Matrix Games Forums

Size Matters. [;)]

To some in this player community. [:(]

After the fact. [8|]

ORIGINAL: berto

The new toolbar was widely advertised in

[*]Coder Diary #9 -- Revamped Toolbar
[*]Tool Bar Buttons?
[*]Many screenshots in the public forum.

Furthermore

[*]Every step of the way, we here in the private forum have discussed the toolbar at great length.

AFAIK, nobody -- nobody! -- expressed concern or objection to

[*]the number of toolbar icons
[*]their small size
[*]that they run together, presenting a confusing display

Nobody.

Coder Diary #9 -- Revamped Toolbar was posted 8/22/2013 -- six months ago! A few weeks before, Tool Bar Buttons was posted 7/30/2013 -- more than six months ago! Why do you all think I go to the trouble of posting Coder Diaries? Among other things, to solicit player feedback of work-in-progress. For instance, feedback about toolbar icons, their size etc. -- of which there was little offered, and none of it critical.

Look here, at this screenshot from the Tool Bar Buttons thread, posted 8/16/2003:



Look familiar? It's a screenshot from one of John Tiller's Squad Battles. See the toolbar icons? Are they small? Did anybody say so? Did anybody say: Please don't make the JTCS toolbar buttons as small as they are in Squad Battles! Don't think so.

Another John Tiller game, Campaign Peninsula, superimposed on East Front 2.00:



I hang out at JT Civil War Battles fora. A lot. You know what? Nobody in that series' player community ever complains about the toolbar size, or the size of the toolbar buttons!

Another more recent John Tiller game, Musket & Pike Renaissance, superimposed on West Front 2.00:



Have I ever read any complaint about the Renaissance toolbar and the size of its buttons? Nope!

Man, you want small UI controls? I'll give you small UI controls! Look at the toolbars, and tiny map icons -- every one of which opens up a UI dialog -- in this screenshot from War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition:



I hang out at the WITP:AE forum. A lot. You know what? Have I ever read any angry rants about the size of WITP:AE's UI controls? Nope!

What is it about the JTCS community that, despite fair warning, intentions revealed long in advance, now sees fit to raise a ruckus about 2.00's toolbar and button sizes? What makes us so special? Some of us, anyway. [;)]

ORIGINAL: berto

I'm not getting any younger myself. I had to get reading glasses ~five years ago. (Although I'm not so dependent yet that I couldn't do without them.)

But maybe it's just me. I'm okay with the smaller icons. Especially because when you mouse over a toolbar icon

[*]the Status Bar indicates in text what the icon is for
[*]if the mouse lingers long enough, a tooltip does the same, additionally indicating the hot key for that icon

There is a logic to the grouping and the ordering of the icons. Players will learn to adapt to it. There is now a nice symmetry between the width of the window Title Bar, the Toolbar, and the Status Bar. We have more map space! (An issue, because otherwise why did earlier versions allow one to reclaim map area by toggling off the main menu?)

A peeve of mine: Games, especially recent games, where the UI is too intrusive and takes up too much screen real estate! I like my UIs to be small, unobtrusive. I think the uncluttered, business-like UI of this game is fine and dandy. So shoot me!

I so much hope everybody commits to learning the hot keys! Not just because I'm a lefty, I really think the game plays much better if we can make use of the otherwise idle left hand. With three ways to access major game functions -- toolbar, menu, hot keys -- what's not to like?

You know what? I predict that, soon enough, players will get used to the new arrangement, and the whole controversy will blow over. Not to say we don't implement the new, larger toolbar -- when Mike has time for it -- and offer it in the next patch (also in Middle East etc.). But by then, I predict that the issue will largely be moot.

But I could be wrong. [:)]

There are a few old ladies around that have a meltdown every time there has been a change from the Talonsoft version of the game. Don't let them get you down or let them get under your skin. Some people don't/won't visit this forum until the changes come and some won't leave the blitz. Although you pre posted this over there too.

Oh well, they can keep at 1.00 or 02 or 03 or 04 or TS.

Let's move on please.

^ what he said

Plenty of early warning about the changes taking place and plenty of opportunity to give feedback.

Any time frame on the new EXE.

I think the new icons are great. At least now I can figure out how to use some of the features I never used.

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

There are a few old ladies around that have a meltdown every time there has been a change from the Talonsoft version of the game. Don't let them get you down or let them get under your skin. Some people don't/won't visit this forum until the changes come and some won't leave the blitz. Although you pre posted this over there too.

Oh well, they can keep at 1.00 or 02 or 03 or 04 or TS.

Let's move on please.

Junk. Screw you. You condescending piece of crap.

Yes, Berto the buttons are too small. There were those that stated early on that you do not need every hot key button on the lower tool bar. But, you put them there anyway and accused the players of wanting it all.
Lose have the buttons and don't force players to have to look at the eye exploding tiny ones you put there.
Please, also be less smug. We are customers. Don't piss off the customers.

RR

Thanks Ed, you prove my point.

Hmm, we don't have ALL the possible buttons since theres room I would like a display zoom in and out button haha!

Also, my biggest (and which is quite minimal)gripe ( for all JT style games) is the icon for assaulting NEVER appears to have anything to do with close combat and screws me up the most. I mean two tanks humping( i think , the icon is so small) doesn't logically translate to an assault.... How about crossed bayonets or swords, even a hand grenade, something that implies "close combat"

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

There are a few old ladies around that have a meltdown every time there has been a change from the Talonsoft version of the game. Don't let them get you down or let them get under your skin. Some people don't/won't visit this forum until the changes come and some won't leave the blitz. Although you pre posted this over there too.

Oh well, they can keep at 1.00 or 02 or 03 or 04 or TS.

Let's move on please.

+1

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Thanks Ed, you prove my point.

I think with your first post you proved his. [8|]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

There are a few old ladies around that have a meltdown every time there has been a change from the Talonsoft version of the game. Don't let them get you down or let them get under your skin. Some people don't/won't visit this forum until the changes come and some won't leave the blitz. Although you pre posted this over there too.

Oh well, they can keep at 1.00 or 02 or 03 or 04 or TS.

Let's move on please.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Junk. Screw you. You condescending piece of crap.

Yes, Berto the buttons are too small. There were those that stated early on that you do not need every hot key button on the lower tool bar. But, you put them there anyway and accused the players of wanting it all.
Lose have the buttons and don't force players to have to look at the eye exploding tiny ones you put there.
Please, also be less smug. We are customers. Don't piss off the customers.

RR

New buttons don't bother me so much...but I will admit I miss the familiar green outline of a selected unit on the map....can't find a color that suits me with "Highlight Orgs" on.

What berto has done with this game in such a short time is nothing short of incredible.

Give me an -X option for the org editor, or a way to easily add new units to the platoon files without encryption...and I'll never, ever complain about anything...

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

New buttons don't bother me so much...but I will admit I miss the familiar green outline of a selected unit on the map....can't find a color that suits me with "Highlight Orgs" on.

What berto has done with this game in such a short time is nothing short of incredible.

Give me an -X option for the org editor, or a way to easily add new units to the platoon files without encryption...and I'll never, ever complain about anything...

Unless I misunderstand you last sentence, you can add to/ alter any platoon OOB now w v2, it just Only works for solo play ( ie for pbemail oob's are locked)

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Unless I misunderstand you last sentence, you can add to/ alter any platoon OOB now w v2, it just Only works for solo play ( ie for pbemail oob's are locked)

You can alter, but not add to. The org editor only reads .obx files....

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Unless I misunderstand you last sentence, you can add to/ alter any platoon OOB now w v2, it just Only works for solo play ( ie for pbemail oob's are locked)

You can alter, but not add to. The org editor only reads .obx files....

Arrghh I did not know that....

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Unless I misunderstand you last sentence, you can add to/ alter any platoon OOB now w v2, it just Only works for solo play ( ie for pbemail oob's are locked)

You can alter, but not add to. The org editor only reads .obx files....

I remember you added US HTs to the German oob for one of my scns some years ago. I should check if that still works now

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Unless I misunderstand you last sentence, you can add to/ alter any platoon OOB now w v2, it just Only works for solo play ( ie for pbemail oob's are locked)

You can alter, but not add to. The org editor only reads .obx files....

Hmm, Im a little confused about this. The oob are text files... If one uses the x function in the executable then its just telling the program to point to the OOB files vs the encrypted OBX... If the org editor (which you must use to build any OOB for a scenario) ONLY reads the OBX, then how in practicle terms can you edit any property of a unit? Unless the org editor has "fixed # of uits it ecognises in an oob....

To the extent that edorg looks for .obx files, I will add a -X NoEncryption option to that EXE also, just like now for the game engine.

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Hmm, Im a little confused about this. The oob are text files... If one uses the x function in the executable then its just telling the program to point to the OOB files vs the encrypted OBX... If the org editor (which you must use to build any OOB for a scenario) ONLY reads the OBX, then how in practicle terms can you edit any property of a unit? Unless the org editor has "fixed # of uits it ecognises in an oob....

Right, with the -X option you can change things like assault values, firing, load-unload values, etc. You cannot change the number of SPs each unit has. cw58 and I tested this in this thread. It appears that values (like strength) which can be altered in the scenario editor can not be altered using the -X option.

Now say you wanted to add an entirely new unit to the .oob files. Well, the only way to be able to use this unit and have it show up in the .org editor is to have a Matrix member encrypt the revised .oob file...something I was hoping the -X option would negate.

@Huib - I remember clearly...and just yesterday was browsing the German units for WF in the Unit Viewer. I happened upon the captured M3 and was curious if the "winterized" version ever made it in....sadly, it hasn't yet. We also added some captured Russian heavy mortars.[8D]

ORIGINAL: berto


To the extent that edorg looks for .obx files, I will add a -X NoEncryption option to that EXE also, just like now for the game engine.

That's fantastic news berto...thanks so much!

ORIGINAL: berto


To the extent that edorg looks for .obx files, I will add a -X NoEncryption option to that EXE also, just like now for the game engine.

I will add a -X NoEncryption option to that EXE also, just like now for the game engine.

Thanks Berto! Would it be safe to assume there would be no point, until that function is added, in modifying a platoon OOB to use in a new scenario?

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

ORIGINAL: berto

To the extent that edorg looks for .obx files, I will add a -X NoEncryption option to that EXE also, just like now for the game engine.

A fellow dev team member has pointed out the need for that with edit (the scenario editor) too. I'll look into implementing it for both edit & edorg this very day!

Thanks Berto! Would it be safe to assume there would be no point, until that function is added, in modifying a platoon OOB to use in a new scenario?

Not quite. Up until now, you could modify existing platoon stats (to give them new capabilities, for instance), just not add new ones. An oversight.