0.4 ship design UI

[Geoff the Medio]

The horizontal and vertical symmetry bothers me because it's very limiting and in the end forces the icons into a certain shape, which is what we wanted to avoid in the beginning AFAIR.

Do you mean the rotational symmetry, or the fact that the icons have mirror symmetry in the horizontal and vertical directions (and diagonals, I suppose)? I don't get why this is a problem or how it restricts part shapes in way particular to symmetry (that isn't just a matter of there being stuff all around the edges of the slot shape that needs to not be obscured).

If you want to do it like in the mockup, do you mind using slot images, and icon backgrounds at 70x70px, instead of 64x64(as the part icons)?

I can probably add an in-game option for the size of the slot and part icons indepdendently and arbitrarily. The actual slot texture should probably be 128x128 or 256x256 and scaled down in software. There's presumably not going to be a lot of detail in the slot images, so this shouldn't be a problem like it might for other types of icons.

[pd]

Do you mean the rotational symmetry, or the fact that the icons have mirror symmetry in the horizontal and vertical directions (and diagonals, I suppose)? I don't get why this is a problem or how it restricts part shapes in way particular to symmetry (that isn't just a matter of there being stuff all around the edges of the slot shape that needs to not be obscured).

I was referring to the rotational symmetry, which is the same as a mirror symmetry in our case. I guess I'm just bothered by the fact, that it takes away space all around the icons, which effectively forces the icons to fit in between. An Alternative would be for example to limit the feature that identifies as external or internal to one corner...

I can probably add an in-game option for the size of the slot and part icons indepdendently and arbitrarily. The actual slot texture should probably be 128x128 or 256x256 and scaled down in software. There's presumably not going to be a lot of detail in the slot images, so this shouldn't be a problem like it might for other types of icons.

I don't see why this is necessary, but if you think it needs to be done, by all means do it.
I can just provide the images at 70x70 which should be suitable for all icons, so none will need shrinking(still have to check individually thiough). Shrinking by code sometimes produces bad anti aliasing.

[Geoff the Medio]

I guess I'm just bothered by the fact, that it takes away space all around the icons, which effectively forces the icons to fit in between.

You don't need to make the icons small enough that the whole background border can be seen... Just as long as the border shape is apparent, that's enough. It might also help if there was more contrast between the border and background. Perhaps black instead of gray? Black would also be more consistent with the current background colour of the parts list, for which the current icons were (maybe?) intended. The gray background somewhat changes their appearance compared to a black background, I think / suspect.

An Alternative would be for example to limit the feature that identifies as external or internal to one corner...

I thought about that, but I think it's useful to have the whole shape be different, or the whole background icon be different in some other obvious way. It makes it much more obvious that there's a difference between the part types being indicated. If it was just a corner, players might be more likely to not notice or realize the importance, and then get frustrated and confused about why parts can't be placed in slots.

I can just provide the images at 70x70 which should be suitable for all icons, so none will need shrinking(still have to check individually thiough). Shrinking by code sometimes produces bad anti aliasing.

My point was that if it's a 256x256 texture, particularly a simple texture such as this with already smoothed transitions between colours or on line borders, there aren't likely to be aliasing issues in the rescaling in hardware / software to arbitrary size. So rather than making a small and unusual size (70x70), making a larger generic size 256x256 that can be scaled down to any desired size might be a better plan.

[pd]

You don't need to make the icons small enough that the whole background border can be seen... Just as long as the border shape is apparent, that's enough.

Practically this means making them small enough that most of the background border can be seen.

The dark grey was introduced deliberately to break with the all around blackness of the UI. This is to some degree also based on eleazars UI thread. It works well with the icons IMO.

I've committed the images. They are in the 'misc' folder, because none of the others seemed to fit.


There is some intentional transparency in the following two.

[Geoff the Medio]

The dark grey was introduced deliberately to break with the all around blackness of the UI. This is to some degree also based on eleazars UI thread. It works well with the icons IMO.

Doesn't eleazar's thread suggest making the background of everything a dark grey instead of black? In that case, we'd probably want black icon backgrounds and slot icons, in order to stand out... I suppose they can be changed if / when the list background colour changes.

I've committed the images. They are in the 'misc' folder, because none of the others seemed to fit.

The icons to go behind the part icons are really part of the part icons, and the slot icons are just there to contain the part icons, so I figure they belong in the part icons directory.

Edit: I moved the part images, breaking pd's image links in his previous post. I also committed the relevant code changes, so the slot and part background images are used on the design screen in the SVN version.

[Conker]

I think the whole thing would look better if the icons wern't over the top of the blueprints bit listed just outside with pointing lines to the various locations in the design. Then you don't have to worry about covering up all the artwork and making things look, well, crap might describe it. The icons are meant to give the designer an idea of what there is on the ship at a glance but that doesn't mean that they have to be placed over the blueprints exactly.

[pd]

Well, thanks for your opinion

The slot locations can be freely positioned via the xml file, that describes the hulls. So, what you are describing can actually be done already. However, hulls are likely going to change(in the amount and kind of slots they hold) and the background artwork is just a placeholder at this moment.

[pd]

I've just replaced the old blueprint image with a rendering of the actual low poly model, which is also used in combat. The guardian is used as a placeholder for every hull without an image.



I've also replaced the ancient ship icons accordingly(used in fleet and production windows).

[Redcap]

Ohhh boy, I like this alot!!!

[MikkoM]

I've just replaced the old blueprint image with a rendering of the actual low poly model, which is also used in combat. The guardian is used as a placeholder for every hull without an image.

Very nice.

[tzlaine]

Pd, I don't know if you saw my commit from about 3 weeks ago, but I implemented an offscreen renderer for the ship models for exactly this purpose. I don't think we should even need to have you make simple renders like this one -- we should make them as needed from the original model data and cache the images to disk for next time. I also ran out of FreeOrion time around the same time, so this will get done Soon(tm).

[tzlaine]

Oh, and one other thing -- I need a decent way to place the module slots onto the rendered ship images in order to truly automate this. Any ideas? One idea is not to put the slots directly on the hull, but have a more abstract set of tiers, and jsut show the ship behind them or off to the side, a la Eve Online:

Old version:


New version:

[pd]

Pd, I don't know if you saw my commit from about 3 weeks ago, but I implemented an offscreen renderer for the ship models for exactly this purpose. I don't think we should even need to have you make simple renders like this one -- we should make them as needed from the original model data and cache the images to disk for next time. I also ran out of FreeOrion time around the same time, so this will get done Soon(tm).

I must have missed this commit. It's kind of unexpected as well. I always thought having the 3D models shown on the design screen(and perhaps have them rotate?) was unnecessary and too much of a hassle. People had been asking about this in the past, but always preferred the simpler way of using an image.
I can tell you, that creating the renderings like in the image above is absolutely no effort. I just have to drop the ships in the scene I've created for this purpose and hit render. Quality-wise this beats the Ogre renderer, especially in regards to how the normal map is interpreted.

Oh, and one other thing -- I need a decent way to place the module slots onto the rendered ship images in order to truly automate this. Any ideas? One idea is not to put the slots directly on the hull, but have a more abstract set of tiers, and jsut show the ship behind them or off to the side, a la Eve Online:

I can't think of a way to do this in a clever way, without going into 3D, placing some kind of marker objects and having you to get the position of these somehow. That said, I don't think we need to put parts on top of the ship either. But it's easy enough to do, using the current method. I've even created a grid in photoshop document, that allows me to just throw in an image and read off the positions.

[Geoff the Medio]

...I don't think we need to put parts on top of the ship either.

If we don't put parts on top of otherwise identical ship renders, then there's no way to tell apart two ships using the same hull. You could introduce variations in colouring or textures, but having small renders of the part icons would convey a lot more useful information when browsing a list of ship designs or looking at a breakdown of ships in a system.

[pd]

If we don't put parts on top of otherwise identical ship renders, then there's no way to tell apart two ships using the same hull. You could introduce variations in colouring or textures, but having small renders of the part icons would convey a lot more useful information when browsing a list of ship designs or looking at a breakdown of ships in a system.

Are you referring to how ships look in the list views at the left. Are you suggesting to have slots/parts visible in there as well? How about identifying ships by the player given name and or other stats, such as the role the player has assigned or the primary weapon systems?

What I meant is, that in the main image it's not necessary to have slot images located at specific, matching parts on the ship, they could just as well be located at the border of the image.