ravener96 wrote:Then i hope to josh he makes it so the ui can be modded away/customized the living shit out of. I'm not saying it will be a bad ui, but it definitly doesent work for everyone. I myself would like to see something closing on eve more than these boxes, but that might just be me.

I'd also like a windowed approach more
Not a tiling window manager!
Just normal windowing, with moving, resizing etc of windows

Starsiege levels of customization are plenty for me.

Friday, July 25, 2014

No! I need more time. Wait for me. I'm in the middle of something big right now with LTSL, ship generation, colony simulation, and even the interface. But I need more time. It's just not there yet So many hours but not enough yet.

Give me a day without wasted time on a devlog and I will give you presents!!

Christmas comes tomorrow.

See you...

even the interface.

interface

is that what i think it is? is that the future of LT UI moddability? guys, i think it's going to be ok.

I also really enjoyed the UI in the old videos where he was showcasing it - the new oversized windows really don't work for me (though I recognize their use for e.g. markets), but part of the whole rationale for a nodal interface iirc was the ability to visualise data easily in the large. I remember unwinding trees and ferns and spirals and things - man, that was beautiful. Do we still have that..?

To be honest hat we saw in #19 doesn't look promising (except from moddability ofcourse) as the ui looks unsuitable for anything lagre or Even medium size. The "stacked" windows look cluttered and provide very little extra info. For the current UI to be good, or even passable it requires some work, not in the graphics department, but in the playability department.

To be honest, josh needs someone for feedback. Probbably not any of us, but a fellow gamer or something to come over every second week to look at stuff for half an hour and give some feedback. The current ui seems more like it's made to be pretty rather than useful.

I was afraid we could get the x rebirth ui problems, and i still am.

Disclaimer, i could be entirely wrong and this ui is equal to the second coming of josh. I might just look at this from the wrong perspective.

Agreed, still too many big black boxes. I do think that the layering is better that a couple previous videos, and I can see how it is still nodal, but way too much space is given for those boxes. It was much better with the spidery lines and ferns and such. I would need to see a serious justification for the boxes, and so far I can only say that they are good for graphs.

I think the UI is still in techdemo phase.

We may see what it can do but how exactly it will be used is far from being set in stone.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:I think the UI is still in techdemo phase.

We may see what it can do but how exactly it will be used is far from being set in stone.

Well I guess it's the perfect time to be a blowhard and guide it into a pleasant direction.

Hyperion wrote:

Cornflakes_91 wrote:I think the UI is still in techdemo phase.

We may see what it can do but how exactly it will be used is far from being set in stone.

Well I guess it's the perfect time to be a blowhard and guide it into a pleasant direction.

we already have and josh responded by putting in layers. i think he feels the ui is a lot closer to finished than we (that is me at least, i'm not going to speak for anyone but myself here) want it. his vision might just be different than ours (mine) and that is ok as long as it doesent hinder playability, which it in this case looks like it will (as long as he doesent radically change the UI that is, adding multiple windows, a quick menu for easy acess of key info and lists that actually work. the information density we have seen so far has been horrible).

edit: i have to put in my disclaimer again reminding you that i might be wrong and this ui might be the best thing since sliced bread.

I have to say, though, the layers make it a LOT easier to understand and process. The information density could still use some work. I don't really like the "tiling of all hardpoints" on the left there, as an example - I think I'd prefer a list, with the hardpoints that need immediate attention at the top, and the ones that just need attention below that. Important and/or relevant info should be easier to access than unimportant info, and you shouldn't have to sift through unimportant/irrelevant information just to find the relevant/important information you're looking for. A simple search function might work wonders here as well.

Personally, I think the UI will undergo its biggest changes during beta. This is a time when Josh will be able to ask for direct feedback from his users.
If LTSL is used for the UI, the advantage will be fast iteration, and quick distribution of patches and updates.

Talvieno wrote:I don't really like the "tiling of all hardpoints" on the left there, as an example - I think I'd prefer a list, with the hardpoints that need immediate attention at the top, and the ones that just need attention below that. Important and/or relevant info should be easier to access than unimportant info, and you shouldn't have to sift through unimportant/irrelevant information just to find the relevant/important information you're looking for.

Whose definition of "important/relevant" will determine how the default sort order changes?

I'm generally less in favor of system designs that think it's their business to dictate to me what I'm supposed to want (*cough*Apple*cough*) and more in favor of systems that let either let me decide or that make decisions unnecessary.

Showing all hardpoints in an invariant order means it's always simple/fast to find what you're looking for because it's always in (roughly) the same place.

If it's necessary to call attention to a particular node because its state is somehow different from the state of other similar nodes, there are other ways of doing it that don't change where you've learned to look for particular kinds of nodes. Color and animation, for example, are effective ways to represent "something is different about this item" state information.

UI design is always tricky because different people have different preferences for how to organize information. There is no one-size-fits-all interface design solution. The best that can normally be done is simplification and customization... and even those are subjective.

Makes for interesting discussions, though.

As simple and unobtrusive as possible is what I'm looking for as a gamer. The UI needs to look good and be relevant but most of the time I want it out of the way.

As simplification is, or used to be, one of Mr Parnell's guiding principles I find it hard to believe that he will provide a UI which will cause frustration to the player. As Josh is also a player his instincts will (or should) tell him what feels right.

I agree with the idea that much will be learned from the Beta. The input of a diversity of players will aid Josh in his search for perfection. I'm positive there will be no shortage of advice if it looks like he's going down the wrong path.

Flatfingers wrote:

Talvieno wrote:I don't really like the "tiling of all hardpoints" on the left there, as an example - I think I'd prefer a list, with the hardpoints that need immediate attention at the top, and the ones that just need attention below that. Important and/or relevant info should be easier to access than unimportant info, and you shouldn't have to sift through unimportant/irrelevant information just to find the relevant/important information you're looking for.

Whose definition of "important/relevant" will determine how the default sort order changes?

Let's say your weapons malfunction. This is important to know. Weapon jammed? Also important. Weapon destroyed? Very important. Shields idling at maximum? Important to conserve power, but not quite as important as your shields gone and armor failing. I suppose I should've said "critical".

However... it's worth noting that if you have a large battleship with 100+ hardpoints, that's going to be an absolute pain to fit on the screen at once. The bigger the ship, the harder to pilot because the HUD becomes messier? No thank you. Piloting a larger ship might take some juggling, but the difficulty should be in the piloting, not in the HUD.


As Victor said:

Victor Tombs wrote:As simple and unobtrusive as possible is what I'm looking for as a gamer. The UI needs to look good and be relevant but most of the time I want it out of the way.

As simplification is, or used to be, one of Mr Parnell's guiding principles I find it hard to believe that he will provide a UI which will cause frustration to the player. As Josh is also a player his instincts will (or should) tell him what feels right.

And yes, UI will definitely change the most during beta.

Talvieno wrote: Let's say your weapons malfunction. This is important to know. Weapon jammed? Also important. Weapon destroyed? Very important. Shields idling at maximum? Important to conserve power, but not quite as important as your shields gone and armor failing. I suppose I should've said "critical".

However... it's worth noting that if you have a large battleship with 100+ hardpoints, that's going to be an absolute pain to fit on the screen at once. The bigger the ship, the harder to pilot because the HUD becomes messier? No thank you. Piloting a larger ship might take some juggling, but the difficulty should be in the piloting, not in the HUD.

if you have 100+ hardpoints its not that important which exact weapon failed.

a simple dot-bar-box graph could be very easily used for this
its pretty self explaining i guess.

the single dots represent single systems and the color represents the status of the system.

inside their box they could be sorted based on their type or systems group

this could also scale to very many systems, as you can simply make the boxes/dots smaller to fill the limited area

so you always have the amount of detail you need.

aboard a big battleship you dont need to know which status turret nr 234 has, but on a fighter it can be critical to know the status of your 5 weapons