, .NET 3.0 development isn't exactly all that common.
Windows Vista is .NET 3.0 out of the box. That's my reason for working with it, actually.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
But it would still require tons of work, and I am not too optimistic they'll do that. Maybe fans could start by demanding a "Silverlight Character Sheet Viewer" from WotC that reads the character file and displays it like the regular app?
I haven't really examined the format too closely, but the character files are just XML and pretty simply to work with.
The catch is, all the important stuff (i.e. text of feats and powers, etc) are in the encrypted database. The XML files just give the name and maybe an ID to look them up, I forget.
Oh, what I wouldn't do to be able to decrypt that data and poke around in it... *drools*
Boo!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
