Alternate control panel layout

[Kinophile]

The current info/orders panel is pretty rough on the eyes - a lot of stylistic, proportion and information flow errors.

No consistency in vertical break-up, no consistency in panel size/proportions/relations, no consistency in button design.

 

 

Here is a first draft alternate:

 

Simplification of information flow

Information flows from the left, Action sits on the right

i/e/ READ --> WRITE

Keeps orders/usage to the right hand side

Scales consistently tighter in parallel with level of information and priority of action within the game

Starts harmonising panel and button styles

 

Here are the original and alternate side-by-side.

Edited August 2, 2015 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

First, welcome to the Forum

 

The current info/orders panel is pretty rough on the eyes - a lot of stylistic, proportion and information flow errors.

Please keep in mind that UI is not an exact science. It is a mixture of good practices, targeting towards the majority of customers, and compromises due to limitations of one sort or another. There is absolutely no one right way to do things, and that includes the way we do them. It also includes counter proposals, such as yours. If you can not concede this point, then we're not going to have a very fruitful discussion

I agree there is some roughness to the eyes, but the primary reason is that there's a LOT of information that is being displayed at one time. That is a very difficult problem to make go away and, of course, your proposal doesn't do at all. Which is why I don't see your concept being any less "rough" on my eyes. In fact, in some ways I think it is "rougher". I'll explain why...

 

No consistency in vertical break-up, no consistency in panel size/proportions/relations, no consistency in button design.

Consistency is often a good thing, but not always. Consistency (uniformity) often has a negative effect on distinction. Some of the elements were made different, either though shape or placement, quite deliberately so they wouldn't be confused/mushed in with other functions.

As an example, the Support buttons were deliberately made so they jutted up into the game space and deliberately not put with the other buttons. These are such important features we wanted to make sure they did not get lost with the other button functions. We also wanted the other non-movement buttons to have their own distinct look and feel to them for similar reasons. You obviously come at this from a different point of view and, logically, view the current methodology as suboptimal.

The all important Support buttons are also conceptually very different in function than the other buttons. They are there as a unit adjunct ability, not a direct behavior as with all the other buttons (i.e. calling in artillery has nothing to do with movement). Which is one reason they are kept over by the more general unit information instead of stuck in with the action information. Keeping them apart emphasizes that difference, putting them together deemphasizes. And when the Support icons blink (a feedback mechanism) they are more noticeable where they are (on their own and slightly raised) than where you propose them to be.

I do have one factual disagreement, I suppose you can say. You view Special Equipment as "very detailed" and I view it as "less detailed". At least in comparison with the information shown when you click on a vehicle or a weapons team. Therefore, I view your suggestion to move it counter to your own stated logic. Especially since very often units have maybe 1 or 2 Special Equipment icons and the rest are blank.

It's also worth noting that the Special Equipment icons were put between the Unit Info and Soldier/Weapons/Vehicle panels in order to visually break up two dense blocks of information from each other, making each one easier to distinguish from one another visually and conceptually. Your suggested move was considered 8 years ago when I designed the UI and it was rejected because of the logic I just outlined.

 

Simplification of information flow

Information flows from the left, Action sits on the right

i/e/ READ --> WRITE

Keeps orders/usage to the right hand side

Scales consistently tighter in parallel with level of information and priority of action within the game

Starts harmonising panel and button styles

Again, I don't view your counter proposal as wrong. I just don't view it as clearly "right", or at the very least superior to the existing design. According to your way of thinking it is, but that's only an opinion and it is one that can be challenged (as I just did). Your alternative isn't bad, it's just not clearly superior. Superior would be a reason to break with the past and force us to endure months of complaints that things have been changed for "no good reason" (which, I promise you, would happen).

Steve

[PhilM]

It's only one more person's view, and thus no more nor less important than that (and I entirely agree that there is no one right answer), but FWIW I tend to agree with Kinophile's general points ... and in particular the grouping of "Actions" buttons together, including the air/arty etc call buttons. True they are not movement calls, but then neither are some of the functions called up by the actions panel at the moment. It does seem better to me to group together in one place all the things that you may want a unit to do .... (I'm even tempted to propose that the arty etc call buttons should be made another selectable set within the actions panel, rather than permanently displayed separately ... they ARE important of course, but by how many units, and on how many occasions, are they used in a battle? Much much less frequently than normal move and fire orders, which you have to select to get at.)

 

But I posted mainly because the discussion and options available made me want to ask / suggest if - when the UI gets some attention, which I think is on the cards? - the various UI blocks could be made user-placeable? Thinking of eg Excel - sorry! - where the copy and paste cell format button always does the same thing, but you can move it where you like on the menu bar ...

 

Could we have blocks of UI buttons moveable within a set UI screen space? So that eg the playback "box" could be moved to the left hand side? Or even made to minimise out of the way until you need it? And Kinophile's placing of the arty/Spec Eqpt panel could be user selectable to where he has it?

 

I reckon if Excel users can cope with the concept of user configuration, CM players can too ...

 

As a further step ... eg for the (often empty) special equipment area ... have just one (small?) button in the unit info area that will bring a pop out box to show the items, to save screen space?

 

As Steve (almost) said, there will be as many views of what is "right" as there are players (or maybe even more than!), but taking the opportunity to make the UI user configurable (within limits) seems like a "good thing" to me ...

[Battlefront.com]

Customizeable UI is absolutely desirable, but unfortunately it is "expensive" in terms of programming time. Since UI is inherently "expensive", that poses pretty big development tradeoffs. What existing game features, for example, would you have been willing to sacrifice for us to instead use that time for customizable UI? How much consensus do you think there would be that whatever you personally chose would be agreeable to the majority of players? Or which top requested feature, or likely features at this point, on people's current wish list would you be willing to strike in favor of customizable UI? And again, what are the chances of a strong consensus?

Sadly, these are the sorts of questions that we have to decide upon every time we set about doing anything. Even small things. Although we do intend to make more improvements to the UI with Upgrade 4, customizable UI is not even on the list. It's too big and would crowd out all kinds of things people have been more vocal about wanting.

BTW, you are incorrect about there being almost as many opinions on UI as there are customers. In my experience there are MORE opinions than there are customers because customers have a nasty habit of being indecisive and fickle. Which means we could build it exactly as they ask and they would have a new opinion that what we did wasn't what they really wanted

Steve

[Kinophile]

Good points all round.

 

However:

1. Customizable UI is, As outline by Steve, of very limited value for far too much effort.

2. The less pop-ups the better - I personally value seeing every bit of information in one sweeping glance, working left to right. Requiring me to click to reveal info is guaranteed to irritate me by slowing me down and forcing me to remember, especially in a RT game.

 

2. I disagree with Steve re the positioning of sections being critical to user recognition

 - 2.1 Any info/action panel can be visually identified with sufficiently clean, clear graphics. To suggest that position alone is the only correct way to identify a panel is a bit blinkered.

 - 2.2 If we're going to justify jutting out the Support Call panel on purely priority reasons, then why stop there?  lets make a total mess of the UI top edge, allow any/all panel to jut up, dow, angle in...

 - 2.2. No. There must be a visual discipline here. The top edge is always, Always clean, complete and unbroken in the UI of every single successful strategy game. The only time the edge is broken is for a major, self contained panel, which is usually position on the extreme left or right.

 - 2.3. The Support Call panel is given disproportionate weight - yes its important, but it is still only a PART of the entire "Orders" section, and is still below Movement/Target sections in term of how often we use them.

 

3. I agree with Steve, the UI should Not, absolutely NOT be designed around how current customers want it.

 - 3.1 It SHOULD be designed with some basic principles,which will guide and arrange everything in a hierarchical and flexible manner

 - 3.2 As is, there is no underlying coherent organizational grid to the UI.

 - 3.3 Simply count how many different horizontal lines, at different heights there are and you will get a sense of the visual mess and indiscipline that infests the current UI.

 

The UI is now a fat, bloated, slothful Pentagon-esque project, massively over-detailed, over-weaponed and over (visual) budget.

 

We must strip the fat away, run our 4Km each morning and do our mental push-ups.

We must go back to basics.

 

So, we need a few simple, utterly unbreakbale principles to refer to for each decision making process.

 

Principle 1

Info on the LEFT, Action on the RIGHT.

 

Principle 2

Consistent flow from MACRO Info/Action --> MICRO Info/Action,

- Again, from Left --> Right.

 

Principle 3

HORIZONTAL CONSISTENCY

 - Info/action item boxes should work to a flexible grid within a strictly delineated arrangement of rows.

 - Vertical arrangement is more forgiving, but horizontal is critical - this is because we have a very limited before the UI becomes intrusive on the the view, where as the width provides far more room to work with.

 

We can add more items, but using just these 3 Principles as our rules, will bring huge improvements in readability, usability and visual beauty.

[Vinnart]

Steve, my feedback is the UI is very good in layout and design as is. There are some things you can do to improve the way the eye flows across it, but these things have to do with the way things point visually. Visual composition is my profession so it is something I do know much about. Ever look at a painting and wonder why you find it pleasing? If the artist is successful it is because it has composition designed to move the eye through it in a comfortable way as part of it's appeal. This is achieved using various techniques such as line direction.  Simple things like flipping portraits and weapon silhouettes in the way they point go a long way to create the way you want the eye to move across the panels.  These things are easily fixed through modding, but it is a suggestion to improve what you have out of the box to improve the visual flow which is left to right for this composition of logical information flow. I think the panel placement is optimal now for the left to right visual flow, and agree the breaking up of the panels as you describe works for distinction.

 

This is a mod I made, but look at the difference in the way the portrait and weapons point to direct the eye more comfortably from left to right across the UI from panel to panel. Certainly an easy fix.

 

There are only a few things I would change, or should I say add to this UI. I would not move any of the panels since i think they are layed out logically now. When selecting a unit the eye goes straight to the upper left of the UI to see what is selected, unless the player is looking for something else specific such as vehicle damage for example. The UI has this information in the optimal place since when we read, we always start upper left and go left to right. From there, though improved graphics facings like arrows, the eye can move more comfortably left to right through the information finally stopping at the orders panel on the far right. This is also the most logical place as one usually reviews the unit info left to right with the final action being to issue orders. Move to the next unit, and the process begins again.

 

I find the information thorough for the most part, and really can't see what information could be taken away. The game is just too complex to leave anything of what is there now out. As to the information I would add it is all good things that were left out from cmx1 UI

 

Floor #, passenger status, and open in UI

Ammo text to go red when holding a weapon out of main ammo similar to red text when parts destroyed on vehicles.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Vinnart

[Kinophile]

Vinnart makes some very good points, in line with the idea of consistent visual flow in one direction, e.g. Left to Right.

 

However, I suspect you might be a bit too comfortable with the UI as is, due to familiarity..?

 

Anyhow, here is a grid suggestion.

 

This works from a 1 --> 3 --> 4 --> 5 cell horizontal arrangement,

And from a roughly 1 --> 1.25 --> 1.2  (not perfect, but a least following the Left to Right decrease in size rule.

Edited August 4, 2015 by kinophile

[Baneman]

Kinophile - not to disagree ( too much ), but I, for example, would find it jarring to have the Special Equipment box as far on the right as you suggest.

 

As it stands, I "associate" it with the squad - moving it further to the right may follow the information flow, but I feel that it would "disconnect" it from the squad ( my mind associates the right-hand stuff with "standalone" and the left-hand stuff with "linked to the <selected unit>" ).

 

Of course, that's just me, and it may well be due to familiarity.

[bodkin]

Sorry a bit off topic but I really like the right click command options in the RTS style camera but want the mouse wheel elevation and the other traditional controls and scrolling of the standard camera. Are there any plans to allow us to customise via text file to combine desired styles? 

Edited August 5, 2015 by bodkin

[CarlWAW]

I am perfectly fine with the interface. Compared with the amount of information it has to bear, I think it's a brilliant interface.

The one thing that really bugs me and which IMO is a real error in interface design, is the missing indicator if a tank or vehicle is opened up. In big scenarios with dozens of vehicles and tanks, I find it really annoying to switch the command pane to see, if the vehicle has the wanted status. It would be great, if this status would be shown permanently somewhere.

[Vinnart]

I am perfectly fine with the interface. Compared with the amount of information it has to bear, I think it's a brilliant interface.

The one thing that really bugs me and which IMO is a real error in interface design, is the missing indicator if a tank or vehicle is opened up. In big scenarios with dozens of vehicles and tanks, I find it really annoying to switch the command pane to see, if the vehicle has the wanted status. It would be great, if this status would be shown permanently somewhere.

 

Agree Carl. Here is a visual of a possible way. The text "Open, passenger, or floor# " would appear under the portrait only when the condition applies similar to how "pinned", bogged," ect.. appears over the suppression meter only when the condition applies. I think this would make the portrait and area of UI actually useful rather than just an ornament of humanity. Shown also, is some red text for better ammo situational awareness when carrying a weapon out of main ammo.

 

 

I wonder how hard it would be to incorporate as the game is already using similar coding with the suppression meter condition text, and red text showing destroyed vehicle parts?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Vinnart

[Battlefront.com]

2. I disagree with Steve re the positioning of sections being critical to user recognition

 - 2.1 Any info/action panel can be visually identified with sufficiently clean, clear graphics. To suggest that position alone is the only correct way to identify a panel is a bit blinkered.

Where did I say this was the "only correct way"? I distinctly said that there is very few "only correct ways" in UI design. What I said is that you fell into that trap and continue to be in it. Meaning, you are saying it has to be more-or-less as you see it otherwise it is wrong. That's what I believe you would call "blinkered".

- 2.2. No. There must be a visual discipline here.

Says who? I've played plenty of games and used plenty of non-game applications that do not have a single clean line. Again, your black and white insistence something can only be one way is "blinkered".

- 2.3. The Support Call panel is given disproportionate weight - yes its important, but it is still only a PART of the entire "Orders" section, and is still below Movement/Target sections in term of how often we use them.

Not in my view. It is an entirely separate concept from "Orders". That doesn't mean it has to be off on its own, but it absolutely in no way means it has to be with the rest of the "Orders". Arguing to the contrary is, again, "blinkered" thinking

 

3. I agree with Steve, the UI should Not, absolutely NOT be designed around how current customers want it.

And yet...

- 3.1 It SHOULD be designed with some basic principles,which will guide and arrange everything in a hierarchical and flexible manner

The current UI is, but like opinions there's no one right "basic principle" to stick to. Neither within the UI or between different users. So there's always, and I mean always, going to be room for disagreement. You disagree, and nowhere have I said your opinions are flat out wrong.

- 3.2 As is, there is no underlying coherent organizational grid to the UI.

Sure there is, you just don't agree with it. I'm fine with that.

- 3.3 Simply count how many different horizontal lines, at different heights there are and you will get a sense of the visual mess and indiscipline that infests the current UI.

Again, "blinkered" thinking here. It is not a visual mess, it is not indisciplined. It is simply using a design philosophy that you, personally, do not agree with. Hence.

 

The UI is now a fat, bloated, slothful Pentagon-esque project, massively over-detailed, over-weaponed and over (visual) budget.

heh... and yours is equally fat, bloated, slothful, and Pentagon-esque IMHO. See, that's the fun thing about opinions, we all have them

We can add more items, but using just these 3 Principles as our rules, will bring huge improvements in readability, usability and visual beauty in my not-so-humble opinion.

There, fixed that for you.

Seriously, the harder you argue that your idea will bring about the Rapture the less seriously I will take you. At best you have proposed a very modest "improvement" suggestion for your personal sense of visual organization. And guess what? Not everybody is going to agree that it is either necessary or an improvement. Already seeing evidence of that in the follow ups.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Kinophile - not to disagree ( too much ), but I, for example, would find it jarring to have the Special Equipment box as far on the right as you suggest.

 

As it stands, I "associate" it with the squad - moving it further to the right may follow the information flow, but I feel that it would "disconnect" it from the squad ( my mind associates the right-hand stuff with "standalone" and the left-hand stuff with "linked to the <selected unit>" ).

 

Of course, that's just me, and it may well be due to familiarity.

 

It could be familiarity, which itself is a legitimate reason to not change something even if it isn't optimal. Look at how many Windows 8 users flipped out when Microsoft made rather modest changes to the UI. Happens all the time.

But the way you're viewing is is the reason why it was put there in the first place. For sure I had it in several different places during the design phase. It wound up where it wound up because that was the most logical place to put it using a particular concept of organization. Obviously there is room for disagreement, but disagreement doesn't indicate something is incorrect.

Sorry a bit off topic but I really like the right click command options in the RTS style camera but want the mouse wheel elevation and the other traditional controls and scrolling of the standard camera. Are there any plans to allow us to customise via text file to combine desired styles?

 

No plans, but I suppose it is possible. In theory we would have a lot more customization than we currently do, however the UI was not written for such customization and we've had to shoehorn it in. Sometimes it wasn't pretty.

 

I am perfectly fine with the interface. Compared with the amount of information it has to bear, I think it's a brilliant interface.

The one thing that really bugs me and which IMO is a real error in interface design, is the missing indicator if a tank or vehicle is opened up. In big scenarios with dozens of vehicles and tanks, I find it really annoying to switch the command pane to see, if the vehicle has the wanted status. It would be great, if this status would be shown permanently somewhere.

Yes, this has been repeatedly put forward for a UI improvement. What's been holding it up is I had it wrapped up in a larger UI improvement which, due to development constraints, keeps getting passed over. I'll dust it off and see what can be done for v4. That and weapons team deployment state (related and compatible concepts) are the big deficiencies I see in the UI at the moment.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, my feedback is the UI is very good in layout and design as is. There are some things you can do to improve the way the eye flows across it, but these things have to do with the way things point visually. Visual composition is my profession so it is something I do know much about.

You do indeed

One of the great things about Mods is that people can use whichever one they like best. This allows for a high degree of specialization that we sometimes can't risk doing. For example, you like to rely upon color for distinction. For those without color problems you're spot on. And so a Mod that works great for people with fine color perception, but perhaps not so well for the minority who don't, isn't a problem. Those who don't like it, for any reason what-so-ever, don't have to use it. We, on the other hand, have to keep the UI a bit boiled down to make sure the widest number of people can use it effectively.

That doesn't mean the current UI we ship is perfect and couldn't stand an improvement or two. I know that isn't the case. But that's why we have Modders

I find the information thorough for the most part, and really can't see what information could be taken away. The game is just too complex to leave anything of what is there now out. As to the information I would add it is all good things that were left out from cmx1 UI

Yeah, sadly there's not much we can leave out and there is a ton more we could put in. But where the heck to put it? Or how to put it? We've got "too much info" for the average gamer already, which certainly doesn't help our sales any. Which is why we have been very resistant to putting in more information and, in fact, have simplified the visual elements somewhat since Shock Force's day.

 

Floor #, passenger status, and open in UI

Definitely. It's been on hold pending a larger change. But I think it's worth considering a more practical alternative. I've got something in mind and you've also made a suggestion, so it's possible this can be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Steve

[Vinnart]

Floor #, passenger status, and open in UI

Definitely. It's been on hold pending a larger change. But I think it's worth considering a more practical alternative. I've got something in mind and you've also made a suggestion, so it's possible this can be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Steve

 

Good to hear. I'm sure you will choose a good way to incorporate.

 

Glad to be part of the modding community, and for the flexibility the game has to make it easily possible. From a marketing perceptive this only adds to making the game appeal to more people by having more options that work better for the individual. I already have the Floor #, passenger status, and open showing under the portrait in the game, but what a pain having to swap out the portrait graphic manually with and without text when the condition applies

[Kinophile]

This is not an attack.

 

I am fully aware of the amount of work that goes into a UI.
Adapting/altering a UI is not easy or quick - I never suggested it would be.

 

Absolutely, everything here is my personal opinion, and response are the opinions of the respondents.

The fact that I am stating an opinion, and suggesting (NOT demanding or ordering) an alternative is not grounds to dismiss the suggested alternative.

 

This is not a personal attack, and as this is the MODS forum there should no sacred cows here.

 

The alternative layout is suggested NOT as the perfection of the UI, (bringing joyful grateful tears to all wargame nerds everywhere), but as a more organized, coherent and minimalist BASE, working towards smother flow and a consistent visual heirarchy.

 

It is NOT perfect and is still evolving, per this thread.

 

There's thought, observation and analysis behind the suggested alternative layout, shown in my very first post.
The suggested 3 principles are not simple "there i fixed it for you" fan wishlists, or "In My Not So Humble Opinion" uninformed opinions.
Using that little stab comes across as defensive and needlessly derisive.

 

Of course this suggested alternative layout is just my opinion, it's the Internet. Its all personal opinions. Does that really need to be highlighted? 

If I didn't want discussion, feedback, analysis , then why post here at all?

 

In fairness, the Pentagon stab on my part wasn't terribly nice either...my apologies.

-----

Yes, there is some organization to the current UI, but it could be argued (and I do) that it is not inherently consistent, efficient, flexible or adaptive.

Conversely, it cannot be argued that the current UI is perfect, or not in need of improvement.

 

Vinnart's suggestions highlight more detailed corrections than my broader strokes ideas, but he is absolutely correct in that simple things like the gun icons pointing left-->right actually do have an impact. A small correction, but combined with other small corrections, all following a single principle (e.g. #1 suggested above) the cumulative effect is greater than the whole.

-----

Where I'm coming from is that I play a lot of RT games, as well as some PBEM.

Now, I love that almost every vital piece of info is immediately available (bar the tweaks suggested above.

But, in terms of info-action flow the current UI is Slow.

Button placement and hence mouse movement is inefficient. 

The breaking of the natural left-->right flow is terribly distracting, and in a RT game can have fatal consequences for brave pixeltruppen, and the battle.

-----

The Support Call might be a different concept from the more direct Orders section, but you are still ordering a unit to do something, hence it really belongs in the Action section, where the mouse is already.

 

e.g. I order a FAO onto a roof, and add an order there to call in an airstrike. 

Currently, my mouse starts on the right, then travels a third of the way across to the left, then travels back to click GO.

 

This is just one example, but when I started playing BS I immediately noticed this discrepancy,.

Edited August 7, 2015 by kinophile

[Vinnart]

Kinophile, I play RT mode too, and I can tell you that I control CM as fast or faster than any other RTS game I have played. If you are moving the mouse to select orders on the panel you are not being efficient in your control. I agree the command buttons are not the best out of the box for RTS play, but all this can be overcome. The fact that most keys can be bound to preference allows a better keyboard layout. In this regard perhaps offering an alternate default hotkey layout optimized for real time with the game may not be a bad idea.

 

Here are some suggestions to improve your real time play flow. If you want to play all your games with the best control invest in a Nostromo speedpad, and mouse with many programmable buttons like I use. These devises will allow you to play ANY game with fluid control and speed. If one does not want to invest in these one can still set the keyboard up for optimal real time control. Bind hoykeys for the most common commands, and use the space bar menu for the rest instead of moving cursor to orders panel.

 

Keyboard optimized for the left hand:

Top row most common MOVE commands starting with "Q" for fast left to right fastest to slowest

Second row most common COMBAT commands starting with "A"

Bottom row CAMERA and some SPECIAL

 

All the rest of SPECIAL, ADMIN access with the space bar. It is faster, and these orders are not used as much. The only time you should be moving the cursor to the panels for the most part is for PAUSE,STOP, EVADE commands if needed,  for arty ordering and other various like one of the vehicle menus.

 

Try it, and I am sure you will control faster once you build up muscle memory.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Vinnart

[Battlefront.com]

Of course this suggested alternative layout is just my opinion, it's the Internet. Its all personal opinions. Does that really need to be highlighted?

Yes it is when opinions are put forward in a way that stray into the territory of absolutes. And that is what you have done in a number of places as I have pointed out. Some of your arguments have stepped over the line from advocating a position based on personal preference to one based on an absolute condition which clearly favors your point of view and refutes the opinion of someone else in the process.

 

If I didn't want discussion, feedback, analysis , then why post here at all?

Clearly you have not been around here for very long Many people have zero interest in feedback and analysis when they post. You definitely seem to be trying to not be such a person and it's why I've taken the time to respond to your points, one at a time, instead of dismissing this discussion as a waste of time.

 

Yes, there is some organization to the current UI, but it could be argued (and I do) that it is not inherently consistent, efficient, flexible or adaptive.

And I've countered those arguments. Not "defensively" as you suggest, but matter of factly.

 

Conversely, it cannot be argued that the current UI is perfect, or not in need of improvement.

Of course the UI is not perfect. I've stated that fairly directly. Especially since "perfect" is a relative concept that is pertinent only to a single individual, not some sort of universal (or even majority) belief.

And here's yet another example of you viewing things as being far more straight forward and "absolute" than they really are:

 

The Support Call might be a different concept from the more direct Orders section, but you are still ordering a unit to do something, hence it really belongs in the Action section, where the mouse is already.

I tend to issue Support Calls only from established positions because it is really only there that I can reliably make such a call. So for me, my mouse is generally nowhere near the Command Buttons. In fact, I don't tend to use the Command Buttons for the most part because, as Vinnart pointed out, they are inherently inefficient. I use either the Hotkeys or the popup Menu. So once again, your view about the location of Support Calls is an opinion which is specific to your play style and your sense of what makes things easier for it. It is not anything more than that.

 

This is just one example, but when I started playing BS I immediately noticed this discrepancy,.

An age old suggestion given to anybody using any sort of tool for the first time is to not rush to judgement about how things could be done better. Instead, use it for a while and talk over issues with people that use the tool and see if perhaps you are missing something. Doesn't matter if it is a game or a pneumatic tool or a vehicle. Keep an open mind that perhaps you're not using the tool as effectively as you might think or have not encountered a situation where a particular design might make far more sense than you give it credit for.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, this highlights another issue with a "perfect" UI. We support both RealTime and WeGo, yet we can not afford to have two entirely separate UIs that cater to each separately. In fact, it's not really a good idea to have two separate UIs within the same game for a bunch of reasons having nothing to do with development costs. This means that there will be some features that work better or worse for one or the other comparatively. Our main challenge is limit the conflicts as best we can.

Steve

[Vinnart]

An age old suggestion given to anybody using any sort of tool for the first time is to not rush to judgement about how things could be done better. Instead, use it for a while and talk over issues with people that use the tool and see if perhaps you are missing something. Doesn't matter if it is a game or a pneumatic tool or a vehicle. Keep an open mind that perhaps you're not using the tool as effectively as you might think or have not encountered a situation where a particular design might make far more sense than you give it credit for.

Steve

 

I agree. CM's UI is different in many ways to other games so it takes some time to get used to. This does not mean it is bad, but just different just as CM is unique. The additions of flexibility to bind keys to preference, and the space bar menu cleared much of this up  from cmx2's original release back with CMSF. Even with this flexibility experimenting with hotkey placement to find out what best works for the individual takes some time and practice. Once one has this figured out it is all a matter of developing muscle memory over time to feel fluid familiarity. It is like this with any new game one starts playing.

 

Kinophile, of course we are entitled to our opinions, but  give yourself some time to get familiar with the UI. Try some of the suggestions to set up keys and control that feel good for you. We have all been in your shoes me included. I am a VERY picky gamer when it comes to UI and camera, and as I said i control this game as  well or better than any other rts i have played. True, I have been playing for years so it is very familiar, but if I felt it terribly awkward after all these years that would be my feedback. Instead my feedback is favorable because I think it is well done. Be patient, practice, and do some experimenting and i am sure it will begin to feel fine for you.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Vinnart

[Vinnart]

 The fact that most keys can be bound to preference allows a better keyboard layout. In this regard perhaps offering an alternate default hotkey layout optimized for real time with the game may not be a bad idea.

 

 Just to clarify because I left a keyword out file.  What i am referring to is an alternate hotkey file, set up geared toward rts style left hand control as i describe above. Not an alternate graphic UI set up. My thoughts for this are along the lines of how  the player now has different choices for camera control like rts, standard ect... Perhaps this file could be included in some sort of "sample mod" folder to make it easy if the player wanted to try it. In the mean time perhaps I will create a mod of the hotkey file optimized for rts play like i explained and post it if anyone wants to control the game more that way.

[John Kettler]

Vinnart,

 

I very much like your UI mod, but is this concept art for the UI you want to see or an actual mod we can DL? Dig the call sign, too. It really is amazing how big a difference which way rifles point can make. I'm reminded of my military aerospace experience in which the visual convention for VuGraphs and such  was that the US was always on the left of frame pointed to the right. Perhaps this was developed because we read left to right in English?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 9, 2015 by John Kettler

[c3k]

Agree Carl. Here is a visual of a possible way. The text "Open, passenger, or floor# " would appear under the portrait only when the condition applies similar to how "pinned", bogged," ect.. appears over the suppression meter only when the condition applies. I think this would make the portrait and area of UI actually useful rather than just an ornament of humanity. Shown also, is some red text for better ammo situational awareness when carrying a weapon out of main ammo.

 

 

I wonder how hard it would be to incorporate as the game is already using similar coding with the suppression meter condition text, and red text showing destroyed vehicle parts?

 

I like the "Passenger" (and other status) indicator being added. The ammo status in red is nice. Toss in the right-facing weapons and faces, and you'll have a better UI...IMO.

 

Regardless, a healthy discussion about the UI is a pretty good thing.

[Vinnart]

John, that is my "Easy Vis UI" mod package for CMBS you can download. I have it in repository and in my mods thread. The mod is set up to use all, or whatever parts you like. Every part has its own folder.  I'm sure I have a "Right Facing Weapons" mod for CMBN too, but not sure if I released for the other games. So many mods and games now it is hard to keep track of.

 

As for what is optimal facing as well as other compositional principles it really depends on the image as a whole, and what the objective is in how you want the eye to move through the narrative of the image or information, or where you want focus. If you want the eye contained in the image leading it out of the image is not optimal. There is a whole subliminal psychology employed in a wide variety of techniques behind visual composition that there are whole books on the subject i have studied and used. For the CM UI the composition is linear  left to right which works for this application in how the information flows. Even the squareness, and block shapes of the command buttons on the right works in that they form a visual book end to keep the eye contained, and from continuing right off the panel. Now in paintings you will see one of the most common and effective compositions is the "triangle". This moves the eye in a comfortable circular direction around the image. This is not to say there are not multitudes of ways to put a visual composition together just as notes of music can be arranged in infinite ways. In the end it is a good composition that feels good. Your eye will tell you just as your ear will tell you if it is appealing, and effective.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Vinnart

[Erwin]

+1 re c3k's comments re "passenger" and "ammo".