The question breaks down into two:
Is it even possible to create a Windows app with an opaque (not fully transparent) background that can be overlayed on top of other sources in OBS? Any examples of such apps?
What I mean is:
If yes to (1), then what GUI frameworks (preferably C++) can be used to reach this? I know for sure that WinUI and WPF can't do it.
Dear GUI, Sciter, Cegui?
Can anyone provide some insight on how to "duplicate" an iTunes style window in Windows? Specifically I am looking for the following features:
1) rounded window
2) top and bottom toolbars
3) rounded text fields
I'm currently attempting a bit of cross-platform development with Real Studio and while I've discovered the mechanism by which to perform the rounded windows in OS X (declare method call to HIWindowSetContentBorderThickness or SetContentBorderThickness), I cannot find in the MSDN how to do similar things in Windows. Obviously Apple accomplished it in actually writing iTunes for Windows. Perhaps they wrote custom controls from the ground up.
SIDENOTE: I found this article from a few years back that briefly discusses it (http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.454369.12), but this is pretty much all I could find.
Even if I can't duplicate it exactly, some direction on which Windows libraries might contain the functionality I need to do it "manually" would be nice. Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated.
There's no API for doing Apple-style rounded corners, but there are lower-level APIs for creating windows (both frame windows and controls) of any shape you want.
I don't use RealStudio, but I believe it allows you to access both .NET and native Win32 APIs, so:
If you're using .NET Windows.Forms, read Shaped Windows Forms and Controls in Visual Studio .NET. It's written for VB7, but should be easy to translate to your favorite language.
If you're using the raw Win32 API, there are at least two ways to do this. The simplest, but most limited, is to call the SetWindowRgn API, which sets the shape of your window to anything you can create as an HRGN. But that probably won't cut it for you. You don't want jagged edges; you want smooth curves, with alpha-blended borders, and maybe shadows. (At least that's what Apple does.) The Layered Windows API is the way to do this. It allows arbitrary shapes (even changing on the fly, if you use UpdateLayeredWindow—although you don't need that feature to emulate iTunes), alpha transparency, and complicated hit testing. Since the original article is very out of date, and doesn't cover all of the functionality, also see Layered Windows for the current documentation, which has links to the references.
there is a third party controls that do what you want. It works on Mac & Windows.
http://www.madebyfiga.com/fgsourcelist/
works well.
sb
I need to display a full screen DirectX window from a Qt app.
Although directX isn't supported directly anymore by Qt this should be easy enough - just override QWidget, provide your own paintEvent() and set a WA_PaintOnScreen attribute.
But when the app is full screen DirectX is grabbing all the mouse and keyboard inputs - so the only way out of the app is ctrl-alt-del.
ps. Even if I wrote DirectX keyboard handlers I would still have to find a way of creating the correct Qkeypress event to pass to Qt.
Has anyone done this? Or is there a simple way to tell DirectX not to grab the keyboard?
To my knowledge Direct3D does not get the keyboard. Your problem more likely arises from the fact that Direct3D in full-screen is quite a different beast. Things like GDI (which Qt may well use to do rendering) do not work by default, the run-time hooks lots of bits of information. That info then, presumably, never manages to get to Qt. The options you have are to re-implement Qt to render using Direct3D (Lighthouse project?) or to use a pseudo full screen. This is usually done by creating a window that has a client area the same size as the screen and then positioning it correctly.
The latter would probably be the simplest solution ...
There was an attempt to get a D3DWidget kind of thing in Qt 4.3-4.5 or something like that, but it never was stabilized or approved and later even removed.
Perhaps indeed lighthouse is an option (with a medium sized amount of work, basically links OS/DX stuff to Qt stuff) or you can take a look at the old direct3D code in older Qt branches. I never used it, and it probably isn't intended to use with recent versions of Qt, but it's better than nothing.
I'm from a Windows programming background when writing tools, but have been programming using Carbon and Cocoa for the past year. I have introduced myself to Mac by, I admit it, hiding from UI programming. I've been basically wapping my OpenGL code in a view, then staying in my comfort zone using my platform agnostic OpenGL C++ code as usual.
However, now I want to start porting one of my more sophisticated applications to Mac OS.
Typically I use the standard Visual Studio dockable MDI approach, which is excellent, but very Windows-like. From using a Mac primarily now for a while, I don't tend to see this sort of method used for Mac UIs. Even Xcode doesn't support the idea of drag and drop/dockable views, unfortunately. I see docked views with splitter panels, but that's about it.
The closest thing I've seen to the Visual Studio approach is Photoshop CS4, which is pretty nice.
So what is the general consensus on this? Is there are more Mac-like way of achieving the same thing that I haven't seen? If not, I'm happy to write a window manager in Cocoa myself, so that I can finally delve in an learn what looks like an excellent API.
Note, I don't want to use QT or any other cross-platform libraries. The whole point is that I want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app, leave the Windows app looking like a Windows app. I always find the cross-platform libraries tend to lose this effect, and when I see a native Mac UI, with fancy Cocoa transitions and animations, I always smile. It's also a good excuse for me to learn Cocoa.
That being said, if there is an Open Source Cocoa library to do this, I'd love to know about it! I'd love to see how someone else achieves this, and would help smooth the Cocoa learning curve.
Cheers,
Shane
UPDATE: I forgot to mention a critical point. I support plugins, which can have their own UI to display various plugin specific information. I don't know which plugins will be loaded and I don't know where their UI will live, if I don't support docking. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, specifically: How do I support a plugin view architecture, if the UI can't change? Where do I put the plugin views?
Coming from a Windows background, you feel the need to have docking windows, but is it really essential to the app? Apple's philosophy (in my opinion) is that the designer knows better than the user how things should look and work. For example, iTunes is a pretty sophisticated app, but it doesn't let you change the UI around, change the skin, etc., because Apple wants to keep it consistent. They offer the full view, the mini player, and a handful of different viewing options, but they don't let you pull the source list off into a separate window, or dock it in other positions. They think it should be on the left, so there it stays...
You said you "want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app", and as you pointed out, Mac apps don't tend to have docking windows. Therefore, implementing your own docking windows is probably a step in the wrong direction ;)
+1 to Ken's answer.
From a user perspective unless its integral to the app like it is in Adobe CS or Eclipse i want everything as concise as possible and all the different options and displays out of my way so i can focus on the document.
I think you will find with mac users that those who have the "user skill" to make use of rearranging panels will in most cases opt for hot key bindings instead, and those who dont have that level of "skill" youre just going to confuse.
I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.
One thing that's common among many Mac apps is the ability to hide all the chrome and focus on your content. That's the point behind the "tic tac" toolbar control in the top right corner of many windows. A serious weakness of many docking UIs is that they expect you to have the window take up most of the screen, because the docked panels can obscure content. Even if docked panels are collapsable, the space left by them is often just wasted and filled with white space. So, if you build a docking panel into your interface, you should expect it to be visible most of the time. For example, iTunes' source list is clearly designed to be visible all the time, but you can double-click a playlist to open it in a new window.
To get used to the range of Mac controls, I'd suggest you try doing some serious work with some apps that don't have a cross-platform UI; for example, the iWork apps, Interface Builder or Preview. Take note of where controls appear and why—in toolbars, in bottom bars, in inspectors, in source lists/sidebars, in panels such as IB's Library or the Font and Color panels, in contextual HUDs. Don't forget the menu bar either. Get an idea of the feel of controls—their responsiveness, modality, sizing, grouping and consistency. Try to develop some taste—not everything is perfect; just try iCal if you want to have something to make fun of.
Note that there's no "one size fits all" for controls, which can be an issue with docking UIs. It's important to think about workflow: how commonly used the control would be, whether you can replace it with direct manipulation, whether a visible indication of its state is necessary, whether it's operable from the keyboard and mouse where appropriate, and so forth. Figure out how the control's placement and behavior lets the user work more efficiently.
As a simple example of example of a good versus bad control placement and behavior in otherwise-decent applications, compare image masking in OmniGraffle and Keynote. In OmniGraffle, this uses the Image inspector where you have to first click on an unlabeled button ("Natural size") in order to enable the appropriate controls, then adjust size and position away in a low-fidelity fashion with an image thumbnail or by typing percentages into fields. Trying to resize the frame directly behaves in a bizarre and counterintuitive fashion.
In Keynote, masking starts with a sensibly named menu item or toolbar item, uses a HUD which pops up the instant you click on a masked image and allows for direct manipulation including a sensible display of the extent of the image you're masking. While you're dragging a masked image around, it even follows the guides. Advanced users can ignore the HUD entirely, just double-clicking the image to toggle mask editing and using the handles for sizing. It should be easy to see, with a few caveats (e.g. the state of "Edit Mask" mode should be visible in the HUD rather than just from the image; the outer border of the image you're masking should be more effectively used) Keynote is substantially better at this, in part because it doesn't use an inspector.
That said, if you do have a huge number of options and the standard tabbed inspector layout doesn't work for you, check out the Omni Group's OmniInspector framework. Try to use it for good, and hopefully you'll figure out how to obsess over UI as much as you do over graphics now :-)
(running in slow motion, reaching out in panic) Nnnnnoooooooo!!!!!
:-) Seriously, as I mentioned in reply to Ken's excellent answer, trying to force a "Windowsism" on an OS X UI is definitely a bad idea. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Windows UI is third-party developers inventing new and inconsistent ways of presenting UI, rather than being consistent and following established conventions. To a Mac user, that's the sign of a terrible application. It's that way for a reason.
I encourage you to rethink your UI app's implementation from the ground up with the Mac OS in mind. If you've done your job well, the architecture and model (sans platform-specific implementation) should clearly translate to any platform.
In terms of UI, you've been using a Mac for a year, so you should have a pretty good idea of "the norm". If you have doubts, it's best to post a question specifically detailing what you need to present and your thoughts on how you might do it (or asking how if you have no idea).
Just don't whack your app with the ugly stick by forcing it to behave as if it were running in Windows when it's clearly not. That's the kiss of death for an app to Mac users.
Is there a way to get textboxes, labels and other wpf controls in xna that supports margins, etc that flexes for window size?
You might give CeGui a shot.
If your game needs advanced GUI capabilities, CeGui# might just hit the nail on the head for you. Marketese aside, this is a seriously good GUI library with Buttons, ListBoxes, Scrollbars, ProgressBars, Sliders, ComboBoxes and more.
To access the Xna version you'll need to check out the latest copy from the project's SVN and load up CeGui-XNA.sln.
There are other options listed in this thread, but I have no idea how well any of the others work (and it probably isn't a comprehensive list anymore).
The official GUI systems FAQ thread in the XNA Forum:
What GUI systems are there for the XNA framework?
CEGUI# is powerful, but it doesn't support the Xbox 360 (eg. its design doesn't include responding to game pad input) - a major overhaul would be required to refit it to be usable with something else than mouse and keyboard.
Not exactly what you're looking for, but here is an example of getting winforms GUI elements mixed in with XNA 3d content:
http://creators.xna.com/en-US/sample/winforms_series1
Check out SQUID: http://www.ionstar.org/
It's a really clean, fast, and engine independent UI system. I've worked with it extensively and really enjoy using it. The download includes sample code for XNA 3.1, Truevision3D, and SlimDX.
It is possible to embed an XNA game in a WPF form (google: XNA in WPF) if you target only Windows system. You will then have access to all the controls available in XPF for your 2D GUI.
If you also target Xbox 360 or Zune; you must make your own GUI library :(