WinCustomize Forums
I remember setting off the shadow option of a skin and now that I want to enable it again for another skin I just can't figure it out and where... A little help from someone ?
Add shadows where? Start menu, windows? What skin do you want to add shadows to?
The feature to add shadows under windows, menus, the taskbar and start menu.
The same kind that allows you to add blur under the GUI, option that I'd really like Stardock to improve seriously, for Windowsblind 8 maybe ??
If a blur option is indeed a good option, one that mimic the skin is by far The solution that should exist ! I mean the blurred area to be the exact form of the skin not a rectangular one the size of the skin.
I'm quite sure to have played with it or is it that I'm already that old ?? ..smile....
Startmenue-toppart-extra settings 
Edit: In Skinstudio that is...
Thank you for your input, unfortunately that's not it !
Let's test it... If I open the top Sirus skin I use every day, perpixel vertical frames doesn't show any shadow but when I enable it in WB, tadaa... Shadow everywhere !
Where is that switch ? Stardock ? Anyone ? Come on !!!
I think Sirus comes with the shadow as part of the graphic...... I don't think it's added by SkinStudio. I could be wrong of course...... B[]
Hmmmm.... looking again, maybe not. BUT, if you open the skin in SKS and go to Edit per pixel frames, Vista/7 shadows, and click on Top Shadow, and then Extra Settings, then disable the "add shadows to the skin", that seems to get rid of them on the windows............ 
In SKS: Open the skin. Then...
And the winners are... BoXXi, Xiandi, Thanks to you both !
Unfortunately, if the blur option in windowblinds is as barely efficient as a potato on a bike, the shadow option is just.. a toothpaste made of maggots, leaving bits and pieces between the teeth !
Come on stardock, the shadow isn't even the size of the blur, nor the shape... !?!
Is it possible for the customers (and the skinners) to acquire a mature product, one to, at least, be the sofware PC's still lack. One that offers creativity to express itself along options well thought, implemented and documented ? Is it too much to ask for ?
Of course, one could say that knowing that, building a skin is only creating it from outside in, but isn't that the exact opposite of how things should work, i.e sets of program directives allowing people to express themselves, not people having to squeeze in whatever possibilities they've been offered ?
The Vista shadows option will use the fixed OS shadows unless the skin defines custom shadow images. This is not a bug and the choice to use the option is one for the skin author. If the skin author wants radically different shadow shapes then the best solution is to make the shadow part of the window frames themselves. Then they have complete control.
Likewise the blur function is limited by the OS which cannot handle anything other than a rounded rectangle for blur on titlebars and frames. Complex shapes are unlikely to ever be supported with blur on frames, though they are supported on the startmenu and this will automatically line up with the skin graphics.
Unfortunately we have to work within the limitations of the OS and while it is frustrating there is little we can do about some limitations.
Sorry, I don't get it !
You're saying that creating a blurred image the exact size or form of the skin under the skin itself is an OS limitation ? I thought coding, making software was part of the whole computer thing. Nor, nand,,, I don't remember the assembly instructions of bolean memory operations...
I thought that piecing, I don't know if that word exists but isn't english language more flexible than.. french for example,, putting pieces together and well was the goal for any enterprising entity...
Of course, defining one's own shadow is a better solution but again a software that offers multiple shadow control, color, size, direction for example, let people focus on creativity rather than complaying with what's offered or at least put the whole concept of customisation in a fast forward mode. The GUI we know, the "limitation of the OS" are relics of what nearly will be the PC/Apple age. The ergonomy of what we are to use for still a few years has to be adjusted to power, put to practicle use.
Why are we talking about that again ? Ah yes,, why people tend to keep not seeing the big picture. Is this some old curse casted upon the free enterprise, disabling it from achieving what she was intended for ?
As of march 2012, millions of PCs are sold without any 'real', neat and efficient GUI. If we substract to this number of PCs those bought by fans, we are left with some big number of potential customers. We all know that microsoft has better things to do than making this a part of the OS and they do it ! Windows 8, the futur of mac osx are the killers of skinstudio/windowblinds if you don't act swiftly unless you are planning some moves on the new active tiles desktop (in no way related of what has to be done on the 'old' underneath one) !
Time to change applications's behavior, for example : what the hell have I to deal with what (should) do an application in a non actual transactional state ? Or put simpler, why an application I'm not using at a precise moment in a multi tasks environment uses such desktop's space (and please, don't remind me of the minimize button or take a look at your desktop (the real one, not the metaphoric windows one)) ? One of the many things to be adressed by WB 8 or 9 or.. never.
There is a choice by the skin author to use the OS standard shadows provided by Windows or to use their own created shadows. But everything has limitations. If you have an abnormally large border with large round edges. Use custom shadows it would be the better option.
This thing with shadows this and that to me is a bit confusing. I don't know how it works in SkinStudio with WB's or DX for that matter but I would assume that control of shadow placement, read lighting, would be more or less the same. In sysmetrix its global and you have the option to use it or not and adjust the distance and the size, in pixels, within layers or for the whole object. Am I way off base with this? Dunno.
To explain it, basically you can choose whether Windows deals with the shadows or not. If not then you have to define each side of the window, each side has 2 frames 1 active 1 inactive. Think of it as a layer below the window, you set margins to handle the dealings of each corner of the window frame. I think the best blind to examplify this would be Corporate by DanilloOc for Stardock.
What I mean is that poor coding is never the answer !
You guys are talking about shadow managed by windows or WB but what I'm saying is that I don't get it WHY, when managed by windows (perpixel/top shadow/extra settings/enabled or disabled), there is that space between the skin and the shadow as I assume that windows might have some coordinates to draw the shadow from.
Look at that skin (why some can add links and I can't ???) :
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/snap18.jpg/
that's a standard skin, called Aero and I've enabled blur and shadow on it. As you can see, margins on top aren't equal to the bottom's, same deal for left and right. As for the shadow one can clearly see that something is wrong here...
That skin is not Aero. Aero is the default Windows Vista / 7 skin.
The OS shadows feature can only paint from the edge of the window border and so if the skin has transparency around the borders then a gap would be visible. If you look closely that skin already has shadows as part of the borders so obviously there would be a problem. There is no reason why anyone would turn on that setting when they already put shadows in the frame images!
As I have said before this is not a bug in WindowBlinds and neither are the blur limitations. These are OS level limitations that relate to how the DWM handles things and I am sorry but these limitations will remain. For obvious reasons I am not about to explain the full details on this so you will have to take my word on this. You must remember that WindowBlinds is very different to a single widget window which can be in full control of how it does things. A window has contents thats not owned by WindowBlinds and so we have to coexist with it.
If you want more advanced shadow shapes then you have to make them part of the border images rather than using the shadow sections and if you have an complex shape for your borders then blur is not an option for you.
I think she meant AeroS Neil. That looks like JJ.Yings master skin which yes he adds the shadows to the frames himself. I think it's fine the way Windowblinds handles shadows. You either make the frames without a gap and let windows handle the shadow or make your own (I prefer the latter because you can make a much softer, less bold shadow which is more smooth and better looking)
Indeed I meant AeroS and my point isn't the way WB should handle shadows, i.e no option at all and let windows handle them, I too thinks it's fine the way it is having the option to make my own. What I'm saying is that the actual handle isn't quite right...
Let me take a consumer point of view.
AeroS provides shadows but they are so tiny, discreet, that I decide, as a customer trying options given by the software I've bought, to use the windows shadows option on top of this skin. Or better, underneath. Of course, I understand that the result wouldn't, couldn't, maybe or not, be perfect : gaps, overlapping, etc...
I do agree with you, AeroS is a master skin. It is well designed, light, fast, aesthetic and it's a fact that it's parts are flawless, in terms of graphical conception and in compliance with WB parameters. I mean, no distorted, oversized/undersized graphic items. They're all 'sized' by their integration in skinstudio. The last/least particularity could be that it was designed for an earlier WB version but and so, cannot provide any information/graphic part/parameter not intended to.
So why is it that the shadows, the skin itself and the area/coordinates managed by windows from wich the OS will draw the shadowed region aren't aligned, justified ?
Is it because the skin was designed by itself thus wasn't drawn from outside in (from the area/coordinates of the shadowed region managed by windows) ? If so, fine, let's talk about blur. (sorry) 
but if it's not, something is obviously wrong with the placement of the skin inside the region managed by windows.
About blur, there is one thing I'd like you to be more precise.
When you say "A window has contents thats not owned by WindowBlinds and so we have to coexist with it" I assume you do refer to the area used on the desktop to display an application window defined by origins and 'vectors'. This area may be shadowed and inside it uses zones used by the application to draw OS controls such as boxes, buttons, scrollbars, titlebars, etc... WB on top of the application manage to substitute the graphic parts, the application does it's thing and windows manage the whole in it's own space. Am I right ?
If I am, what is the setback disabling me, as a programmer, from :
1- Intercepting the application requirements
2- Use the skin as a template to process memory manipulations, create the exact region under the skin (control parameters should be great, undersizing, oversizing, ...), take a snapshot from the wallpaper, blur it
3- Drawing the skin
?
As I have mentioned before we will not get into discussions on how the software works.
The OS shadows feature will only work on skins that do not have transparent areas in their frames. There is nothing wrong with the placement of the shadows, they are positioned around the frames. Even if a pixel is transparent it is still part of the frames.
Of course, sorry, I just tought we were having the same goal, field of interest... Obviously we don't.
While it is always nice to find someone who is interested in the software, unfortunately I simply do not have the time to get into long discussions over it as I am deeply involved in a number of projects at any one time.
You can be sure that if it ever becomes possible to enhance the blur or shadow capabilities that we will do so and that our plans for a WB8 in the future will include many skinning enhancements, though probably not in this area.
We are always interested in hearing if there are areas which people would like to see enhanced of course.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.