Unit Depictions on Screen

[stretch]

i hope all your computer equipment came through unscathed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: stretch

i hope all your computer equipment came through unscathed.

Hardware fine, software fine, mentalware frayed.

[YohanTM2]

Tell me you are backing up all code offsite [X(]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: stretch

i hope all your computer equipment came through unscathed.

Hardware fine, software fine, mentalware frayed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Tell me you are backing up all code offsite [X(]

Every 3 months.[:D]

[Neilster]

The silhouettes will be the same for all years of the war and for all the different countries participating in same. My main desire would be for the silhouettes to be readily distinguishable by the players when playing (3 and 4 are the most likely zoom levels where medium resolution/silhouettes will be used/shown).

Then I think a stock-standard Stuka silhouette would be most appropriate, sans cannon. The Ju87G was a minor player and having such a specific model illustrated might confuse people. The cannon are probably too fine a detail to make it onto the final silhouette anyway.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

--- Yesterday, the guy in the apartment directly above mine used a power saw to cut through a hot water line and flooded the apartments in the 16 floors below him. There have been workmen in and out and I now have four very large fans blowing constantly in an attempt to dry the walls and floor. Somewhat hard to think clearly.

Pity he didn't cut through a high-voltage power cable. [X(]

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

--- Yesterday, the guy in the apartment directly above mine used a power saw to cut through a hot water line and flooded the apartments in the 16 floors below him. There have been workmen in and out and I now have four very large fans blowing constantly in an attempt to dry the walls and floor. Somewhat hard to think clearly.

Pity he didn't cut through a high-voltage power cable. [X(]

Cheers, Neilster

Actually I worry about him causing a fire next.

They have been hammering away up there for over 6 months and I told my wife they were idiots after the 1st week. I never met them until yesterday but my assessment was based on how he used a hammer: tap, tap, tap, ... tap, tap, ... tap ,...... tap, tap. If he knew what he was doing, it should have sounded like bam, bam, BAM, .. bam, bam, BAM. A summary and dismissive judgment but very accurate as it turns out.

[Anendrue]

I am thankfull that you, your wife, and the computers with their code are ok. Still I am more thankful he doesn't live above me.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[...]

- If we have different silhouettes for L2 and L4, what do the L3 unit types use?

I would agree with Patrice: a silhouette of an "archetypal" tactical bomber would be about right for the 3-point land bomber.

- For replacing the silhouettes with text I had stated I would use LND/FTR/NAV/ATR, would you prefer L2, L3, L4, F2, F3, N2, N3, N4, A3, and A4?

I would prefer the three-letter abbreviations myself. Firstly, they are the abbreviations used in WiF, and secondly, they look nicer. The only question would be how to put together the complete alphanumeric code for the air units: LND4 or LND-4 (as an example)?

- For ASW escorts and ASW carriers I was just going to use ASW and let the numbers communicate whether it was a carrier (square color indicates carrier) or not.

That does seem the best way to do it. That's how WiF:FE does it on the counters.

- I am going to leave the Canadian colors as yellow and so on for the rest of the CW member nations. The example I gave makes them look like they are everywhere but in reality 90+% of the CW bitmapped units belong to the United Kingdom and will be colored black. The color adds a little flavor and some additional information.

The other CW major power air & naval unit silhouettes seem kind of tacky at the medium resolution but the land units still look good. The bordering seems to make a difference. I would suggest either putting a black border around the "tacky" silhouettes or leaving them black and putting a two or three letter identifier near the silhouette ("Can", "Ind", and so on) in the requisite colour.

[Froonp]

I would prefer the three-letter abbreviations myself. Firstly, they are the abbreviations used in WiF, and secondly, they look nicer. The only question would be how to put together the complete alphanumeric code for the air units: LND4 or LND-4 (as an example)?

I too, prefer FTR2, FTR3, LND2, LND3, LND4, NAV2, NAV3, NAV4, ATR3, ATR4, CVP0, CVP1, CVP2.

Cheers !

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I would prefer the three-letter abbreviations myself. Firstly, they are the abbreviations used in WiF, and secondly, they look nicer. The only question would be how to put together the complete alphanumeric code for the air units: LND4 or LND-4 (as an example)?

I too, prefer FTR2, FTR3, LND2, LND3, LND4, NAV2, NAV3, NAV4, ATR3, ATR4, CVP0, CVP1, CVP2.

Cheers !

Me too.

Cheers, Neilster

[mlees]

"Stupid Question Time from The Peanut Gallery"

In the screen shot of post number 676, the french ASW force in Cherbourg is shown with a Surf combatant icon. Is that right? Should it be a CV icon?

That unit appears to have a CV load value of 3 (the green box on the lower right of the counter). Or is that the part of convoy's in flames I didnt read? (In other words, that number is an ASW value, not a cv plane value.)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees
"Stupid Question Time from The Peanut Gallery"

In the screen shot of post number 676, the french ASW force in Cherbourg is shown with a Surf combatant icon. Is that right? Should it be a CV icon?

That unit appears to have a CV load value of 3 (the green box on the lower right of the counter). Or is that the part of convoy's in flames I didnt read? (In other words, that number is an ASW value, not a cv plane value.)

Convoys in Flames uses the upper left corner of ASW units (Carriers and Escorts) to indicate a unit's ASW rating. They come in 2 flavors, pink and red, and are used as part of the pre-naval combat ASW phase against submarines. The number in the lower right corner is colored only for ASW carriers (not ASW escorts) and is the carrier rating/capacity for the unit. In this notation system, MWIF follows WIF FE precisely.

The only mistake in the screen shot is for the Belgian CA, which I have since corrected.

[SurrenderMonkey]

Steve,

First, let me thank you (again) for your enormous commitment to this project. I cannot over-emphasize what a great job you are doing. [:)] [&o]

That being said - lately it seems that there is an enormous focus on relatively inconsequential graphics issues, and I worry that you are being consumed by them. Don't get me wrong - graphics count (a little). But this game will not live or die on graphics, as you know. You don't need to seek input regarding every single tiny graphical issue. I am far more interested in game mechanics and AI.

I have never programmed anything, but I have directed many large projects. Forgive me if I am speaking out of school, but I just want to suggest (to all of us) that we may be indulging in a bit of picking lint from our navels when there are much more significant concerns. [8|]

INCOMING! [X(]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Steve,

First, let me thank you (again) for your enormous commitment to this project. I cannot over-emphasize what a great job you are doing. [:)] [&o]

That being said - lately it seems that there is an enormous focus on relatively inconsequential graphics issues, and I worry that you are being consumed by them. Don't get me wrong - graphics count (a little). But this game will not live or die on graphics, as you know. You don't need to seek input regarding every single tiny graphical issue. I am far more interested in game mechanics and AI.

I have never programmed anything, but I have directed many large projects. Forgive me if I am speaking out of school, but I just want to suggest (to all of us) that we may be indulging in a bit of picking lint from our navels when there are much more significant concerns. [8|]

INCOMING! [X(]

My posts cover anywhere from 5% to 20% of what I am working on. Most of the forum members would have zero interest in what I actually do during a work day.

For example, I got a new version of the compiler (Delphi 2006) on Monday and was working on installing it when the waterworks from above started. Delphi 2006 didn't like the compiled packages from Delphi 2005. Getting these packages to work took me 3 weeks just about 1 year ago when I first received the source code for CWIF (Chris had been using Delphi 7). Trying to recreate the CWIF packages/libraries under Delphi 2006 revealed that thousands of changes I have made over the last year adversely affected that code. So, for the last 3 days (in midst of the workmen and with blast fans going continuously) I have been restructuring underlying routines/code. 42 easy ones done, 5 really ugly ones remaining.

As a small part of this effort, I have pulled constants and 'static' variables out of modules and placed them all a single Pascal unit which has gone from 0 lines of code to about 1000 in the last 3 days. I have just discoverd that under Delphi 2005 code using "with ABC, begin ... end" would skip the processing part if ABC were nil but that doesn't happen under Delphi 2006. Consequences are that checks for nil are now needed. However, ...

I have been making a concerted effort to remove "with" statements over the past 4 months (when I learned they were officially deemed a poor coding techinique by the programming community). I had never used them myself but the CWIF source code I inherited contained, roughly, 10,000 instances of them.

In general, I try to have 3 or 4 mini-projects going at any one time so I do not get 'stale' working on the same thing continuously. Until this interruption with Delphi 2006 occurred my list was:

- Game Record Log routines (2000 to do, expect to finish them by the end of July),

- NetPlay (need to push this as far as I can go with what Dan Hatchen has given me and then get togehter with Dan to work out the rest - fairly easy to do but has to have at least 50% of my focus to be worked on profitably)

- Screen layouts (there are some fatal bugs in the code reported by the beta testers)

- Scandinavian map (finish the data changes Claus mostly completed)

- Weather effects (have Rob make changes in accordance with feedback from the forum).

Not even on my basic list, but present nonetheless, are responding to tasks that others are doing:

- Player interface design by Rob

- Naval units writeups by Terje & Fred

- Optional Rules writeups by Mziln

Trust me, weather graphics is the least of my concerns and are more of a diversion from other things.

[Anendrue]

Steve,
 
Did your upstairs neighbor hightail it to New York? There is an A.P. story about a man attacking people in the subway with a powersaw.
 
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13744297/ 
 
Lookout world here they come... "Morons with Saws"
 

[trees trees]

the AMPH silhouette gets confusing at the lower-res, it kinda looks like a carrier. maybe beef up the size of it. WIFFe AMPH's are elegant, but the first version of the AMPH counter is clearer.

and making carriers white is definitely a good idea.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am working my way through the units descriptions, adding formatting symbols.

Here are a few of the naval units descriptions, from today's allotment.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have added the unit outline and shadowing to the large unit depiction, but I haven't figured out to turn on transparency for the corners while leaving the white interior a pure white. The 4 is messed up. You can see that they are correct in the little unit depictions to the left.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Last in the series. Here you can see the dirty corners and the dusty AUS lettering on the large unit depiction.

All these text writeups are compliments of Terje. I edit his English a bit and changed 13.220 to 13,220. But the text you are reading is overwhelming his work.