I’ve tried other visual AI dev tools like Bolt or Lovable, but I feel like the walled-garden approach they’ve taken is a bit limiting in terms of how I personally want to work.
As someone who comes from design but is actively using Cursor and Windsurf, I’ve very much been missing that Webflow-like ability to just click, edit, and see things getting updated in real-time, while always knowing I can drop into the code for more complex stuff.
It looks like you’ve nailed this intersection. The fact that you’re taking what is basically a visual layer on top of the code, plus the inclusion of the in-browser code editor (and I assume terminal access for the sandbox eventually?), is a huge step in the right direction and feels like it could really cover some of that gap I want between design and dev.
I’m definitely keeping an eye on this, and when you’re able to allow import existing projects I'll be onboard.
It's been a challenge to find the right balance for this – on one hand you want to give people who know what code is an easy way to navigate their codebases and be more effective, and on the other hand you want to help people who have never coded before create something they really love.
The visual layer has a lot of polish left to do to be a perfect design tool experience, but we're getting there.
I think for most designers they don't love being limited by traditional web "structures" like flexbox, but that's also how things can get built and scale properly. AI is very good at generating flexbox styled websites but when a designer jumps-in to an AI generated website it's like picking up a complex project someone else has architected. If you know how websites work it isn't super intimidating, but if you don't then it can feel very overwhelming.
One of the main reasons we decided to not have layers and styles immediately visible on the left and right sides of the app was because people who have never jumped into a design tool mentioned they were overwhelmed with the UI. Moving these tools into a "secondary" interaction layer cleared up the interface but made it easy for pro-users to still find them.
I'm excited to keep refining this editor experience so when you're able to import projects you have all of the tools you'd expect from a visual editor for your codebase.
Thanks for the kind words! We definitely want to restore the ability to use Cursor/Windsurf through SSH as soon as possible.
There is terminal access on the right of the bottom bar. It just has 1 CLI connection right now, along with the long runner server but you can run commands through there or through the AI.
This should be your demo video on your home page instead of what you have. I didn't understand how you were different to a typical no-code tool until I saw the entire process of creating a react app, running it and actually changing stuff on the Onlook console.
Very impressed! In the past when I've asked chatGPT for styling / design stuff, it makes technically correct CSS, but with terrible design sense. This made a functional color palette, appropriate decorators, and cohesive style -- great!
Few points:
- At first it generated a bunch of code and got a build error. But the "Fix error" button did indeed fix it.
- In Preview mode I can't scroll. Works fine in Design mode.
- I can't seem to actually see any element's code; all I have is a basic layout.tsx file
- Is there pricing information anywhere? I did not see any.
> In Preview mode, I can't scroll. Works fine in Design mode.
It's actually attempting to scroll the inner web page in Preview mode. Perhaps this is not a great/obvious form factor since we've had others be confused about this. I think showing a scroll bar in design mode or animate when overscrolled in Preview mode to show it's attempting to scroll could help.
> Is there pricing information anywhere? I did not see any.
There's no rate limit or pricing for the web beta at the moment but for the desktop app the pricing is shown in-app. We have a WIP pricing page that you can find in code but needs some work before we release it.
> I can't seem to actually see any element's code; all I have is a basic layout.tsx file
This seems wrong, I will take a look. The code should be highlighted in the editor when you click on an element. It's possible that it put all the code in layout.tsx but there should be a page.tsx in there.
I'm super fired up about this new version of Onlook for two reasons:
1) It makes it so much easier to jump in and start designing and
2) We have a much more intuitive, simplified toolbar control for styles that makes it even easier to craft your designs.
This has been the third major version of Onlook, and each time has felt like a leap towards solving the gap between design and development. Our first product was a Chrome Extension, the second was a downloadable desktop app (Onlook Studio), and now we're releasing Onlook for Web.
For all of the designers and non-technical people that just need a way to share their ideas with their engineering colleagues, the beta of this web version is a great start. But our goal continues be to truly solve the gap, so we'll be adding tons of great features that will let you go beyond ideation to actual implementation on real codebases.
Some known bugs:
– Sometimes generations don't "apply" after they're loaded: Kiet is working on a fix for this, but try clicking on the blank-template and re-prompting your change.
- It can take a long time to load the AI chat: We're working on making this faster (or at least a little more entertaining).
- Sometimes nothing shows up in the chat: Try going back to the homepage and re-prompting. This is something we want to make smoother.
– Sometimes styles don't apply: Let us know! We're trying to catch the edge cases.
Congrats with the launch! I think you’re tackling a core problem space - many people seem to go to v0 and just copy, paste from there. The drag and drop is really great. Curious - why did you go with Electron instead of Tauri? I imagine that would’ve significantly decreased your bundle size. Congrats again!
We considered Tauri but went with Electron because we needed the "frame" (the part inside the user window) to behave consistently across OS. This is not something that Tauri guarantees, so we went with Electron for Chromium instead. I
n hindsight, it still would not have helped with the other desktop app based issue like friction of setting up so I think we made the right call.
A large percentage of the bundle comes with shipping Bun as a fallback runtime for users who didn't have node installed. This could've been done better as well but it would still be 300MB+ bundle size.
It's more to keep scope small until we feel confident about the experience.
Theoretically, we can scale to other declarative frameworks, but we'd have to implement a parser for each. We're sticking with React/Next for now since that is the majority of use cases with plans of supporting other frameworks when the experience feels good enough.
There's a comment under about Svelte support as well (which is what the initial prototype supported) and I gave a similar answer there.
Maybe this is just a naive opinion it I do not get why you must target a framework at all VS just pure CSS/HTML and later allow people to convert into their framework.
I feel that at the design stage a framework should not be discussed, since that is an implementation detail.
Why we're in this topic, does anyone know a recommended AI-way of converting Figma design into a working and responsive HTML? Or, even better, a napkin sketch?
There are a lot of Figma plugins to do that. Anima or Builder.io (not builder.ai) is one I've used before. I'd like to add a simple plugin for us to use if we ever have the capacity.
I would say we're much more focused on the infinite canvas and Figma-like experience. We also do not build on top of WebContainer [1], which is commercially restrictive and closed source [2].
The web version sounds like naturally the next step to removing friction and making it quicker to see the value of it. Love that you can visually edit post creation.
Are you thinking most people will start their projects here or bring an existing one in to edit on? Maybe a github app/integration you could open a supported repo directly in onlook to run it?
Yes, import is on the roadmap. We're already supporting importing on the desktop app so will need to have a way to get the code into the sandbox. My plan is to have
1. Import from GitHub - We clone and do a best effort setup
2. Run an npx upload script on the local repository
3. Drop a bundle directly through an upload UI
What's up with the recent trend of YC being open source? Is it an ideology thing, a sign of confidence, or is it really that consumers prefer open source software?
> What's up with the recent trend of YC being open source?
To be fair, we were open source before we got into YC. YC didn't mandate any business model, and the vast majority of our batchmates (empirically, 90%) were closed-source.
> Is it an ideology thing, a sign of confidence, or is it really that consumers prefer open source software?
I personally think it's a competitive advantage for distribution, differentiation, and attracting talent. Also as an engineer, I just like OSS.
I think this is a cynical take on OSS. As a for-profit company, we have already commercialized the desktop version and plan on commercializing the web version as well.
I don't think this is unhealthy for open-source, and I hope we're transparent about that. The code is still free and self-hostable under Apache 2.0.
Hey esafak,
Honestly, we became even more coupled to Next.js to provide a better experience. I think Svelte will keep getting deprioritized until we feel the experience is as good as it can get.
I know it's a bad answer, but I don't want to keep promising a feature that doesn't seem likely at this point. Will update the issue to be a won't fix for the time being.
Was it too boring or what was disappointing about the result?
Sonnet 4 has been producing much more reliable outputs, but it's always a challenge to push it to get really creative. I think there are probably great ways we could be prompting for more creative output, but something we'll need to keep experimenting with for sure.
As a designer passionate about UX/UI or product design and vibe coding, I truly believe Onlook has the potential to be the tool that finally brings designers' dreams to life. I'm excited to see how Onlook can expand what's possible for designers and give us greater creative freedom. You have my full support!
To be honest, I've been using Figma for a long time, but Figma hasn't reduced my workload a lot. So if we approach this from a workflow perspective rather than just as a tool, I would place more value on Onlook.
It's hard to simply say right or wrong, but changes are definitely happening right now.
Sure thing, but it would be great to be able to see examples of the app on a mobile device when visiting the site. Otherwise I have zero incentive to open it on my other device. My 2 cents is don't bank on being mysterious. Show us the goods without making us sign up, change devices, or work for it.
I personally loathe this trend of making us login after giving us a prompt box.
Just show us the app, your github does this well! Otherwise your lost in the sea of AI marketing pitches that overwhelm us daily.
It's honestly not so much being mysterious as much as the UI is not usable on mobile. I don't think we'll support mobile for a while given the extra design constraints that it imposes.
> I personally loathe this trend of making us login after giving us a prompt box.
I do too, and am very aware of how HN/other engineers feel on this topic. It's mostly a way to get around abuse and access issues. We have a pattern moving forward for guest accounts, but couldn't prioritize it in time for this launch.
I think not needing to sign in is a good way to kick the tire which helps growth as well. So point taken to prioritize this higher. Thank you :)
On the desktop app you'll be able to strip the IDs by stopping the run. There's no option for that yet on the beta web version. Let me know if that works :)
I think there are some issues with the apply model – Kiet's working on a solution for it.
In the meantime, can you try asking Onlook again? I know it's inconveniant.
If nothing loads on the page, try clicking the text on the page, then prompting from the chat asking it to create a part or section of the website or thing you've prompted. Sometimes there's just a ton of code that gets rendered and doesn't apply, so shortening the length of the output manually with a smaller prompt may help.
Same thing, I'm on https://beta.onlook.com/, not sure if I need to be prompting elsewhere, but anything I enter into the text box, it doesn't actually seem to do anything, I don't see any code or designs, the page remains the same.
Just as a "for your consideration," how would anyone have known without you weighing in on a HN thread?
I don't know what it is about frontend apps that makes them assume that every request is 200 OK or that every Promise is always .then(response) but as a consumer of the web it drives me batshit, and as a developer of enterprise apps it makes me the bad guy in PRs
Anyway, I'm not exactly wagging my finger at you but rather if this thing you are shipping is designed to help generate apps for people, it would be stellar if the generation included at bare minimum a // TODO watch out for errors
If you use our Desktop Product – https://onlook.com/download - you can import your projects there and use a lot more features like Layers, Components, Pages and more.
We don't have the ability for you to import existing repos for this beta product just yet, but it's something we'll be enabling in the coming weeks for sure.
Ah that's unfortunate – been having some issues with the rendered code being applied.
Can you try it again and see? Or, click on the page, then add your screenshot to the chat with your prompt.
Honestly doing 3D may be a bit tricky in Onlook but super curious to see if you get it to work. It works just like a normal browser would, but the complexity of knowing how to setup a 3D site like that may be too advanced for Onlook.
Aren't there logs at your end you could examine? Or why not try this prompt yourself?
I will note that I had a similar result with a far simpler prompt....
Or, let's turn this around --- could you provide a page which documents a successful prompt/project? If you'll let me know the link of that, I'll try it, then once I know this works for my credentials, will try again with the effort I was making.
I hate that all these ai apps use tailwind and react, i get that it's the thing right now but it's so bloated and requires an entire server to do anything and even if you statically output it requires the sun and moon to do so
This is awesome!
I’ve tried other visual AI dev tools like Bolt or Lovable, but I feel like the walled-garden approach they’ve taken is a bit limiting in terms of how I personally want to work. As someone who comes from design but is actively using Cursor and Windsurf, I’ve very much been missing that Webflow-like ability to just click, edit, and see things getting updated in real-time, while always knowing I can drop into the code for more complex stuff.
It looks like you’ve nailed this intersection. The fact that you’re taking what is basically a visual layer on top of the code, plus the inclusion of the in-browser code editor (and I assume terminal access for the sandbox eventually?), is a huge step in the right direction and feels like it could really cover some of that gap I want between design and dev.
I’m definitely keeping an eye on this, and when you’re able to allow import existing projects I'll be onboard.
Congrats on the launch!
Thanks so much!
It's been a challenge to find the right balance for this – on one hand you want to give people who know what code is an easy way to navigate their codebases and be more effective, and on the other hand you want to help people who have never coded before create something they really love.
The visual layer has a lot of polish left to do to be a perfect design tool experience, but we're getting there.
I think for most designers they don't love being limited by traditional web "structures" like flexbox, but that's also how things can get built and scale properly. AI is very good at generating flexbox styled websites but when a designer jumps-in to an AI generated website it's like picking up a complex project someone else has architected. If you know how websites work it isn't super intimidating, but if you don't then it can feel very overwhelming.
One of the main reasons we decided to not have layers and styles immediately visible on the left and right sides of the app was because people who have never jumped into a design tool mentioned they were overwhelmed with the UI. Moving these tools into a "secondary" interaction layer cleared up the interface but made it easy for pro-users to still find them.
I'm excited to keep refining this editor experience so when you're able to import projects you have all of the tools you'd expect from a visual editor for your codebase.
Thanks for the kind words! We definitely want to restore the ability to use Cursor/Windsurf through SSH as soon as possible.
There is terminal access on the right of the bottom bar. It just has 1 CLI connection right now, along with the long runner server but you can run commands through there or through the AI.
Just merged a PR for that should be live in a few mins https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook/pull/1963
We have a chance to take back SaaS and make it all local.
This is great.
Next we need to win the foundation model game and steal it away from the hyperscalers.
Great job!
But they are in the browser...?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RjFBUkVfy1E
This should be your demo video on your home page instead of what you have. I didn't understand how you were different to a typical no-code tool until I saw the entire process of creating a react app, running it and actually changing stuff on the Onlook console.
Ditto. I came here after watching the other video they have on their Docs and I ended the video with even more questions.
This is good feedback. I updated the Get Started video here. Thank you :)
https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook/pull/2009
Great feedback – we definitely should update our homepage content to have a more useful video that goes from 0 to 1 entirely.
Thanks for mentioning it!
Also, maybe changing more than just a single button? If I’m going to be impressed I need to see the hard things.
Very impressed! In the past when I've asked chatGPT for styling / design stuff, it makes technically correct CSS, but with terrible design sense. This made a functional color palette, appropriate decorators, and cohesive style -- great!
Few points:
- At first it generated a bunch of code and got a build error. But the "Fix error" button did indeed fix it.
- In Preview mode I can't scroll. Works fine in Design mode.
- I can't seem to actually see any element's code; all I have is a basic layout.tsx file
- Is there pricing information anywhere? I did not see any.
> In Preview mode, I can't scroll. Works fine in Design mode.
It's actually attempting to scroll the inner web page in Preview mode. Perhaps this is not a great/obvious form factor since we've had others be confused about this. I think showing a scroll bar in design mode or animate when overscrolled in Preview mode to show it's attempting to scroll could help.
> Is there pricing information anywhere? I did not see any.
There's no rate limit or pricing for the web beta at the moment but for the desktop app the pricing is shown in-app. We have a WIP pricing page that you can find in code but needs some work before we release it.
> I can't seem to actually see any element's code; all I have is a basic layout.tsx file
This seems wrong, I will take a look. The code should be highlighted in the editor when you click on an element. It's possible that it put all the code in layout.tsx but there should be a page.tsx in there.
Hey HN! I'm Daniel, the other half of Onlook.
I'm super fired up about this new version of Onlook for two reasons:
1) It makes it so much easier to jump in and start designing and
2) We have a much more intuitive, simplified toolbar control for styles that makes it even easier to craft your designs.
This has been the third major version of Onlook, and each time has felt like a leap towards solving the gap between design and development. Our first product was a Chrome Extension, the second was a downloadable desktop app (Onlook Studio), and now we're releasing Onlook for Web.
For all of the designers and non-technical people that just need a way to share their ideas with their engineering colleagues, the beta of this web version is a great start. But our goal continues be to truly solve the gap, so we'll be adding tons of great features that will let you go beyond ideation to actual implementation on real codebases.
Some known bugs:
– Sometimes generations don't "apply" after they're loaded: Kiet is working on a fix for this, but try clicking on the blank-template and re-prompting your change.
- It can take a long time to load the AI chat: We're working on making this faster (or at least a little more entertaining).
- Sometimes nothing shows up in the chat: Try going back to the homepage and re-prompting. This is something we want to make smoother.
– Sometimes styles don't apply: Let us know! We're trying to catch the edge cases.
Thank you all for your help and patience as we work through this early preview. Please join us on our Discord [https://discord.gg/ZZzadNQtns] and report any bugs or issues on GitHub repo: https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook
Congrats with the launch! I think you’re tackling a core problem space - many people seem to go to v0 and just copy, paste from there. The drag and drop is really great. Curious - why did you go with Electron instead of Tauri? I imagine that would’ve significantly decreased your bundle size. Congrats again!
We considered Tauri but went with Electron because we needed the "frame" (the part inside the user window) to behave consistently across OS. This is not something that Tauri guarantees, so we went with Electron for Chromium instead. I
n hindsight, it still would not have helped with the other desktop app based issue like friction of setting up so I think we made the right call.
A large percentage of the bundle comes with shipping Bun as a fallback runtime for users who didn't have node installed. This could've been done better as well but it would still be 300MB+ bundle size.
Does wails not achieve this using webview2? Go is surely better than electron here..
This is great! Exactly the sort of tool, I have been waiting for!
One question is why the coupling to Next/React? I feel a design tool should not be coupled to a web framework at all.
It's more to keep scope small until we feel confident about the experience.
Theoretically, we can scale to other declarative frameworks, but we'd have to implement a parser for each. We're sticking with React/Next for now since that is the majority of use cases with plans of supporting other frameworks when the experience feels good enough.
There's a comment under about Svelte support as well (which is what the initial prototype supported) and I gave a similar answer there.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44127653
Yeah I saw that comment.
Maybe this is just a naive opinion it I do not get why you must target a framework at all VS just pure CSS/HTML and later allow people to convert into their framework.
I feel that at the design stage a framework should not be discussed, since that is an implementation detail.
Why we're in this topic, does anyone know a recommended AI-way of converting Figma design into a working and responsive HTML? Or, even better, a napkin sketch?
There are a lot of Figma plugins to do that. Anima or Builder.io (not builder.ai) is one I've used before. I'd like to add a simple plugin for us to use if we ever have the capacity.
- https://www.animaapp.com/figma
- https://www.builder.io/c/docs/builder-figma-plugin
Very cool, and thanks for also exposing us to Unicorn Studio! https://www.unicorn.studio/
Super sick product!
Congrats. How does your product differ from https://bolt.new ?
Also open source https://github.com/stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy
I would say we're much more focused on the infinite canvas and Figma-like experience. We also do not build on top of WebContainer [1], which is commercially restrictive and closed source [2].
1. https://webcontainers.io/enterprise
2. CodeSandbox is also not open source, but I'm planning on adding other providers/local container options
Nice, thanks for the insights. Will give it a try
The web version sounds like naturally the next step to removing friction and making it quicker to see the value of it. Love that you can visually edit post creation.
Are you thinking most people will start their projects here or bring an existing one in to edit on? Maybe a github app/integration you could open a supported repo directly in onlook to run it?
Yes, import is on the roadmap. We're already supporting importing on the desktop app so will need to have a way to get the code into the sandbox. My plan is to have 1. Import from GitHub - We clone and do a best effort setup 2. Run an npx upload script on the local repository 3. Drop a bundle directly through an upload UI
Insane work. For sure the middle ground between Figma and Cursor thats been missing.
Happy to be powering Fast Applies in Onlook!
https://morphllm.com
What's up with the recent trend of YC being open source? Is it an ideology thing, a sign of confidence, or is it really that consumers prefer open source software?
> What's up with the recent trend of YC being open source?
To be fair, we were open source before we got into YC. YC didn't mandate any business model, and the vast majority of our batchmates (empirically, 90%) were closed-source.
> Is it an ideology thing, a sign of confidence, or is it really that consumers prefer open source software?
I personally think it's a competitive advantage for distribution, differentiation, and attracting talent. Also as an engineer, I just like OSS.
Ensures your beta software gets free updates until it gets commercialized by private equity 3 years later.
I think this is a cynical take on OSS. As a for-profit company, we have already commercialized the desktop version and plan on commercializing the web version as well.
I don't think this is unhealthy for open-source, and I hope we're transparent about that. The code is still free and self-hostable under Apache 2.0.
Any progress on the API that will enable you to support Svelte? https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook/issues/625
Hey esafak, Honestly, we became even more coupled to Next.js to provide a better experience. I think Svelte will keep getting deprioritized until we feel the experience is as good as it can get.
I know it's a bad answer, but I don't want to keep promising a feature that doesn't seem likely at this point. Will update the issue to be a won't fix for the time being.
Thanks, very polite way of explaining the benefits of focus for producing something quality.
It is hard to be not building the right tool for everyone - but trying to build a tool that's right for everyone is even harder than that.
Tried it once, wasn't very happy with the results. Honestly I was expecting a big jump from Sonnet 4 in terms of design quality.
Was it too boring or what was disappointing about the result?
Sonnet 4 has been producing much more reliable outputs, but it's always a challenge to push it to get really creative. I think there are probably great ways we could be prompting for more creative output, but something we'll need to keep experimenting with for sure.
As a designer passionate about UX/UI or product design and vibe coding, I truly believe Onlook has the potential to be the tool that finally brings designers' dreams to life. I'm excited to see how Onlook can expand what's possible for designers and give us greater creative freedom. You have my full support!
Do you think Onlook could supersede Figma in terms of usability? This seems to me, a complete design outsider, like a Figma meets VS Code.
To be honest, I've been using Figma for a long time, but Figma hasn't reduced my workload a lot. So if we approach this from a workflow perspective rather than just as a tool, I would place more value on Onlook. It's hard to simply say right or wrong, but changes are definitely happening right now.
Thanks for the super early feedback and support, homebodify :)
Anytime!
Looks interesting but for a design focused service to not be "Ready for mobile" yet isnt a great look.
fair point. we didn't really intend for the app to be used on mobile yet since it's like using Figma on mobile.
Sure thing, but it would be great to be able to see examples of the app on a mobile device when visiting the site. Otherwise I have zero incentive to open it on my other device. My 2 cents is don't bank on being mysterious. Show us the goods without making us sign up, change devices, or work for it.
I personally loathe this trend of making us login after giving us a prompt box.
Just show us the app, your github does this well! Otherwise your lost in the sea of AI marketing pitches that overwhelm us daily.
It's honestly not so much being mysterious as much as the UI is not usable on mobile. I don't think we'll support mobile for a while given the extra design constraints that it imposes.
> I personally loathe this trend of making us login after giving us a prompt box.
I do too, and am very aware of how HN/other engineers feel on this topic. It's mostly a way to get around abuse and access issues. We have a pattern moving forward for guest accounts, but couldn't prioritize it in time for this launch.
I think not needing to sign in is a good way to kick the tire which helps growth as well. So point taken to prioritize this higher. Thank you :)
The feedback loop between our users, mockups, and working react code is so tight with Onlook, it's fully replaced our Figma subscription
Question – is there a way to remove the selector ids from the generated code? We currently need to manually strip these from cursor
On the desktop app you'll be able to strip the IDs by stopping the run. There's no option for that yet on the beta web version. Let me know if that works :)
Doesn't seem to be working for me, I see the loading spinner on the right arrow button briefly then it reverts to the arrow and does nothing.
I think there are some issues with the apply model – Kiet's working on a solution for it.
In the meantime, can you try asking Onlook again? I know it's inconveniant.
If nothing loads on the page, try clicking the text on the page, then prompting from the chat asking it to create a part or section of the website or thing you've prompted. Sometimes there's just a ton of code that gets rendered and doesn't apply, so shortening the length of the output manually with a smaller prompt may help.
Something we definitely need to fix though
Same thing, I'm on https://beta.onlook.com/, not sure if I need to be prompting elsewhere, but anything I enter into the text box, it doesn't actually seem to do anything, I don't see any code or designs, the page remains the same.
It's rate limited by CodeSandbox.
In case someone else sees this thread, this is now resolved with the CSB team.
The limit was just raised – Go ahead and try it again and let me know if it works!
Just as a "for your consideration," how would anyone have known without you weighing in on a HN thread?
I don't know what it is about frontend apps that makes them assume that every request is 200 OK or that every Promise is always .then(response) but as a consumer of the web it drives me batshit, and as a developer of enterprise apps it makes me the bad guy in PRs
Anyway, I'm not exactly wagging my finger at you but rather if this thing you are shipping is designed to help generate apps for people, it would be stellar if the generation included at bare minimum a // TODO watch out for errors
Just updating that this is now fixed. Thank you for the feedback :) https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook/pull/1979
This is a fair point and our fault for not handling that case correctly. We will handle these errors better in the future.
TRPCClientError: Failed to create sandbox: 0 of 40 sandboxes remaining.
Aw, shucks.
The limit was just raised – Go ahead and try it again and let me know if it works!
We got rate-limited but are in contact with the team to get more sandboxes!
Hang-tight!
While I have you here. Can you explain to me how do I import my existing repo into this?
You've got us here all day haha
If you use our Desktop Product – https://onlook.com/download - you can import your projects there and use a lot more features like Layers, Components, Pages and more.
We don't have the ability for you to import existing repos for this beta product just yet, but it's something we'll be enabling in the coming weeks for sure.
Logged in w/ my Github account (same as my username here), but nothing happens with the prompt:
>create a site for creating, editing, and previewing G-code in 3D using blockly.
and a screengrab of https://www.blockscad3d.com/editor/
Ah that's unfortunate – been having some issues with the rendered code being applied.
Can you try it again and see? Or, click on the page, then add your screenshot to the chat with your prompt.
Honestly doing 3D may be a bit tricky in Onlook but super curious to see if you get it to work. It works just like a normal browser would, but the complexity of knowing how to setup a 3D site like that may be too advanced for Onlook.
The button shows a wait state briefly, then nothing.
We were running into rate-limit issues with Codesandbox. We just increased our limit, so go ahead and try it again and let me know if it works!
It has moved on to the next window and it is spitting out code in the chat window.
Then, it ultimately left up a window which says "Welcome to your new app" and displayed the prompt:
>create a site for creating, editing, and previewing G-code in 3D using blockly.
but I don't see anything beyond that.
Could you hit retry on the message or add a new message? Sorry for the issue
Aren't there logs at your end you could examine? Or why not try this prompt yourself?
I will note that I had a similar result with a far simpler prompt....
Or, let's turn this around --- could you provide a page which documents a successful prompt/project? If you'll let me know the link of that, I'll try it, then once I know this works for my credentials, will try again with the effort I was making.
Is this FULLY open-source, or are key features locked behind a paywall?
There's nothing hidden besides OAuth configuration that's not replicable as code such as Github App and Google OAuth but not by intent.
We still provide a guest login for dev mode in the database seed script to get around that.
If this is fully open source, how do you intend to make money?
I hate that all these ai apps use tailwind and react, i get that it's the thing right now but it's so bloated and requires an entire server to do anything and even if you statically output it requires the sun and moon to do so
Your criticism is more about what the bell curve of human nature finds usable
Seems we're being rate-limited by Codesandbox. Sorry for the inconvenience if you're not able to start a session.
Got the team to increase the limit. We're back!
doesn't work at all, hugged to death?
Heyo we were running into rate-limits with Codesandbox, but we just upped the limit so try giving it another shot and let me know if it works!
What issues are you running into? Does it take a while to load or where do you get stuck?