Interface improvements

[Guest wwb_99]

Last night I was making quick battle in the editor (in order to avoid the locked in troop ratios in the QB generator0, having to click all over the screen in order to do simple tasks when I had a brilliant idea: context menus for CM.

For those of you uninitiated or (even worse----Mac users ), context menus are what right clicking on an object brings up in most Windows applications. I.e., right-click on this word in your browser and a list of options appears.

What would be really cool is if this kind of quick and easy interface could be brought into the non-battle parts of CM. Now one has to buy a rifle platoon then choose edit and then reset its experience. Just imagine being able to modify this trait in two to three clicks. While it does not affect the quality of gameplay per se, it does make the game more accessable and definitely would make scenario designer's jobs easier.

WWB

[Maj. Bosco]

Probably not worth the patch...

[David Aitken]

At the moment, being able to create and edit battles at all is more important than making it as slick as possible. Of course the editor could be greatly improved, but think of all the work involved, which would be much better spent on the actual game. Remember that's what BTS is selling – the editor is an extra, which they could have just left up to third parties to create.

By the way, we have contextual menus on the Mac – one of the few things Apple have copied from Windows. There is not much else to steal, as Windows development is largely dependent on the Mac OS (how soon before we see translucent menus and PDF-based graphics on the PC?).

David

[Guest wwb_99]

I should have put more of an introduction into my statment. First, I failed to write that this was a suggestion for CM2+ not a patch. I understand that major reworking of the interface is not in the offing for CM 1, etc.

Taken as a whole, by far the weakest point in the product is the non-battle interface. I programed similar things in 9th grade. I fully understand that gameplay in battle is the first concern, but the rest of the product should not be forgotten in the process.

And while they are improving the interface, how about expanding the options availiable? There are many more terrain types than Rural, Farmland, Villiage, and Town. How about a unlimited class for picking troops, where one is only limited by the total points spent not the ratios.

WWB

Regarding Macs: (Rant Warning) I avoid them like the plague, so I was not aware they had context menus. By PDF-based graphics do you mean Adobe Acrobat .PDF? Those damn files are the bane of my existance as an IT professional. And when I think about interface improvements in Windows, translucent menus are by far not the first thing I think of. Then there is the real drawback to Macs (besides being slow, expensive, impossible to upgrade and having only one mouse button) is that there are no games for them. Besides CM, no other game I have played in the last two years ever came out for Macs. (End of Rant)

WWB

[Slapdragon]

"slow, expensive, impossible to upgrade"

wwb_99, many IT professionals are like you (no offense, really) with regard to swallowing down all of the propoganda. My Mac and my Dell cost the same. My Mac is about twice as fast to upgrade as my Dell (1 hinge door -- mostly plug and play), my Mac does a video compression in about a quarter of the time of my Dell (using the same application and same video file), and My Dell choked on Windows 2000 until I replaced a video card, added a new Ethernet card (something wrong with the on board one) and changed versions of a number of drivers, in three cases manually throwing out DLLs and replacing them from a floppy (since my CDR died when 2000 went in and needed some work).

BUT-- one thing about IT people who support my work is they are the most conservative and least willing to learn new things people I have ever met. (This does not mean you wwb). They will, oddly enough, spend 50 hours hand configuring a set of work stations rather than writing a script because "that is not the way I was taught."

I more liken the real difference between the Mac and Windows (all types) as the difference between the Lexus, and the Pinto, and their owners.

Pinto owners want to get from point A to B cheap, and are willing to put up with broken door handles and exploding gas tanks. That is Windows.

Lexus owners can be real pricks about the smooth ride and everything working right, so if they have a little hum they freak. That is Macs.

[Chupacabra]

WWB - I think I'd be safe in betting that a plurality, if not the majority, of Macs are used by professional or semi-professional graphic or audio designers. As someone who has poured quite a bit of time (and more than a little money) into audio apps and accesories over the years, I can tell you that the software and hardware support for these kinds of programs are years better for the Mac than for the PC, not to mention cheaper. And the underlying Mac architecture is simply better for these kinds of applications.

If all you're using a computer for is word processing, games, and the internet, I agree that a PC is an eminently sensible choice. However, there are fields in which Macs are the standard, and likely to remain that way for a while. And it's these fields in which the Mac really shines.

Snapdragon's points about upgradability are also well-put. I upgraded my Mac 7600 (16 mb ram, can't remember the processor speed offhand) to a G3 with 64 megs of ram. Doing so was as easy as upgrading a PC, and equally inexpensive.

There is a fair difference in cost between Mac and PC laptops, however. Which is why I'm using a Dell Inspiron now instead of buying a spiffy new G3 Powerbook. Unfortunately.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Slapdragon]

My Mac is indeed a video editor, my PC does mostly statistics. I could switch it, but the cost of turning my PC into a nonlinear editor would be something like 3 times what it cost to take a stock mac and do the same thing, and it would keep on costing me since Media Cleaner Pro, the best APP for compression, runs so much slower on the PC (mostly because it can access the G4 Altivec engines and the PC seems to bottleneck disk IO on RAID arrays for large file transfers).

[Guest wwb_99]

O.K., my Mac rant is out of my system. We just subsumed a new division (of sorts) here at the office. They are Mac based. I am in the middle of a nightmare trying to get Netware to work with them, etc. I believe their IT manager should be shot. Or failing that should be placed at the head of a green british airborne bn that is attacking a Waffen SS Panzer bn with no heavy weapons support on a large, flat map.

I am well aware that Macs are a superior platform to PCs in for audio-visual development. I realize that their 5% of the market is not going anywhere, and I am still an Apple shareholder. But Macs are dead for the mass market mainly for software support and price reasons. I don't see any sub-$500 Macs in the offing. Had they decided to go mass market in 1985, we would be in a beautiful, windows-free world. But the powers that be at Apple were idiots then and they truly dropped the ball.

Regarding upgradability: Could you double clock speed, triple RAM and quadruple video performance for less than $300? I just did (From 412 Mhz Celeron, 64 MB ram and 16 mb TNT to 800 Mhz Celeron-Coppermine, 128mb Ram and 32 MB GeForce 2). I would liken my PC to a Olds 442: a big bad ugly mamma jamma with a few quirks and knocks but she'll blow your doors off in a heartbeat.

As for Dells: they suck. Like most of the 'name brand' PCs on the market. You are better off buying a clone box from the local computer shack made from industry standard parts. Less money, more uumph and you support small business.

And why script when you can ghost?

WWB

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

As for Dells: they suck. Like most of the 'name brand' PCs on the market. You are better off buying a clone box from the local computer shack made from industry standard parts. Less money, more uumph and you support small business.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two words: tech support. Is Maw and Paw Kumpyooters gonna come out and stick a new motherboard in my laptop the next business day if I need them to? Dell does.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest wwb_99]

Maw and Pah Compyters don't make laptops. No one does but oversized manufaturers who tend to use second rate compontents (see recent battery issues). And if one is buying a computer for home use, a laptop is the last thing they need. They make Macs look cheap.

WWB

[Colin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Regarding Macs: (Rant Warning) I avoid them like the plague, so I was not aware they had context menus. By PDF-based graphics do you mean Adobe Acrobat .PDF? Those damn files are the bane of my existance as an IT professional. And when I think about interface improvements in Windows, translucent menus are by far not the first thing I think of. Then there is the real drawback to Macs (besides being slow, expensive, impossible to upgrade and having only one mouse button) is that there are no games for them. Besides CM, no other game I have played in the last two years ever came out for Macs. (End of Rant)

WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just decided to skip Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament or Rainbow 6? You're missing some pretty fun games then.

[David Aitken]

I think we should let the Mac/PC argument go, or we'll be here forever.

Some people just use computers because they need to, whereas others want to and enjoy using their computer of choice, be it a Mac or a PC. Computers are bitches at the best of times, so if you're used to one platform, you tend to be scared of others, hence the animosity between devotees of different platforms. The real problems start when someone claims that a specific platform sucks, when this is invariably just their biased opinion.

Macs are good at some things, and not so good at others. The same goes for PCs. The actual background to the competing OSes is a different matter altogether. While the Mac market is small, the majority of Mac users have positive feelings about their machines. The PC market is big, but PCs are used for all sorts of bog-standard operations, so that's nothing to shout about.

Microsoft, from a business perspective, has done all the right things in its promotion of Windows. Apple has done a lot of stupid things. But if Microsoft had been as stupid as Apple, everyone would have dropped Windows like a hot brick. It says a lot for the Mac that its fans have kept it alive despite all Apple's messing around.

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 11-01-2000).]

[David Aitken]

wwb_99 wrote:

> this was a suggestion for CM2+ not a patch.

The editor in CM2 will doubtlessly be an improvement, although how big an improvement we have yet to see. It would be perfectly reasonable if they left it essentially as-is, modifying it only to allow for the new features of the game. Any work that goes into the editor will detract from work on the game, or add to the overall development time. BTS is not a big company with infinite resources, and I would rather have a good game with a workable editor soon, rather than a good game with a flashy editor later, or an unfinished game with a good editor.

> And while they are improving the interface, how about expanding the options availiable? There are many more terrain types than Rural, Farmland, Villiage, and Town. How about a unlimited class for picking troops, where one is only limited by the total points spent not the ratios.

Be careful to distinguish between the Quick Battle generator and the editor – you seem to be talking about both. I don't know what you expect from the QB generator, but how would you propose expanding on the four terrain options? The generator is extremely innovative and effective, but it's not as smart as a human designer.

The constraints on troop selection are designed to make battles fair. If you want total freedom, go ahead and design your own scenario. This subject comes up a lot, and the response is that no, the QB generator cannot do everything. It does exactly what is says on the tin – it generates battles quickly. To make it any more complex would be to confuse it with the scenario editor.

David

[David Aitken]

I knew that was gonna happen. (double post)

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 11-02-2000).]

[chrisl]

I stopped being religious a couple years ago:

My powerbook has MacOS, Win95, and Linux installed on it. My machine at work is a wintel running NT, but I can see all the macs on the appletalk net, as well as the PCs and printers. The most problem I ever have going between machines is that sometimes characters (mostly math stuff) gets munged between the Mac and Windoze versions of word.

------------------

Slayer of the Original Cesspool Thread.