I’ve edited my original post after realizing that the answer to my question was right in the Maxscript reference under the Visual Maxscript category. I ALWAYS check the referene extensively before asking a question, but this time for some reason that fell through the cracks. Sorry! My original post was this:
I’ve found VMS to be a great tool for learning how to script UI elements, but for actual development it seems rather impractical for these reasons:
I can’t just hit a button and have the script generated for me. I have to save the .vms file as an .ms and then open that new file, and copy and paste it into my working script. So any changes I make, I have to first save as .vms, then .ms.
When VMS generates UI event handlers, sometimes the ( ) around the code aren’t indented correctly. This adds an extra step to the already cumbersome process described in item #1 above.
I’m curious how you experieced MaxScripters use VMS in your development workflow (or IF you do.)
Thanks!
You can edit a script in VMS by pressing F2 but make a copy of your script before because most of the time it will change more than you need. What I do is copy the UI part in a new script and edit it that way, which is a bit cumbersome but it does the job…
There is a tutorial on scriptspot.com which describes more on the VMS subject. Here is the link:
http://www.scriptspot.com/Tutorials/ChrisJohnsonVisualMXS/VisualMaxscriptTutorial.htm
I am curious on what’s new in MAX 8 regarding the VMS. Anyone who got their copy of 8 has any insight?
Yeah, I noticed when I hit ‘F2’ to edit en existing rollout definition, upon saving, a few characters are deleted from my original script right after the ending “)” in the new definition. That means if I had code after the rollout definition, it starts to be deleted character by character every time I edit and save the definition in VMS.
I find VMS very helpful for laying out the UI…it’s much better than, say, drawing a mockup in paint and then measuring the coordinates of each element. I just throw things together in VMS, export to MS, and copy/paste into my regular code
Isnt that deletion at the end part of a fix extension wahooney wrote awhile back?
eek
Yes it does
I don’t know why Autodesk didn’t fix that in Max 8… I’m sure they must’ve noticed it by now!
I seem to remember that AME are no longer developing VMS, so I wouldn’t expect any updates whatsoever. I always found it to be a little more hassle than it was worth, and I didn’t manage to develop a good workflow using it.
J¬
Purely hard coding rollouts is a bit too much of a mission for me. And the automatic layout (using across: and all that lot) is unreliable at best.
If I read the online manuals correctly AME are planning on improving the scripting user interfaces in max, perhaps a new VMS is part of that? Besides, discreet didn’t even write VMS it was bought/borrowed/whatever from Asylum Software. Maybe they want something over which they have more control, adapting third party code isn’t always the most pleasant or easy of things to do.
I seem to remember a big conversation at the descreet board about someone else developing the code since the original developers were no-longer interested but I don’t know what happened. If AME are developing something new then as long as it’s more reliable the VMS then great!
I found it more trouble than it’s worth. You get use to writing you own rollouts pretty quick when you do itall the time. I use templates and cut and paste fromt things I’ve written before
Cheers,
Josh.
I think this is not entirely correct.
Simon Feltman was Max Developer at Discreet around the time he developed the VMS for R4. His own company was Asylum Software. I assume he wrote the VMS as a side project and Discreet licensed his code to make it part of the release.
After googling for “Simon Feltman Asylum”, I found this:
http://microsoft.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-msn.exe?A2=ind0003a&L=mfc&T=0&F=&S=&P=2859
It is dated March 6th, 2000, just when VMS was written…
Of course, Simon might have left Discreet shortly before writting VMS, in that case you would be technically right…