RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/14/2007 7:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Toed Having been offline for almost 3 months I'm now back and reading throught the threads now. So I hope you forgive this late idea about the 'flyout' feature. If someone already suggested this please ignore this. Limiting the view to a maximum of 9 units is not a problem. The sorting order of the units is a small issue also but air/land first is preferable. However it would be nice if, while the flyout is displayed, you could use the mousewheel to scroll up and down in the flyout through all the units in the hex. Seems like the intuitive way to look through a stack on a computer. In my opinion there is no need for a scrollbar to show the presence of more units since you see the hex with the number of units displayed. I think that this is a good idea. Also, having used it a bit, and having used Vassal these last times quite a lot too, I think that this would be better if the flyouts simply appeared when the mouse stand still for 1 second over an hex. The 1 second may be adjustable, but it is not a problem playing Vassal to have the popup appear after 1 second of still mouse, it is even a blessing.

Trigati -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/19/2008 2:47:01 PM)
I'm excited for the release of this game, and looking through the thread, it's been interesting to see the evolution of the counter and board graphics, and the flyouts and such. Quick question though. How easy will it be to 'mod' elements of the GUI (specifically the country flags)? I appreciate the need for a 'non-offensive' German Flag, but I've always replaced it with the historical one when playing WWII games like Hearts of Iron, CEAW, and so on.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/19/2008 7:19:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trigati I'm excited for the release of this game, and looking through the thread, it's been interesting to see the evolution of the counter and board graphics, and the flyouts and such. Quick question though. How easy will it be to 'mod' elements of the GUI (specifically the country flags)? I appreciate the need for a 'non-offensive' German Flag, but I've always replaced it with the historical one when playing WWII games like Hearts of Iron, CEAW, and so on. Well, I am not sure. I have a standard bitmap image for each major power flag and you can replace them - theoretically[:)]. For some inexplicable reason, the German flag required different code to stretch it to the desired size in one of its appearances in the game[:(]. I use 3 different size flags and they all behave the same way for 2 of those cases. But for the 3rd, the German flag processes differently - something about the way the bitmap waas created I guess[&:]. I messed with it for a day trying to get it to behave like the others - but eventually gave it up as a waste of time and wrote two lines of additional code just for the German flag in the 1 case. So, you can try replacing them (some or all), but I promise nothing. This falls under the title "WIF game modification kit", which is not part of my system requirements for MWIF product 1.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/12/2008 10:52:57 PM)
I just reviewed and made a couple of changes to the keyboard commands. All of these have matching menu items in at least one of the pull down menus from the Main Form. But there are many other menu items that do not have assigned keys. Anyway, here is a current list. I'll work on writing up the numeric keypad and cursor keypad commands (arrow keys, Home, Page Up) next. [image]local://upfiles/16701/B175EF747C004D07B1F08BB005B993D6.jpg[/image]

marcuswatney -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/12/2008 11:11:58 PM)
On the matter of flags, can I ask why you chose to use the Japanese navy flag to show control, rather than the national flag? It does look very odd in the heart of China!

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/12/2008 11:15:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney On the matter of flags, can I ask why you chose to use the Japanese navy flag to show control, rather than the national flag? It does look very odd in the heart of China! Flags were determined by group consensus on the forum. I went with what the forum members preferred. There is a very old thread (more than 1 year ago so you would have to set the filter on the forum page to go beyond 365 days to find it) where all the different flags were reviewed. Several alternatives were proposed for many countries.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 1:17:23 AM)
Here is an item that the beta testers wanted clarified, so I wrote it up for the Player's Manual. I have written code for all but 4 of these status indicator settings. [image]local://upfiles/16701/6A4FA8A724A04CE8B556825F42E7E815.jpg[/image]

Zorachus99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 2:14:32 AM)
What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 3:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply? Out of supply means your arms aren't long enough to reach the supplies. [Too far away.] Isolated means the enemy can chop your arms off if you try to reach a supply source. [Surrounded by Enemy ZOCs.]

Zorachus99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 3:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply? Out of supply means your arms aren't long enough to reach the supplies. [Too far away.] Isolated means the enemy can chop your arms off if you try to reach a supply source. [Surrounded by Enemy ZOCs.] Isn't the net effect identical?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 5:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply? Out of supply means your arms aren't long enough to reach the supplies. [Too far away.] Isolated means the enemy can chop your arms off if you try to reach a supply source. [Surrounded by Enemy ZOCs.] Isn't the net effect identical? No. Isolated units do not get reorganized automatically during the end-of-turn stage. Out of supply units do.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 10:32:37 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply? Out of supply means your arms aren't long enough to reach the supplies. [Too far away.] Isolated means the enemy can chop your arms off if you try to reach a supply source. [Surrounded by Enemy ZOCs.] Isn't the net effect identical? No. Isolated units do not get reorganized automatically during the end-of-turn stage. Out of supply units do. _____________________________ Steve Doesn´t that depend on if you are playing with option 47 or not?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 10:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 What's the difference between Isolated and Out of Supply? Out of supply means your arms aren't long enough to reach the supplies. [Too far away.] Isolated means the enemy can chop your arms off if you try to reach a supply source. [Surrounded by Enemy ZOCs.] Isn't the net effect identical? No. Isolated units do not get reorganized automatically during the end-of-turn stage. Out of supply units do. _____________________________ Steve Doesn´t that depend on if you are playing with option 47 or not? Yes, it depends on usnig an optional rule (I do not remember them by number).

Mziln -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/14/2008 7:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf 2.4.3 Out of supply Land units A land unit that is out of supply: • can’t attack; • must be turned face-down if you move it (even by naval transport or air transport); • defends with 1 combat factor if it is a face-down division (see 22.4.1) or non-white print unit, 3 if it is a face-down white print unit (face-up units defend with their normal strength); and • option 13: can’t provide HQ support (see 11.16.3). Out of supply land units still have their normal movement allowance and still exert a ZOC. Aircraft units Aircraft units that are out of supply can only fly rebase missions. Naval units If you move a naval unit that is out of supply, subtract 1 from its movement allowance (not range) and turn it face-down (or put a CP used marker on it if it is a convoy point) when you fi nish its move (even at sea). Option 13: (emergency HQ supply) Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value. You must announce the HQ providing emergency supply before any unit can gain this benefit. Turn the HQ face-down after the land combat step. An HQ may not provide emergency HQ supply during the impulse(s) it is surprised. quote: ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf ~ Isolation 13.7.3 13.7.3 Mutual peace Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units). Both the nationalist and communist Chinese must agree before China can come to peace. A neutrality pact is then in place between the parties. Players can also agree to reach a peace between a major power and a minor country. In that case, they return to their pre-war borders (exception: see Soviet border rectifi cation 19.6). Option 50: (USSR-Japan compulsory peace) If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one. In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them. quote: ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf 13.5 Final reorganisation step Turn all face-down units face-up (including units that have stayed at sea and units that are out of supply). Option 47: (Isolated reorganization) You can only turn a unit faceup if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit. You trace the path in the same way as a basic supply path, including via overseas supply paths (see 2.4.2) except that it can be of any length.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/19/2008 8:32:39 PM)
I am working on the Naval Review Summary form (NRS) presently. As background for that form, which is in the next post, here is an example of the Naval Review Details form (NRD), which is mostly complete. 1 - The NRD form shows all the units in one port or sea area. You can scroll through all the sea areas/ports using the 8 buttons (First et al). 2 - You can filter which units are shown using the check boxes (multiple ccan be checked - cumulative). 3 - Passing the cursor over a unit refreshes the unit data panel at the top for the unit under the cursor (here it is the Nimrod carrier air unit). 4 - Clicking on the Map button centers the detailed map on the port/sea area being examined (here it is the port Plymouth - part of very top title line). 5 - Clicking on Naval Summary brings up the companion form Naval Review Summary (NRS), which I will discuss in the next post. 6 - This form is half a screen wide so the NRS, Task Force Details, or Task Force Summary forms can be shown simultaneously alongside the NRD. That is what the Transfer Units button is there for: to transfer selected units from a port/sea area to a task force. What remains to be done for this form is: 7 - Place the units that are being carried alongside of their transports. For example, the Nimrod is being transported by the Hermes and should be to the right of the Hermes. 8 - The vertical scroll bars are missing for each of the unit columns. [image]local://upfiles/16701/94F339FF13B64E1FBF11EC96152D54E4.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/19/2008 9:00:33 PM)
2nd and last in series. This is what I see when I am developing the Naval Review Summary (NRS) form. You will have to use your imagination, but when the players see it, this will look a lot like the previous post of the NRD form. Comments: 1 - The purpose of this form is to display summary statistics for ports (up to 8 visible at a time) and sea areas (up to 8 visible at a time). 2 - The blank portions above each column will contain the name of the port/sea area. These are centered over each column. It's a little unusual way to present column headers, but I think it will work pretty well once people get used to it. 3 - The weird column headers are because I am very tight on space, but I wanted to show as many ports/sea areas simultaneously as possible. 4 - You can use the 8 buttons to scroll the ports and sea areas (separately) to see different ports/sea areas. 5 - You can filter the summary statistics using the check boxes. 6 - The Empty check box is so the form does not eliminate ports/sea areas from the form even though there are no units to display. This can occur often when the filters are being used, and when restoring saved configurations (see below). 7 - The Sections row of the sea area statistics will simply list the sections that are occupied. For example, 034 would indicate there are units in section 0, 3, and 4. The cargo section wil count land and air units (e.g., 3L,2A) 8 - Clicking on the Naval Details button brings up the companion NRD form alongside of the NRS form. 9 - The Save/Restore button is for saving the current configuration of selected ports and sea areas for restoration later. What I intend to do is let the player 'lock' a column to a specific port/sea area. That will be done by right clicking on the column - as a toggle switch to lock/unlock each column. Once a column is locked, it remains in its current position and scrolling through other ports/sea areas will not affect it. Essentially, instead of 8 columns being scrolled, only 7 will be scrolled. Or less than 7, if you lock more than 1 column. Up to 7 columns can be locked at the same time. Locking ports is separate from locking sea areas, so you could have 14 columns locked. Now the reason behind locking columns is so you can create your own configuration. You might want a 'config' of the Med sea areas with the ports therein. Or another of the North Sea and the various ports that can get ships into that sea area. Perhaps a set of sea areas that constitute a pipeline from North America to Great Britain, for the CW positioning its convoys, or the Axis positioning its subs. The Murmansk run? The US supply line to the South Pacific? What I would like to have, as a player, is the ability to save a half dozen or more configurations for the NRS form and call them up each time I am considering naval operations. Comments? Suggestions? There is zero code behind this form presently, so this is the best time to say what you like and dislike. [image]local://upfiles/16701/D0558EC98A444D8B8C2626D4D6F990C3.jpg[/image]

lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/19/2008 10:00:34 PM)
Looking at the form I would want to be able to left click on each ship that I want to move together to some sea box. This is similar to the selection process in CWiF but with better visibility of the ships. I would also want to be able to load a TRS etc from within this box. The units in hex form in MWiF is not as clear as it was in CWiF as I see it. Lars

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/19/2008 10:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin Looking at the form I would want to be able to left click on each ship that I want to move together to some sea box. This is similar to the selection process in CWiF but with better visibility of the ships. I would also want to be able to load a TRS etc from within this box. The units in hex form in MWiF is not as clear as it was in CWiF as I see it. Lars You are referring to the Details form, I assume. I translate this as a "multiple select". I want to do someting similar using the Flyouts, which has even larger units depictions (zoom 6). The NRD form uses zoom 5. For the Flyouts, I am thinking of selecting only one unit at a time, but for naval units, using the NRD, multiple would be much better. One way of doing that would be to create a 'temporary' task force/moving stack. The player could use the Transfer Unit button to take units out of the NRD and place them into the TF Details form. I need to think about this some more fo rthe easiest way to handle loading units. When in port, no units are transported except carrier air units on carriers.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/5/2008 6:11:10 PM)
Screen layouts now have the extension SLY. Until now I have been using a single default screen layout but I want to change that. Specifically, I want a set of default screen layouts that depend on the player's monitor(s) configuration. For example, M1W1024H768.SLY - 1 monitor 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high. M1W1290H1024.SLY M2W1280H1024W1280H1024.SLY - 2 monitors with the same dimensions (1280 by 1024); the primary is on the left and the secondary is on the right. M2W1024H768W1280H1024R.SLY - 2 monitors, the primary is 1024 by 768, the secondary is 1280 by 1024; the R at the end means that the primary is on the right instead of the left. Could you provide me with your layout(s)? The beta testers have a wide variety, including one with 3 monitors, but I believe some portable computers have unusual dimensions for screen resolution. My goal here is to set up default layouts for all the different forms (their sizes and locations) for the different hardware configurations.

meisterchow -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/5/2008 10:38:46 PM)
Two monitors: Left is 1280 x 1020; Right is 1680 x 1050. Right is primary. My wife gave me a 22' widescreen flat panel for Christmas. [8D]

warspite1 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/5/2008 10:52:46 PM)
Mine is just a single screen - 1280 x 1024

Norman42 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/5/2008 11:40:57 PM)
1 screen 1280x1024 @70hz

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 6:04:41 AM)
I have been reworking the naval combat screens. Here is the revised Surprise Point usage screen. The surprising (left) and surprised (right) units are at the top, with their summary statistics underneath. This is a port attack on Riga, as shown in the small map view (lower right). The center bottom lists all the possible uses for surprise points, in descending order by where they appear in the sequence of play. The possible choices are enabled - here it is just to "increase your naval combat column". On the bottom left are how points have already been spent. Those choices can be Undone. Left center show the results without using surprise points (original) and the current results (in red). After creating this screen shot I changed the font for the last to bold so it is easier to read. [image]local://upfiles/16701/41AFB615EA014D4AB0D861546C7CB11A.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 6:12:43 AM)
And here is what teh Naval Combat Results form looks like. The top shows possible targets. placnig the cursor on a target brings up the large image of the counter and refreshes the unit data under the list of target units. You can see that the result was 3 Destroyed and 2 Aborted (from teh previous post, I had clicked on using the last 2 surprise points to increase the naval combat column). I have already gone through all 5 of the target selections, with the Axis picking the 1st, 3rd, and 5th targets while the Allies picked the 2nd and 4th. The Marat had a defense factor of 5 but the die roll was 3 so it was destroyed. The same fate occurred to the Kirov. The 2nd battleship did better, rolling an 8 against a defense factor of 5, and merely being damaged instead of destroyed. Since this was a port attack, the abort results are simply translated into disorganized. No movement is required. === I have to check, but I believe the Marat should have only been Bottomed, not Destroyed. The reporting of the results at this level of detail is new code. [image]local://upfiles/16701/979C7F34735A4660B0074537BFC94020.jpg[/image]

Manack -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 7:58:17 AM)
Perhaps you should say "Potential Axis/Allied Losses" rather than "Expected" on the Surprise Point usage screen?

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 10:05:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I have to check, but I believe the Marat should have only been Bottomed, not Destroyed. The reporting of the results at this level of detail is new code. Right. But maybe you did not activate that optional rule ?

IKerensky -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 12:20:08 PM)
I am using a 22" with 1650x1080 resolution... at home. at work it is 15" with 1280x1024. About the port/sea summary, it is quite hard to read what port/sea you are currently looking in the windows top bar. Couldn't the information be mentionned again near the selections buttons ? Also the difference between an enabled and a selected button doesnt look so evident... perhaps a greyed on text on the unenabled buttons would be more clear...

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 1:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Manack Perhaps you should say "Potential Axis/Allied Losses" rather than "Expected" on the Surprise Point usage screen? Yeah, this bothers me too. The problem is that what is being shown are the Naval Combat results, from the table. But the effect of those results depends on the die roll against the selected unit's Defense #. On the one hand we know that there will be 3 'Destroyed' and 2 'Aborted' die rolls, but we do not know what the ultimate effect on the target units will be. Nor do we know which units will be the target units. Sort of hard to say all that with 3 or 4 words. The CRT results are definite - no probability involved. The effect on the target units depends on several things. For instance, the same unit might be targeted more than once. Instead of Potential, maybe Maximum? Or saying something about Risk?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 1:45:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KERENSKY I am using a 22" with 1650x1080 resolution... at home. at work it is 15" with 1280x1024. About the port/sea summary, it is quite hard to read what port/sea you are currently looking in the windows top bar. Couldn't the information be mentionned again near the selections buttons ? Also the difference between an enabled and a selected button doesnt look so evident... perhaps a greyed on text on the unenabled buttons would be more clear... I agree that the sea area/port title is both important and hard to read. It can take up a lot of room (some labels are quite long) so I would hate to show it twice, since space is at a premium. I am reluctant to change the title bar font, since it is used everywhere, and usually it is not all that important. One solution is to cut a unit off the bottom of each column. A painful decision, but perhaps warranted. === I am not concerned about the enabled versus disabled buttons. It is actually pretty easy to see the difference on the screen, although the screen shots may make that not so obvious. And the worst case is that the player clicks on a disabled button and nothing happens.

IKerensky -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/17/2008 2:15:44 PM)
Fair call :) I found why the current 3D button looks weird for me : They have the heavy border top and left in place of bottom and right, like I am used for them to be... Make them look like they are encrusted into the windows while the button you cant punch are at the windows surface... Effect is emplified because the windows and units have the standard border shades... Looking at the submarine big picture with the 2 buttons under in the last pic make my brain go all round and round trying to figure what is up and what is down... Definitely unimportant...

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625