Screen/Ergonomic/Visibility Thread

[harley]

Guys, I've been working on ideas on how to better display the information we have within the framework/artwork available.

As I go along I will post various mockups here for you to think about. Please feel free to create your own from scratch, or use mine as a template. No ideas are set in concrete, I haven't started any coding at all on these, I'm just seeking ideas and input at this stage.

Here's the first, a front-end for the defender production screen. Not sure how to do the next screen yet, it will depend which object you click:

[harley]

Throwing out some ideas - this shows what the attacker might see when browsing the target list.

I envision a similar view (without the list) when directly clicking a target on the map.

I think this needs work, so if someone mocks up a better idea, I'll run with that...

[harley]

Ok, again throwing ideas out there....

I see this one linking from the first screen *and* the axis database, replacements and loss screens. I'm going all out on making this flow better for everyone.

So... what have we?

First, a full list of all production, including filters. You can turn off sites already producing the components needed, hide the others, or hide delayed sites.

You get a breakdown of the type of AC you are working with, including the stock levels. Redundant, yes, but if you hide the "related production" you won't see it on the right.

The scroll list has 2 buttons. The first centers the map on the site. The second selects the production line for change to the type required by the aircraft you are working with. When you thus mark a site, the "prod" and "plan" values for both the old and new item are adjusted, and the "new" value in the aircraft side will be incremented (probably in a highlight colour).

when you're finished, click the "commit" button and the adjustments will be made.

This way, you will select the prod lines to change, and get immediate feedback on what is affected. You can click as many sites as you want without incurring the delay, then click the go button to change them all over to the new type at once.

This means to change one line of Bf109G6 to FW190A8 would be Prod List > FW190A8 Production > click one AFAC > one ENG > one Parts > Click commit > click Exit > Click Exit (hey, I should chop out the double/triple exits and allow one click to main map, and a back button as well. I'm probably stealing someone else's idea)

instead of

Prod list > Site > Change > Type > Accept > (try to remember what engine I needed) Site > Change > Type > Accept > Site > Change > Type > Accept > Exit

So 8 v 14 clicks.

TO change 2 lines over it's 11 v 25, and 3 lines it's 14 v 37...

Plus... I'll add in <> buttons for next type/last type, so no need to go back to prod screen.

Ok... so... this sounds great to me. But, as I keep trying to tell you all, I suck at interface design. Please help me out by suggesting better layouts, or better yet, mocking your own.

[harley]

OK, I need a little help with this one...

This is the "List Air Units" page, which was previously just a list of aircraft in use, you then drilled into the type. It wrapped around in columns if there were a lot of types.

I've kept the drill-into-groups function, but added the replacements, pool, loss and availability columns. Using the filter buttons at the bottom you can see ALL types now and future, so you will see when your uber-plane is due to arrive. You can also filter out classes. You can also see the loss stats for the enemy. Naturally, I have hidden the replacements and pool for the enemy types, and removed the drill-down button. <edit> forgot to mensh... the "show unused" button has no effect on enemy - you see stats for all his types, in service or not, the idea is that you can't tell till he starts losing some.

Now I don't plan on removing the loss or replacement pages, but you may never use them again.

What I need from you guys is some zest. It's functional, but plain. I'm thinking of adding a unit count and an in-service count to the table, just to give a better overview. I'm happy to hear ideas on this one, though... More data doesn't add zest. Flair. Pizzazz...

HELP....

[wernerpruckner]

this looks very good - now we no longer need to guess the stock or need to make guesses about required production.

[harrappan]

I like the amount of information, especially the Avail column. I think the screen displays all of the data needed for control of production.

One possible modification; In the engine description for the DB605A Engines, is the 'Engines' redundant?

The addition of this interface would raise the question of the players ability to assign production to a specific aircraft. E.g. if I'm only producing a few of the engines that I require, would I be able to assign them to the aircraft I want the production to concentrate on? Not sure if you want to open that can of worms.

[Derfel]

I like it a lot, gives a quick readout of what one is doing with the production.

The next screen might show the priority of what you try to produce, and even be able to set the production priority. fx if one produce an engine that is required by two airframes, then one could set priority to what airframe gets the most engines.

If production=planned do not show planned.

Why not put some colour in, if engines or parts are below the required number, paint the numbers red, if above the required number paint the numbers green.

[harley]

ORIGINAL: the harrappan
One possible modification; In the engine description for the DB605A Engines, is the 'Engines' redundant?

I agree it's redundant, but engines ain't jet engines. The database lists the type of component to ensure easy visibility. If you looked at a factory and it was building "Fiat" or "Regianne" how would you know if it was parts or engines? Some facs produce multiple types of component, despite their nominal industry. The actual word "engines" is included in the OB files and is not added by the exec.

The addition of this interface would raise the question of the players ability to assign production to a specific aircraft. E.g. if I'm only producing a few of the engines that I require, would I be able to assign them to the aircraft I want the production to concentrate on? Not sure if you want to open that can of worms.

You're evil. I don't think this suggestion will get up any time soon.

[harley]

ORIGINAL: Derfel

I like it a lot, gives a quick readout of what one is doing with the production.

cool. I'm trying to address the oft noted clickfest that makes it difficult.

The next screen might show the priority of what you try to produce, and even be able to set the production priority. fx if one produce an engine that is required by two airframes, then one could set priority to what airframe gets the most engines.

See my reply to the harrappan - I don't see priorities flying any time soon.

If production=planned do not show planned.

kinda agree, but it would end up lots of numbers, then a blank or two as you'll never get 100% parity. I think that would look odd, and possibly confusing.

Why not put some colour in, if engines or parts are below the required number, paint the numbers red, if above the required number paint the numbers green.

well, it's just a mockup at the moment - I typed it all up in white, I can do anything when I get to programming it up.

[Klahn]

This looks great! It should make production planning much easier.

[JeffroK]

Harley,

For another project.

In the raid/sweep allocation screen, can we see (and be able to sort by) the Group/Division so that you can allocate raids by
Group/Division.

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Harley,

For another project.

In the raid/sweep allocation screen, can we see (and be able to sort by) the Group/Division so that you can allocate raids by
Group/Division.

JeffK;

This can be done by:
Left-click the title bar for organization. Once for descending and once again for ascending.

I'm at work, and can't call up the game to give you a screen shot. Sorry

TS

BTW: For Harley, this reminds me of the scroll bar "jumping" when I do sorts. It is probably just my machine, since no one else has complained. [&:]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Harley,

For another project.

In the raid/sweep allocation screen, can we see (and be able to sort by) the Group/Division so that you can allocate raids by
Group/Division.

JeffK;

This can be done by:
Left-click the title bar for organization. Once for descending and once again for ascending.

I'm at work, and can't call up the game to give you a screen shot. Sorry

TS

BTW: For Harley, this reminds me of the scroll bar "jumping" when I do sorts. It is probably just my machine, since no one else has complained. [&:]

TechSarge

To allocate a lead unit you can see the HQ and pick Division eg 245 Sq / 83 Group but when to go to add bombers you dont see the HQ.

Am I missing something? (more than likely)

[Golden Bear]

To allocate a lead unit you can see the HQ and pick Division eg 245 Sq / 83 Group but when to go to add bombers you dont see the HQ.

Am I missing something? (more than likely)

No, the "Add Bombers" screen doesn't show parent formations. If it is important to you then you'll need to write down a list. Personally I don't see that it makes any difference but I have made those lists long ago anyway.

Carlos

[Hard Sarge]

another way, and sort of How the English tried to do it, change each group so it only flies one type of bomber

for me, I try to keep the RCAF bombers for one raid, the rest of the Hallys for another raid, Wellys and Strilings are for decoy/coastal

(I seem to toss in the RAAF with the RCAF for some reason, but it works)

for the Yanks it can be a little tuffer, but you know the Libs are going to be from one Div, trying to keep the 1st and 3rd Forts apart can be a little more work

[harley]

Ok, can we try and keep this thread on topic - by the time I'm finished there will be many, many pages of stuff, so keeping this thread tidy is important.

Jeff, your suggestion is probably better in the wish list thread, it will get lost here. TS - scrollbarjumpyjumpy is on my "oh yeah, I must do that when I see one" list. I've fixed several, but there are so bloody many of them.

[Hexagon]

Grat idea, i like it, i see in other post some similar with squadron screen, a mix of squadron information and pilots list, if i find it ...

[harley]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Grat idea, i like it, i see in other post some similar with squadron screen, a mix of squadron information and pilots list, if i find it ...

Yes, I know the one, the problem is that I can't do it within the bounds of the current artwork.

The screen that comes up - the little group box - was me trying to emulate the UV/WITP group boxes. Not as well as I'd liked...

If we dispense with the popup we could use the database art to have the group information in the middle box, the pilots in the lower box and the controls in the small upper box. I don't think it would look as smart, but it may be more useful.

[Golden Bear]

Well, you've gotten my Allied interface screen improvement. Don't much care about the Axis screens.

Here is a reprise of the screen so that my brillance can be appreciated.[;)]

Carlos

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: Golden Bear

...

Here is a reprise of the screen so that my brillance can be appreciated.[;)]

Carlos

I admire brillance... That's why I have so much, also? [:D]

We've talked about the Days-Since-Last-Mission column, but I'm curious about the Morale figures. nn(+-X)?

The Nav column is now listing the type of Nav Radar, look at BC's display. Your small column width would remove that?

My question is... Can we -- as Offensive Allies -- do without the Base column?
I've found I seldom use it -- as range is the more critical statistic.

In the Assign Groups to Mission screen, could we slip in a HQ column for the Base column?

Also, in the Assign Groups to Mission screen, could we move the Nav Radar column between the Unit and Aircraft columns?
This is to make the displays the same.

In your brillant display, I notice the mini-map is gone. I wonder how much I really use this item, when I'm at this stage of plotting?
I'll get back to you on this.

My it is bright around here, [8D]
TS