Fleet Display on the galaxy map

[Geoff the Medio]

What should be used for the head of the icon? Does a single ship of battle / colony / scout classification make the multi-fleet icon look like the ship's icon style?

The multi-fleet icon is only for the lowest zooms where there are extreme space constraints and so the tiny icons are used which don't differentiate between ship type and number.

By "multi-fleet icon", I meant any icon that is representing multiple fleets.

(So calling the tiny one tiny-fleet-multi is a bit misleading, although does distinguish it from the tiny-fleet single ship icon)

[Geoff the Medio]

Edit: The current small and medium icons' size indicator file names are numbered differently (they start with one tick for size one, whereas big starts with no ticks). (The small ones are also being placed oddly, but I don't think that's a file issue...)

Oops, i'll fix that.

You missed something I re-edited into that post. The new version:

Edit: The current small and medium icons' size indicator file names are numbered differently (small start with one tick for size one, whereas big starts with no ticks) and look different for larger numbers (more ticks while maintaining the old ticks for big, a second row of ticks without the original ticks for small).

[eleazar]

You missed something...

Got that too now.

[Geoff the Medio]

Edit: The current small and medium icons' size indicator file names are numbered differently (they start with one tick for size one, whereas big starts with no ticks).

Oops, i'll fix that.

Could you put back some appropriately-sized blank textures for zero ships size indicators? Without them, the number in the postfix (eg. -2) doesn't match the number I ask for, since it stores the textures in the order it finds them, starting with index 0, not the index you label it with.

Also, what is the mapping from (number ships) to (size indicator number) ? eg. does a fleet with five ships get indicator-5 or something else?

[eleazar]

Could you put back some appropriately-sized blank textures for zero ships size indicators? Without them, the number in the postfix (eg. -2) doesn't match the number I ask for, since it stores the textures in the order it finds them, starting with index 0, not the index you label it with.

Does adding a blank file "big-tail-0.png", along with the 2 other sizes work?

Also, what is the mapping from (number ships) to (size indicator number) ? eg. does a fleet with five ships get indicator-5 or something else?

We discussed that in some other thread. More complicated ideas were tossed around, but IIRC we determined to start out with each marking indicating twice as many ships as the one before. Thus:

1 = up to 2 ships
2 = up to 4 ships
3 = up to 8 ships
4 = up to 16 ships
5 = up to 32 ships
6 = up to 64 ships
7 = 65 or more

We will probably want to rework the scale when we have a better feel for how many ships are normally flying about. More tail icons could be devised if necessary as well.

[Geoff the Medio]

Does adding a blank file "big-tail-0.png", along with the 2 other sizes work?

Yes. Might as well make them the right size, in case we find a need for them.

1 = up to 2 ships
2 = up to 4 ships
3 = up to 8 ships
...

Is there an implied 0 = up to 1 ship in that? Presumably distinguishing between 1 and 2 ships would be useful.

[eleazar]

1 = up to 2 ships
2 = up to 4 ships
3 = up to 8 ships
...

Is there an implied 0 = up to 1 ship in that? Presumably distinguishing between 1 and 2 ships would be useful.

At one point i was just going to use the heads without the tails for 1-ship fleets. Then i waffled on the idea a couple times.

The distinction between 1 and 2 ships does probably deserve to be displayed. I suppose i can just rename/redo the tail icons if i want a solo ship to have some sort of tail.

*-tail-0.png files committed.

[eleazar]

Also:

* the system ring should use the same color as the plain starlanes. I think you have that adjustable in an option... both should be the same.

* on the right your using the big size of fleet icon which i expect is too big for the galaxy map, but works in the fleet window

* flipped the tiny fleet icons so they point up like all the others.

[eleazar]

Also i can assume that the stars in this example come about as close as they ever will, right?

I think this is a typical galaxy. There are various star placement algorithms, and we might have more in future, but working with that assumption based on this set of images is probably fine.

Drat. That assumption matched my casual observation until now, but apparently stars can be nearly touching at max zoom.

Picture 7.png (135.64 KiB) Viewed 2772 times

(max zoom)

You get this with a 12 star, irregular galaxy.

With stars this close sometimes the fleet display setup previously discussed (or practically any setup) will fail horribly.

[Geoff the Medio]

...apparently stars can be nearly touching at max zoom [...] with a[n] irregular galaxy.

The solution might be to remove irregular galaxies, or change how they're generated, if the issue doesn't happen with any other "shapes".

[eleazar]

...apparently stars can be nearly touching at max zoom [...] with a[n] irregular galaxy.

The solution might be to remove irregular galaxies, or change how they're generated, if the issue doesn't happen with any other "shapes".

Skimming through about a dozen large, random galaxies i couldn't find another example of stars so close. Hopefully it's really rare, but we'll have to deal with it eventually.

[tzlaine]

Line 1487 of Universe.cpp:

Code: Select all

const double        MIN_SYSTEM_SEPARATION       = 30.0;

We can probably just increase that some.

[eleazar]

Line 1487 of Universe.cpp:

Code: Select all

const double        MIN_SYSTEM_SEPARATION       = 30.0;

We can probably just increase that some.

I've been working with the assumption that the min separation translated to about 300 px (from star center to star center) at max zoom.

However we would benefit from raising the minimum a bit: ~350 px at max zoom-- whatever that translates to.

[pd]

Won't this effect galaxy size in general and therefore render all current assumptions for what to use on what zoom level obsolete?

[tzlaine]

No, that 30.0 value is in universe units, not pixels. IIRC, when we generate a position for a star, and it's within 30.0 units of some star we already placed, we generate a new position. The only effect increasing this value will have is that we may end up placing fewer stars, since we only re-try the placement a fixed number of times before giving up.