New Project: Contrast Mediaplayer

**pplante** · 06-22-2004, 01:42 AM

Just want to give you all an update on the status of this project.

Today I finished the core framework and began work on the actual interface by modifying the model format I've written to auto generate bounding boxes to use with object picking that will go in tomorrow. Once the object picking is complete the project will take another week before a simple media player demo is made availible.

So far the system supports any sound file that FMOD offers. A complete list is availible at: http://fmod.org/fmodfeatures.html#sece.

Since it uses a custom model format this requires the use of a special exporter for Milkshape 3d if you wish to model new buttons or objects for the interface. The skin system will then be used to specify what models belong to what interface object. And since the entire system will use a module api for expansion, the skinning system will also support the loading of custom designed interfaces for your module.

So for instance if you created a new playlist manager, you could use the skinning system to either integrate this with the media player or design your own interface. Its quite expansive actually.

Hopefully the interface is as simple to use as I hope it will be because I'd love to see this running in other peoples cars someday.

But enough rambling for now, I must sleep now for I have work in 6 hours.

**the_new_guy** · 06-22-2004, 09:50 AM

You sure plug your webhosting site enough

Let's see some screen shots.

**the_new_guy** · 06-25-2004, 08:39 AM

So... Three days now, any updates/screenshots?? I'm anxious to see this!

**god_of_cpu** · 06-25-2004, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by pplante

The interface would feature 3d objects with which the user would interact with

Although, I'm sure it will look real cool, you do not want to have any objects that the user has to interact with. If you really wanted to make a non-distracting interface you would find a way to have user's perform complex actions without them looking at the screen. i.e. instead of having a 3d ball covered with song names that you have to rotate until the song you want to play is visible you would simply have a horizontal motion made on the screen correspond to changing to another song and depending on the magnitude of the motion, you select a different song. This inturn coudl rotate the ball to the selected song, but would not effect which song was selected and therefore not require the user to look at the screen to use it.

I don't see how making a 3D interface could be anymore usable especially when when using a 2D input device (touch screen) to control it. One reason why 3D interfaces are sometimes thought to be better is because they offer a perspective that is closer to real life which user's have the most experience manipulating things in. However, by doing a 3D interface controlled by a 2D input space, you simply force the user's to learn not only how to use the 2D input device, but additionally how to use this input device in a 3D space which may not be a hard thing for you to grasp, but most certainly will not be a natural thing for most users.

The other reason for using 3D interfaces is to be able to display more information in a smaller space and give user's a visual que of how to access a particular function with less used functions in the background. This may work on a desktop where the number of functions that need to be performed are numerous and the primary task requires looking directly at the screen. However, in a car, where the visual resources are taken up by other critical functions, like driving, it certainly is not a good idea to add yet another visual axis to put things in that would require the user to study the screen for periods of time to find the proper interface. Rather the better way, in this case, is to require a more expert interface that requires the user to learn the layout and location of functions to use them and offer large touchable areas to navigate to them.

**liquid_smoke** · 06-25-2004, 11:02 AM

I for one think this is a great idea, i live, breath and eat polygons

A 3D interface wont be any more dificult to interact with than a 2d interface and there really arent any features that make either one better to use than the other. 3D is just cooler looking. 3D has the possiblitly to be extremely harder for someone to use if done the wrong way, but so can 2D stuff. My only advice would be to not give the end user (not skin makers) control over the camera or direct object interaction other than selecting and everything should be cool.

What engine are you using, is this custom, if so what does it support and is milkdrop the only option for your exporter, would you consider making the exporter work with XSI or 3DSMax ? Or maybe another free or lowcost basic 3d package since not everyone would be able to get xsi or max to do skins.

Do you have a site up for this project yet?

**ccsnet** · 06-25-2004, 05:12 PM

Does this mean you'll be using my 'Contrast' skin ?

T

**pplante** · 06-25-2004, 05:55 PM

What contrast skin?

And probably not considering its all 3d models

**ccsnet** · 06-25-2004, 06:15 PM

http://www.mediaengine.org/index.php?skins&view=23

Terran

**mobileh1** · 06-25-2004, 06:20 PM

Computers, on the whole, use 2D interfaces and I can work them just fine; women on the other hand are typically 3D and their interfaces are nearly impossible to figure out, for example, I have tried to get my wife to go into stand-by mode for the longest time.