Previewing a map in the game setup screen.

[wraitii]

Looks good. Given the space you have in map selection mode, you might want to expand a bit the different menus to make it more accessible, but otherwise looks good.

[theShadow]

I like the latest version, but could you please align the option selection boxes vertically?

[Yves]

I think the main screen looks quite good now. It's a lot better with the buttons in the middle.

Though I'd remove the 0ad logo.

A problem could be that we have too much space at bigger resolutions, but I think it's better to have too much space than an overcrowded UI.

The description textbox is already bigger than it's needed for most maps, but that doesn't hurt.

Maybe an artist has a brilliant idea how to fill the space but it's not urgent in my opinion .

I'm still not quite happy with the map selection screen.

I think the controls (Number of players, map size, victory condition, reveal map, teams locked) shouldn't just be duplicated there. However they naturally have a little different meaning for random maps and for scenarios. That's why I thought about making two separate map selection screens for random maps and scenarios.

When 0ad is release the number of available scenario maps could quickly increase and a filter functionality for "victory condition" "map size" etc.. could become useful. Such a filter doesn't make sense for random map because that would be options instead. Using the same controls as filter and as options would be confusing.

If we take this approach we could change the controls on the match setup screen to text which gives more flexibility for design.

Another thing is the chat on the map selection screen. I'd either place it in the middle or remove it.

If we remove it we get more space for things like filters and we could change the map selection screen more to a dialog like when you click on "History" in the main menu. This would solve the problem of having too much space there and it would also give more orientation to the player about where he currently is in the menu.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think the "Map Filter" (and other) fields and the "Number of player" fields can just be aligned into one column.

[historic_bruno]

AoK had all the map selection and game options in one column. It was ugly, but I never had a problem using them.

If we remove it we get more space for things like filters and we could change the map selection screen more to a dialog like when you click on "History" in the main menu. This would solve the problem of having too much space there and it would also give more orientation to the player about where he currently is in the menu.

That's what I was thinking. If map selection is separated, it should be a "pop up" window and it only needs part of the screen. Of course separation makes the game setup code more complicated, as the values have to be passed from one page to another. If the only difference is hiding the map list as on Spahbod's mockups, we could just as easily put the map list into a dropdown and keep it all on a single page. (What's the difference between a "Choose map" button to open a map list and a dropdown map list?)

We should also try to improve the layout in higher resolution and widescreen layouts, compared to what it is now. Using more relative positioning might help. There's a lot of empty space in the player assignments area in the current UI.

[Mythos_Ruler]

AoK had all the map selection and game options in one column. It was ugly, but I never had a problem using them.

Uglier than having multiple columns that don't align for no reason?

[zoot]

(What's the difference between a "Choose map" button to open a map list and a dropdown map list?)

One thing I like in Spahbod's setup is that you can click around freely in the map list to explore the various maps, whereas in a dropdown list you would constantly have to go up and click that little annoying dropdown-arrow button, making the list effectively impossible to explore.

Edited June 30, 2012 by zoot

[historic_bruno]

Uglier than having multiple columns that don't align for no reason?

Not at all, the ugliness is in the graphics rather than the concept.

One thing I like in Spahbod's setup is that you can click around freely in the map list to explore the various maps, whereas in a dropdown list you would constantly have to go up and click that little annoying dropdown-arrow button, making the list effectively impossible to explore.

Hmm, unless we had better UI input handling. It could remember input focus was on the dropdown, then the arrow keys would still control the map list. Most decent UIs support that. Not sure if anyone cares to implement that for our GUI engine

There is actually more extra clicking required in Spahbod's design, because the only way to compare player assignments on different scenarios is to open the map chooser (which replaces the player assignment layout), choose a map, confirm the map choice to return to player assignments, and repeat. Luckily that's avoided quite easily, by leaving everything on a single screen the way it is now

[Mythos_Ruler]

To me, a couple extra clicks is a non-issue here. It's not like every second counts. The benefit to a separate Map Selection screen is that there would be more room for options and features than if it's all done with a drop menu in the Game Setup screen.

[Spahbod]

Though I'd remove the 0ad logo.

Does anyone else think that we should remove the logo? I put it there to fill that empty space. Any suggestion for that?

I'm still not quite happy with the map selection screen.

I think the controls (Number of players, map size, victory condition, reveal map, teams locked) shouldn't just be duplicated there. However they naturally have a little different meaning for random maps and for scenarios. That's why I thought about making two separate map selection screens for random maps and scenarios.

When 0ad is release the number of available scenario maps could quickly increase and a filter functionality for "victory condition" "map size" etc.. could become useful. Such a filter doesn't make sense for random map because that would be options instead. Using the same controls as filter and as options would be confusing.

If we take this approach we could change the controls on the match setup screen to text which gives more flexibility for design.

In scenario selection, those "options" would become texts and show the map's options. So we need them in map selection screen. The same would happen if we add more filters (because they are not changeable "options" anymore). So this is not an issue at all.

Another thing is the chat on the map selection screen. I'd either place it in the middle or remove it.

If we remove it we get more space for things like filters and we could change the map selection screen more to a dialog like when you click on "History" in the main menu. This would solve the problem of having too much space there and it would also give more orientation to the player about where he currently is in the menu.

What if I am the host and a client wanted to tell me that he won't play this particular map? The host should see the chat box during the map selection process.

I think the "Map Filter" (and other) fields and the "Number of player" fields can just be aligned into one column.

Done.

That's what I was thinking. If map selection is separated, it should be a "pop up" window and it only needs part of the screen. Of course separation makes the game setup code more complicated, as the values have to be passed from one page to another.

That was what I was trying to do at first. But the player assignment color badges and some other things where on the top of that "pop up" for unknown reasons.

To me, a couple extra clicks is a non-issue here. It's not like every second counts. The benefit to a separate Map Selection screen is that there would be more room for options and features than if it's all done with a drop menu in the Game Setup screen.

I agree with all your points.

[zoot]

Does anyone else think that we should remove the logo? I put it there to fill that empty space. Any suggestion for that?

Yeah, I'd take out. I think it would better to assess what to fill it with when the game is more feature complete.

[Spahbod]

The problem with that space is that it is filled with chat box in multiplayer mode. So I should decrease the width of chat box in order to put more options there (that is not a problem because we don't have many options yet).

Edit: Lol. I am a WFG Random Map Scripter that does GUI stuff and has also done some little 3d modelling but has just made 2 random maps in the upcoming release.

[Yves]

In scenario selection, those "options" would become texts and show the map's options. So we need them in map selection screen. The same would happen if we add more filters (because they are not changeable "options" anymore). So this is not an issue at all.

I'm sure it can be solved somehow, but what I mean't is that it's not yet solved in the concepts and I don't know yet how to solve it exactly.

What if I am the host and a client wanted to tell me that he won't play this particular map? The host should see the chat box during the map selection process.

Yes, that's a possible use case but it can also be done if the chat is only on the main screen.

You will never be able to solve it the best way for all possible use cases.

However I'm unsure if the chat should be kept there or not. That's my I mentioned both possibilities (remove it or move it to the middle).

[Mythos_Ruler]

The mockups are starting to look good. I just think Atlas needs a new "Preview Image" button or hack that takes a photo of the current view of the map and saves it to the proper folder for the in-game Map Selection and Game Setup screens to pull.

[historic_bruno]

The mockups are starting to look good. I just think Atlas needs a new "Preview Image" button or hack that takes a photo of the current view of the map and saves it to the proper folder for the in-game Map Selection and Game Setup screens to pull.

Integrating with Atlas would be nice, I think they should be rescaled to whichever power-of-two size we choose to prevent the preview images from growing too large - perhaps 512x512.

We also need to decide how to reference the preview images. The most obvious way is by filename (Foo.pmp matches Foo.xml and Foo.png), if so we'll probably want not a single map previews directory, but one that mirrors the maps file layout (textures\ui\global\previews\scenarios\, textures\ui\global\previews\random\, etc.) The advantage of that is it doesn't require modifying the map data to reference the preview and also eliminates file name conflicts, if a scenario and random map are named identically.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Integrating with Atlas would be nice, I think they should be rescaled to whichever power-of-two size we choose to prevent the preview images from growing too large - perhaps 512x512.

We also need to decide how to reference the preview images. The most obvious way is by filename (Foo.pmp matches Foo.xml and Foo.png), if so we'll probably want not a single map previews directory, but one that mirrors the maps file layout (textures\ui\global\previews\scenarios\, textures\ui\global\previews\random\, etc.) The advantage of that is it doesn't require modifying the map data to reference the preview and also eliminates file name conflicts, if a scenario and random map are named identically.

Yep, and the map designer can take the preview snapshot at will, simply overwriting the existing one.

[zoot]

Is there a reason the image can't be stored inside the .pmp? Seems less fragile.

[historic_bruno]

Random maps don't have a pmp. But other than that, I like the suggestion of storing the data "together". The main problem is going to be when people start modding the game and creating new scenarios, random maps, and campaigns left and right, who wants to unpack 3 files in 2 different locations for every single map? OK maybe we can automate that with a content downloader or some kind of self extracting package, but that's still not perfect. Or we could do something like zip up the map files and distribute them that way. No unpacking required by the user, they stick the map zip(s) in the "user mod" maps/ directory. Doesn't get much simpler than that. I don't know if our VFS allows this and if not, how difficult it would be to add it.

[Spahbod]

Integrating with Atlas would be nice, I think they should be rescaled to whichever power-of-two size we choose to prevent the preview images from growing too large - perhaps 512x512.

We also need to decide how to reference the preview images. The most obvious way is by filename (Foo.pmp matches Foo.xml and Foo.png), if so we'll probably want not a single map previews directory, but one that mirrors the maps file layout (textures\ui\global\previews\scenarios\, textures\ui\global\previews\random\, etc.) The advantage of that is it doesn't require modifying the map data to reference the preview and also eliminates file name conflicts, if a scenario and random map are named identically.

The current size is 371x270.

I really like the idea of atlas making the preview. But I can't do it.

I'm sure it can be solved somehow, but what I mean't is that it's not yet solved in the concepts and I don't know yet how to solve it exactly.

There is no problem at all to be solved!

Yes, that's a possible use case but it can also be done if the chat is only on the main screen.

You will never be able to solve it the best way for all possible use cases.

However I'm unsure if the chat should be kept there or not. That's my I mentioned both possibilities (remove it or move it to the middle).

What is the problem with chat being there?

This is the code. You should paste it in public\gui\gamesetup\

gamesetup.zip

You should put these in this address: "art/textures/ui/session/icons/mappreview/"

mappreview.zip

The preview itself would be pink because I didn't upload the images. Only codes.

Any more suggestions?

[Spahbod]

Well, after a discussion in IRC with Pureon, we found out that it is better to have a 1pt border instead of the current one. How do others think?

Discussion from IRC:

[21:05] <Pureon> I think the border is too thick - it should just be the 1pt line like around the other boxes - it's too busy with it

[21:06] <Spahbod> That was the first thing I tried. Didn't look very good.

[21:06] <Spahbod> You can try that by changing "Border.png"

[21:11] <Pureon> imo it looks better with the 1pt border, but that then also means the size of the preview image needs to change?

[21:12] <Spahbod> If it is to change, then the code should also be tweaked a bit.

[21:17] <Pureon> Spahbod: Best to check on the forums what others think about the border - rather than create map previews at the wrong size

[Pureon]

Here's a screenshot to show what the setup screen looks like:

I personally think the border is too big. Removing the border completely might work, or just stick to the 1pt border like the other pieces of content.

Thoughts?

[wraitii]

I think the 1pt border would fit the best.

[Pureon]

Here's what I'm thinking:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w73/purepics/0AD/0ADRandomMap02.jpg

[feneur]

Here's what I'm thinking:

http://i173.photobuc...RandomMap02.jpg

Looks much cleaner to me

[Mythos_Ruler]

For random maps, I think a whole map shot is best, to get a good overview. For skirmish maps (i.e., the scenarios I've designed for the game that play like random maps), the designer might want to show the whole map or just a section of the map. For custom scenarios, designers might not want to reveal too much, so they would show a smaller part of the map or import their own custom graphic.