Changes to Allegiance's UI

[TheBored]

QUOTE (Dogbones @ Sep 27 2006, 05:03 PM) What features of CortUI would you guys like to see as part of the base Alleg everyone gets when they install it?

None of them.

TB

[Dogbones]

QUOTE (Bard @ Sep 27 2006, 05:10 PM) ...but that's really the part that stymies me...why it's being suggested that the CortUI features be implemented as standard in the first place. What's the reasoning behind it?
...
Basically, why is this thread here at all?

Aww come on, did you even READ the first few lines of the first post? (I don't mean to be mean Bard)

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 26 2006, 09:47 PM) As you all know, the devteam is hard at work preparing the 3rd release of the Free Allegiance Zone.

A couple of proposed changes will require an update to some of the files that design Allegiance's user interface.

(I added the emphasis) These changes do not have to go in. At some point we will have to make changes to the GUI, just simply for clarity if nothing else, but we can hold off.

Dog

[Bard]

QUOTE (Dogbones @ Sep 27 2006, 03:43 PM) Aww come on, did you even READ the first few lines of the first post? (I don't mean to be mean Bard)
(I added the emphasis) These changes do not have to go in. At some point we will have to make changes to the GUI, just simply for clarity if nothing else, but we can hold off.

Dog

I did in fact read it (and no offense taken /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> ) but aside from the fact that the "proposed" aspect has been very downplayed due to initial presentation and people's reactions, this feels to me very much like the dialog.mdl is going to be changed anyway for R3 and, while it's being done, why not tack something else on along with it. Am I flying off in the wrong direction with this?

I guess the fact that it's tied specifically to R3 and not just up for a vote as a potential future change has me a bit confused. What's the baseline change that prompted this as an option?

By asking why this thread was here I meant more "why is this the approach that's being taken here?" and really didn't intend it to come off as though I was questioning why the dev team was bothering to ask our opinion about something. (gods I sound like madpeople)

I'm not trying to be a pain here, it just feels like something's missing from the picture.

(edit -- maybe you could elaborate a bit on which gui changes will be affecting dialog.mdl if that's what this is about?)

[Dogbones]

QUOTE (Bard @ Sep 27 2006, 05:55 PM) Am I flying off in the wrong direction with this?

(edit -- maybe you could elaborate a bit on which gui changes will be affecting dialog.mdl if that's what this is about?)

Yes (about the wrong direction) as these changes are very unlikely to make it into R3.

The specific changes are moot really, if this file gets changed, and mods out there also change this file, they will need to be compatible otherwise there will be a period of 'pain' for the admins and help line, etc.

It was made general on purpose as there were a few ways this could be approached. Intelligent discussion as well as getting a feel for how many people use CortUI would impact how we do things. "The sky is falling" posts aside looks like we got enough info.

[Tigereye]

Nothing's missing from the picture, Bard. Reread my posts in this topic for every detail about this picture. There are no hidden agendas.

But anyways, as it stands now there is only 1 small tweak that has been proposed for R3 that will require the UI to be updated: 3 lines of status text.

That's it. One small tweak.

We all have grand ideas in our heads too about future UI tweaks, such as saveable loadouts in F4 and other rather large UI tweaks. None of those are ready yet.

Every single time the devteam updates the UI, we will run into this scenario where everyone with mods will need to re-install them. So why make them reinstall their mods after R3 goes out, just to make them re-install their mods after R4 goes out, then R5...

Since we only have 1 small tweak now, it's probably best to just postpone it. We can get R3 out the door that much sooner, and without the headache of us all yelling that our mods got destroyed.

When we have more UI mods, we can do them all in 1 update instead of piecemeal: R3, R4, R5, etc.

So that's that. This patch hasn't been "canned" but it has been delayed for a future release. No need to beat the horse anymore.

--TE

[jgbaxter]

QUOTE Every single time the devteam updates the UI, we will run into this scenario where everyone with mods will need to re-install them. So why make them reinstall their mods after R3 goes out, just to make them re-install their mods after R4 goes out, then R5...[/quote]

Why make them reinstall? Because the option isn't even there for us that don't use the mods to keep it the way we want.

[Bard]

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 27 2006, 04:21 PM) There are no hidden agendas.

I never suspected that anyone was hiding things, I was just unclear about exactly why this came up.

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 27 2006, 04:21 PM) But anyways, as it stands now there is only 1 small tweak that has been proposed for R3 that will require the UI to be updated: 3 lines of status text.

And that answered it. Thanks. Sorry I was such a pain, I was just looking for a full picture here and unfortunately I skimmed your last post while I was replying to dogbones. That was my fault and I apologize.

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 27 2006, 04:21 PM) Every single time the devteam updates the UI, we will run into this scenario where everyone with mods will need to re-install them. So why make them reinstall their mods after R3 goes out, just to make them re-install their mods after R4 goes out, then R5...

That's what I have to do with any other games I use UI Mods in every time the dev team there updates the UI. I wait for a UI dev to release an update and re-install. Sometimes the dev team says "we switched this and that so things dependant on any of those hooks/xml files will no longer function" and sometimes the UI developers have to figure it all out for themselves. It's not optimal and I appreciate the fact that you guys are trying for something better, but it's something I'm used to dealing with after updates.

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 27 2006, 04:21 PM) So that's that. This patch hasn't been "canned" but it has been delayed for a future release. No need to beat the horse anymore.

Again, sorry for my part in horse beating, but thanks to all of you for being so understanding and responsive.

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Zapper @ Sep 27 2006, 10:12 PM) The only GUI modification i want in Cort's GUI is the F7 minimap ripcord option when launching from a base.

have you tried my dialog.mdl mod?

QUOTE (Bard @ Sep 27 2006, 10:55 PM) By asking why this thread was here I meant more "why is this the approach that's being taken here?" and really didn't intend it to come off as though I was questioning why the dev team was bothering to ask our opinion about something. (gods I sound like madpeople)

thats because people mis-interprited your post, and responded with a certain angle (as they percieve you to have one opinion) which makes you respond to defend your argument more from their percieved angle, and then they take it that what they believe your opinion is is actually true, so it gets re-inforced by your argument
QUOTE (edit -- maybe you could elaborate a bit on which gui changes will be affecting dialog.mdl if that's what this is about?)[/quote]

That single line of text is going to be replaced by 3 lines of scrolling status so it isn't constantly overwritten. This change requires new controls to be added to the .mdl files (which is why we need to push new MDLs) and codechanges to pump 3 lines of text to these new controls instead of 1.

when you choose the final code, can you make a post saying

delete line ## which says

Code: Select all

some stuff about the messages

replace it with

Code: Select all

this new message code

so we can just update the parts that cause the crashes, and not have to re-do the whole thing. mine wont be so bad to re-do, but i am quite busy and havnt done .mdl modding in a while. and corts ui is just huge, sure he can copy and paste quite a bit. but you are creating more work for people develop mods for alleg, i just think it would be better to cooperate with each more, and try to cut down on situations where one persons change forces someone to make a change to their thing - avoid standing on each others feet

Bard that is one of the options. Pushing the new mdls via AU is just one way of getting them to you, and that method is problematic.

What seems to be a more likely method is an R3 installer that includes the required new mdl files. After it is installed you can update to what ever custom mdls you want. Although even that is not quite so simple, so it likely we'd need to reinstall all of the mdl files not just the ones we need to chnage. But you would still be able to reapply custom mdl files (updated to include whatever changes we need so it doesn't crash).

could we use the ASGS auto update to only dl the dialog.mdl once to each user name, so you don't overwrite it with every AU, and you avoid making people dl a new installer. ok that would mean more work for pook to change the system, but it would be another tool we would have in the tool kit

[Pook]

QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Sep 27 2006, 05:34 PM) Why make them reinstall? Because the option isn't even there for us that don't use the mods to keep it the way we want.

I for one am not going to tie the dev's hands and say "Hey, make our game better - oh - but don't change anything..."

Change is inevitable.

I'll clue you in on a little secret... I suggested we postpone this one particular mod. Why? Because people bitched? Hell no. You can bitch all you want it makes me want to change your UI even more. I postponed it because we don't have the things we need to test it properly (like a shadow switcher application).

Once the plumbing is in place for "artwork" changes to happen, they'll happen. We already have this enhancement in the pipe and I'm sure there will be more.

I'm completely over watching hard work get responded to with negativity. We'll always do our best to steer the ship in the right direction... but if we happen to steer it in a direction a few people don't like we're not turning around. Instead, those people are welcome to get off the boat.

Now - we'll discuss it internally, see what our options are and come up with possible ways that we can accomodate a "modding" community... and then we'll get back to you.