But I would rename the tab to simply "All fields"
[FR][EN] Ant Movie Catalog 4.2.1 (04/11/17)
Hi there again,
nice to see usability improvement is also still part of the development.
After a short peek into the new version I saw a lot of nice new functions and changes. Just want to tell you some thoughts I had about this:
1) Deleting 3rd menu level at right mouse button ist
2) Good to now have color tags in thumb view too, but "lines with background color" ist not working for thumb-view. Should look more like in the picture.
3) Can you perhaps write the text "show title" next to checkbox instead of showing it in the status line (see picture)?
4) I´m not 100% happy with the 3 tabs for custom fields, just one with the combination of "old" and custom fields would be enough. Is there still somebody using a resolution less than 1000px on a pc?
I guess most people would like combine all fields in one view - like in tab "all fields" now - with the ability to separately size the old fields as well, not just all together as a block. So if I could shrink for example field "video format" to half of its original size, there would be enough space for a new custom field right beside it. That would be the ideal concept for me.
Currently the custom fields added in tab "cust. f." are on very different position then in tab "all fields", sometimes they do not appear, also the size is different. They seem to be overlapped or moved in a way by each other or the old fields block.
So far so good, it´s getting better version by version.
thanks for you efforts.
nice to see usability improvement is also still part of the development.
After a short peek into the new version I saw a lot of nice new functions and changes. Just want to tell you some thoughts I had about this:
1) Deleting 3rd menu level at right mouse button ist
2) Good to now have color tags in thumb view too, but "lines with background color" ist not working for thumb-view. Should look more like in the picture.
3) Can you perhaps write the text "show title" next to checkbox instead of showing it in the status line (see picture)?
4) I´m not 100% happy with the 3 tabs for custom fields, just one with the combination of "old" and custom fields would be enough. Is there still somebody using a resolution less than 1000px on a pc?
I guess most people would like combine all fields in one view - like in tab "all fields" now - with the ability to separately size the old fields as well, not just all together as a block. So if I could shrink for example field "video format" to half of its original size, there would be enough space for a new custom field right beside it. That would be the ideal concept for me.
Currently the custom fields added in tab "cust. f." are on very different position then in tab "all fields", sometimes they do not appear, also the size is different. They seem to be overlapped or moved in a way by each other or the old fields block.
So far so good, it´s getting better version by version.
thanks for you efforts.
Hi all,
@J
.
- About screen resolution and all fields view, 1024px is just acceptable if movie list have a small width and custom fields have a small witdh too.
In fact, a resolution of 1366px or more is better for a normal use and all people don't have this resolution.
That why I give the choice with this 3 tabs for now.
I will see wath I can do but this is not so simple to mix all fields like that.
I have to change AMC database format to store position and size of movie fields too and manage movie fields like custom fields.
@Wotan
.
Soulsnake.
@J
I will see to add this before final release2) Good to now have color tags in thumb view too, but "lines with background color" ist not working for thumb-view. Should look more like in the picture.
.Why not, but this takes too much place in other languages, that why I do like this !3) Can you perhaps write the text "show title" next to checkbox instead of showing it in the status line (see picture)?
- Some people don't use custom fields so they don't care to have all fields view.4) I´m not 100% happy with the 3 tabs for custom fields, just one with the combination of "old" and custom fields would be enough. Is there still somebody using a resolution less than 1000px on a pc?
- About screen resolution and all fields view, 1024px is just acceptable if movie list have a small width and custom fields have a small witdh too.
In fact, a resolution of 1366px or more is better for a normal use and all people don't have this resolution.
That why I give the choice with this 3 tabs for now.
I guess most people would like combine all fields in one view - like in tab "all fields" now - with the ability to separately size the old fields as well, not just all together as a block. So if I could shrink for example field "video format" to half of its original size, there would be enough space for a new custom field right beside it. That would be the ideal concept for me.
I will see wath I can do but this is not so simple to mix all fields like that.
I have to change AMC database format to store position and size of movie fields too and manage movie fields like custom fields.
I think this is because you change default size (and position) of custom fields with a size too small for this view and your screen resolution.Currently the custom fields added in tab "cust. f." are on very different position then in tab "all fields", sometimes they do not appear, also the size is different. They seem to be overlapped or moved in a way by each other or the old fields block.
Thanks!So far so good, it´s getting better version by version.
thanks for you efforts.
@Wotan
As you see in an other post, this is planned for a future versionWould it be possible in a future version to add a tab for images (for posters, front/back covers, fan art, screenshots etc)
.Soulsnake.
@soulsnake
At last one little thing I noticed using the new "show title" checkbox in thumb view:
If you select a movie and then scroll up or down and then click the checkbox, the view jumps back to the selcted movie at topmost position. Not sure it is intended this way, but gave me some more scroll work.
Thank you. I didn´t used it much in list view, but in thumb view it´s looking nicerI will see to add "lines with background color" before final release
hm, you´re right. Perhaps just the short way antp suggested.Why not, but this takes too much place in other languages, that why I do like this !
OK, I understand that this will then also have a lot of correlations to external adapters etc. Due to the fact that adding new custom fileds is not a dayly work, it´s maybe too much trouble for little plus of comfort.I have to change AMC database format...
At last one little thing I noticed using the new "show title" checkbox in thumb view:
If you select a movie and then scroll up or down and then click the checkbox, the view jumps back to the selcted movie at topmost position. Not sure it is intended this way, but gave me some more scroll work.
Hi all,
.
It's the same behaviour when you resize ou refresh movie list.
I could but change xml database format is not a good idea if it is not really necessary.
Soulsnake.
Yes this is intended when you have one selectionIf you select a movie and then scroll up or down and then click the checkbox, the view jumps back to the selcted movie at topmost position. Not sure it is intended this way, but gave me some more scroll work.
.It's the same behaviour when you resize ou refresh movie list.
Why do you want change this like this ?is it possible when export to xml, the customfields tag is put in the movie attribute?
export look like this:
<movie field="info" ><customfield cfield="info"> </movie>
wish:
<movie field="info" cfield="info"> </movie>
I could but change xml database format is not a good idea if it is not really necessary
.Soulsnake.
thats because for the "Template for dynamic web page view version 4.0" . in the layout files you can easily add fields to view in html instead rewriting the supported (java)scriptsoulsnake wrote:Hi all,
Why do you want change this like this ?is it possible when export to xml, the customfields tag is put in the movie attribute?
export look like this:
<movie field="info" ><customfield cfield="info"> </movie>
wish:
<movie field="info" cfield="info"> </movie>
I could but change xml database format is not a good idea if it is not really necessary
Soulsnake.
It's amazing the work you're doing soulsnake. I'm really grateful.
A little mistake, though. Numbers aren't sorted out in proper order. As you can see in this picture, http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4323/sinttuloowb.png
For example, 127 Hours is placed before 50 First Dates, although 50 < 127. It's no big deal, but maybe there's a way the system could take into account the whole number instead of deciding just according to the first?
A little mistake, though. Numbers aren't sorted out in proper order. As you can see in this picture, http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4323/sinttuloowb.png
For example, 127 Hours is placed before 50 First Dates, although 50 < 127. It's no big deal, but maybe there's a way the system could take into account the whole number instead of deciding just according to the first?
Titles are sorted like text.
Indeed since a few years many programs and Windows use what is called "natural sort" and detect the numbers in the text.
I was lazy to program that myself, and I didn't found something ready-to-use to include in the program (though that I didn't search that much, and since a few years elapsed it is maybe easier to find that now)
Indeed since a few years many programs and Windows use what is called "natural sort" and detect the numbers in the text.
I was lazy to program that myself, and I didn't found something ready-to-use to include in the program (though that I didn't search that much, and since a few years elapsed it is maybe easier to find that now)
soulsnake, I still have the same issue I had with the official 4.1 release, namely the slow updating of movie data after running a script. Here are some details:
~ two 36MB .amc files with the same 10000+ titles and identical data, one for each version of AMC;
~ exactly the same script settings (IMDb);
~ exactly the same program preferences (where applicable);
~ no custom fields whatever in 4.1.1.
The only difference I can think of is that 3.5.1 is a normal install whereas 4.1.1 beta is simply unpacked from the .rar archive.
I ran the script on two movies in each version of AMC:
- update time in version 3.5.1: one second;
- update time in latest 4.1.1 beta: 5.5 seconds!
This is five times longer while working with exactly the same data. This cannot be normal.
Since updating is near instantaneous in a much smaller .amc file (I tried one with 405 titles), it seems version 4.x has a problem handling large databases. Version 3.51 evidently doesn't have this problem. Any ideas?
~ two 36MB .amc files with the same 10000+ titles and identical data, one for each version of AMC;
~ exactly the same script settings (IMDb);
~ exactly the same program preferences (where applicable);
~ no custom fields whatever in 4.1.1.
The only difference I can think of is that 3.5.1 is a normal install whereas 4.1.1 beta is simply unpacked from the .rar archive.
I ran the script on two movies in each version of AMC:
- update time in version 3.5.1: one second;
- update time in latest 4.1.1 beta: 5.5 seconds!
This is five times longer while working with exactly the same data. This cannot be normal.
Since updating is near instantaneous in a much smaller .amc file (I tried one with 405 titles), it seems version 4.x has a problem handling large databases. Version 3.51 evidently doesn't have this problem. Any ideas?
Hi, it is very strange.
Can you send me 'pref.xml' file in AMC 3.5.1/4.1.1 and if possible upload your database on rapidshare or other file host to make some tests with it.
This will be really easier for me to find the problem.
Two more questions:
- If you refresh movie list (F5) in AMC 3.5.1/4.1.1, how long it takes ?
- Do you have make groups in movie list ?
Thanks.
Soulsnake.
[EDIT]
I think I have found what it takes so many time...
I have tried with a virtual database of 13000 movies to find it.
And the winner is: the reload of values in all combo-box (fields with a list of values) after execution of scripts.
The reload of values in all combo-box after execution of scripts have been forgotten in AMC 3.5.1 that why this version run faster.
I have changed the way the reload of values in all combo-box is done and I think AMC 4.1.1 run as fast as in AMC 3.5.1 now.
I will release an update with this fix very soon.
Thanks.
Soulsnake.
Can you send me 'pref.xml' file in AMC 3.5.1/4.1.1 and if possible upload your database on rapidshare or other file host to make some tests with it.
This will be really easier for me to find the problem.
Two more questions:
- If you refresh movie list (F5) in AMC 3.5.1/4.1.1, how long it takes ?
- Do you have make groups in movie list ?
Thanks.
Soulsnake.
[EDIT]
I think I have found what it takes so many time...
I have tried with a virtual database of 13000 movies to find it.
And the winner is: the reload of values in all combo-box (fields with a list of values) after execution of scripts.
The reload of values in all combo-box after execution of scripts have been forgotten in AMC 3.5.1 that why this version run faster.
I have changed the way the reload of values in all combo-box is done and I think AMC 4.1.1 run as fast as in AMC 3.5.1 now
.I will release an update with this fix very soon.
Thanks.
Soulsnake.
soulsnake, check your mailbox. I sent the files in a .rar archive to your gmail address you posted in one of the Help topics. Let me know if you received them.
As for the two questions: F5 takes about the same in both versions of the program (1-2 seconds though I have CPU at 98% right now), and no, I have no groups in movie list
As for the two questions: F5 takes about the same in both versions of the program (1-2 seconds though I have CPU at 98% right now), and no, I have no groups in movie list