You Can't Be Serious!

Page: 1 2
May 30 2011, 2:22 am
In response to SuperAntx
SuperAntx wrote:
You've got much bigger problems to worry about if covering less than 10% of your screen completely breaks the game.

The percentage of the screen that's covered isn't the only factor. Place the message log in the center of the gameplay window and it'll be even more game-breaking.

The only thing wrong with the screenshot I linked to is the eye being off center one tile to the right which makes the output panel appear to cover more than it actually does.

Moving the eye to the right is what you'd want because it'd shift the player's mob to the left.

You can change how much the eye gets shifted to keep the player's mob centered in the view, even when things block parts of the screen (like when you open your inventory in Diablo). A message log seems like the kind of thing you'd always want there, so I'd just make buttons to toggle its size.

Having partially transparent interface elements (like this thread) seems like one of those things that people think they need (because other games have it), but having it wouldn't actually improve their game. If you have a terrible game, having a message log obscure part of the screen is just another problem. If you have a fun game, people won't mind where you put the message log.
May 30 2011, 3:19 am
In response to Forum_account
Forum_account wrote:
Moving the eye to the right is what you'd want because it'd shift the player's mob to the left.

Right, I had it backwards. Because the right side of the screen is missing 32 pixel of horizontal space the whole map looks like it's being eaten up by the output panel. The output panel just looks a lot bigger than it actually is. Optics be weird, man.

You can change how much the eye gets shifted to keep the player's mob centered in the view, even when things block parts of the screen (like when you open your inventory in Diablo). A message log seems like the kind of thing you'd always want there, so I'd just make buttons to toggle its size.

The same could probably be achieved with child panes but, it would be a pain to set up because splitters only accept percentages rather than pixel measurements.

Having partially transparent interface elements (like this thread) seems like one of those things that people think they need (because other games have it), but having it wouldn't actually improve their game. If you have a terrible game, having a message log obscure part of the screen is just another problem.

While I agree with you in saying a bad game is a bad game regardless of its snazzy interface, this would be a really nice feature to have. If you combine it with this feature I could probably rebuild Decadence in a month or two and it would run twice as smooth.
May 30 2011, 4:47 am
In response to Stephen001
Well I meant, why using Windows API with transparency forces DirectX to run in software mode?
May 30 2011, 5:40 am
In response to Zaltron
If it were toggled, I could deal with it, but only if I liked the game enough.
May 30 2011, 6:16 am
In response to Zaoshi
Because the two don't play nice, and produce artifacts. So instead of that, BYOND clicks into software mode for both GDI+ and map controls, I would guess, where they can share a common buffer.
May 30 2011, 4:58 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
The simple fact is that DirectX's rendering doesn't play nicely with transparent and translucent windows. That might have improved in newer operating systems so I think it's something we could put to the test and perhaps detect, but it might depend on the GPU as well. Before this was put in, games that mixed transparency/translucency with hardware rendering experienced all kinds of artifacts.

Another potential option we may have is to use an internal DirectX buffer but somehow blit it via GDI in a way that won't suck up significant processor resources. I'm dubious whether that's possible but it's something we could look at.

We've been talking about other rendering improvements that could be done like built-in text without having to rely on DmiFontsPlus, so that might even end up being the simpler option.

Lummox JR

Thank you for the explanation. I hope you decide to go ahead with those improvements but I understand you are very busy.
May 31 2011, 7:31 pm
I didn't see anyone offer this as a suggestion, which quite astonishes me, but have you considered a box containing the input/output and having that said box be able to toggle it so it can enlarge to normal capacity, or minimize to a small quick-input and 1-line output?

Seems rather fitting for you to use as an alternative whilst you wait for DM to get it's much needed built-in on-map text support.

What I mean by this is,
you have your standard interface or whatever you did with it. Put the chat-box where you feel players will be more comfortable (most developers find bottom-right to be most fitting, while I prefer top-center). Give the option via key-press or clicking a little arrow to Expand or Minimize the chat-box from something like a 5-10 line output with a moderately sized input box, to minimizing it to a 1-line output (for quick-reading) and a thin sized input box (for quickly chatting/sending commands/etc).
Jun 1 2011, 6:23 am
In response to Mr. Robert
DM won't get on-map text support (at least, anytime soon) while there are plenty of acceptable solutions to it.
Page: 1 2