Aurora C# Screenshots

[Shuul]

Hi Steve, just a simple question?

Is there any chance to see some graphic improvement on the ship icons on the map? For example, different icons for destroyers, battleship, cruiser... etc etc. instead of simple circles.

As icons on map usually represent whole fleets and not just single ships id prefer to set icon type in fleet window.

[iceball3]

As icons on map usually represent whole fleets and not just single ships id prefer to set icon type in fleet window.

Being given the option to set ship icons for displaying in ship and task group overviews would be really nifty though.
For instance, showing the set icon in Class Design for a class, and displaying it in a task group overview in a corner somewhere as a block of icons of ships in the group.
Speaking of things, though, fighter wings would need their defined icons too as they break from TGs often.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Being given the option to set ship icons for displaying in ship and task group overviews would be really nifty though.
For instance, showing the set icon in Class Design for a class, and displaying it in a task group overview in a corner somewhere as a block of icons of ships in the group.
Speaking of things, though, fighter wings would need their defined icons too as they break from TGs often.

A few years ago, when I made the first attempt to rewrite in C# (which didn't get very far), I added NATO icons for the fleets. When you zoomed out you couldn't really tell locations very well.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=3011.msg29849#msg29849

Having said that, the planetary icons looked a lot better in that version I might revisit, although that was in WPF and this time I am in Forms (which is why I have made a lot more progress).

[Kaiser]

A few years ago, when I made the first attempt to rewrite in C# (which didn't get very far), I added NATO icons for the fleets. When you zoomed out you couldn't really tell locations very well.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=3011.msg29849#msg29849

Having said that, the planetary icons looked a lot better in that version I might revisit, although that was in WPF and this time I am in Forms (which is why I have made a lot more progress).

I was thinking just to small and simple icons which represents the "type" of task force (landing TF, transport, fighters, bombard TF etc etc).
It would also help the player to fast distinguish the TF on the map.
Also, planets and stars icons with different styles would be great.

[sloanjh]

although that was in WPF and this time I am in Forms (which is why I have made a lot more progress).

LOL - my experience with WPF exactly!!!

I love the idea and implementation of binding automation behind WPF, but I always end up bogging down trying to reverse engineer syntax and/or debug the XAML.  The fundamental problem I have is that it's magic code that the application executes on startup and that I don't have a way to step through in the debugger.

The last time (~6 months ago), I set up a system (from scratch) to automagically wrap "command" objects in javascript function calls by using reflection in 21 hours (I'd coded such a thing up previously in C++, so I knew the ideas to implement.  That being said, the C++ implementation had taken months (I had to write a reflection engine in C++))  I then bogged down for a couple of days simply trying to open a WPF window from a non-WPF main application, at which point I got tired of the project and started playing Rule the Waves   It seems like this always happens when I try to use WPF - the XAML is set up to make all the decisions at compile time, and if I try to make run time bindings (i.e. non-cut/paste coding), the system fights me.

John

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Here is the first screenshot of the new System View window. It isn't quite finished yet but given recent discussions on terraforming, max capacity and tide-locked planets, I think it is worth showing a progress update. This is a non-SM view. There are quite a few differences between this and the existing window, including:

1) You can select races as well as systems. If you change race, the same system will be displayed if the new race is aware of it
2) The current survey status is shown at the right-centre top.
3) The Star information lists the different types of system bodies associated with that star. Habitable is less than colony cost 2.0. Near Habitable is between colony cost 2.0 and 3.0 and is split between normal and low-grav.
4) There are no longer different tabs for different stars. You select a star to show its planetary system
5) The system body information has been changed to show all the key data without scrolling. Max population capacity is shown in the right-hand column.
6) Many more bodies can be colonised due to the new low-gravity infrastructure rules. Bodies with low gravity have LG after the colony cost.
7) Populations can be given names that are different to the system body (although that isn't on this screenshot because the Commonwealth pop hasn't been renamed).
8) Jump points are shown in the bottom left. You no longer have to visit a different tab.
9) The colony cost factors for the selected system body now include water availability, a modifier for low gravity and a flag for if the body can retain an atmosphere.



The second screenshot shows Sol in SM mode with Ceres selected. The various SM options are available, including exploring or modifying jump points, changing minerals or survey status and generating new systems. Every button you can see is functional with all the code behind it. System Generation is complete for both movement orders and for this window, except for generating new races. The Create Race button has not been added to this window yet for the same reason.

With Ceres selected you can see the colony cost for Acceptable Gravity of 1.00 LG. This means that even if you were to create perfectly habitable conditions the colony cost would never fall below 1.00 and you would need low gravity infrastructure to compensate. Although in this case the Atmosphere Retention is flagged as 'No' so you wouldn't be able to terraform it anyway. I'll post the updated terraforming rules separately once completed.

[83athom]

Might be better if you remove the Atmosphere column and instead have it provide the atmospheric composition in a box down at the bottom next to the minerals box.You could also add the progress of any terraforming within that same box, if any is taking place. Or replace it with a smaller column that just provides a check/symbol if the atmosphere is breathable with the current species, not breathable, or no atmosphere present. I just think it might get a bit annoying if you have 5 or so planets with 4 to 8 different gasses present for whatever reason.

[Retropunch]

Might be better if you remove the Atmosphere column and instead have it provide the atmospheric composition in a box down at the bottom next to the minerals box. You could also add the progress of any terraforming within that same box, if any is taking place.  Or replace it with a smaller column that just provides a check/symbol if the atmosphere is breathable with the current species, not breathable, or no atmosphere present.  I just think it might get a bit annoying if you have 5 or so planets with 4 to 8 different gasses present for whatever reason.

I'd basically agree - it might be better to use that screen real estate for something a bit more valuable to the player at a glance and have the full list of gasses somewhere else.  Are tooltips a thing in this version? If so, you could have the gas mix readout showing in a tooltip.

[ryuga81]

2 notes/suggestions:

• There appears to be no way to check at a glance if a planet has been surveyed (it is either "M" for mineral deposits or nothing, in the latter case it may be either surveyed or unsurveyed? not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but I see no "S" for surveyed as currently in VB6 Aurora)
• I'd really appreciate a way to tell if team-survey has been performed on a planet from this screen (either a button that hides those already team-surveyed or a simple addition to the survey column in form of a plus i.e. M+/S+ for planets both ship-surveyed and team-surveyed

Thanks for the great job you're doing!

[TCD]

Might be better if you remove the Atmosphere column and instead have it provide the atmospheric composition in a box down at the bottom next to the minerals box.You could also add the progress of any terraforming within that same box, if any is taking place. Or replace it with a smaller column that just provides a check/symbol if the atmosphere is breathable with the current species, not breathable, or no atmosphere present. I just think it might get a bit annoying if you have 5 or so planets with 4 to 8 different gasses present for whatever reason.

I think I disagree. For me the mix of gases is one of the most important factors for picking colones. There's a huge difference in terraforming time based on exactly what you have in the atmosphere. I suppose a compromise might be abbreviating the gasses and putting them on the same line (so for Earth it could be N 79%, O (0.2) 20%, Ar 1%, AG 0.02%)? Or maybe a consolidated summary showing Oxygen pressure and Toxic pressure after the overall pressure?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Might be better if you remove the Atmosphere column and instead have it provide the atmospheric composition in a box down at the bottom next to the minerals box.You could also add the progress of any terraforming within that same box, if any is taking place. Or replace it with a smaller column that just provides a check/symbol if the atmosphere is breathable with the current species, not breathable, or no atmosphere present. I just think it might get a bit annoying if you have 5 or so planets with 4 to 8 different gasses present for whatever reason.

I agree that the gases are not an ideal use of space. I tried putting it on one line using just the chemical symbols instead of the full name but it didn't look right. However, your suggestion made me realise that all you really need to know is the general mix of gases and the oxygen (breathable gas) content. So maybe there is a single line with two most common gases plus the oxygen atm. There is already a separate pressure column. For example, nitrogen-oxygen (0.06). For non-breathable atmospheres it could be nitrogen-methane for example, or maybe for certain worlds just a description, such as 'Venusian' for the high-pressure runaway greenhouse worlds. Then, as you suggested, the detail of exact percentages and any other gases could be shown below, along with the terraforming selection and the temperature calculation (essentially the environment information from the VB6 population window).

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

2 notes/suggestions:

• There appears to be no way to check at a glance if a planet has been surveyed (it is either "M" for mineral deposits or nothing, in the latter case it may be either surveyed or unsurveyed? not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but I see no "S" for surveyed as currently in VB6 Aurora)
• I'd really appreciate a way to tell if team-survey has been performed on a planet from this screen (either a button that hides those already team-surveyed or a simple addition to the survey column in form of a plus i.e. M+/S+ for planets both ship-surveyed and team-surveyed

I can add an option to display 'U' for unsurveyed and an option to display 'T' for worlds that have been surveyed by a team ('MT' if they find minerals).

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've made some changes to the system view based on feedback.

1) There are more options regarding flagging body surveys. You have the option to display 'U' for unsurveyed and an option to display 'T' for worlds that have been surveyed by a team ('MT' if they find minerals).
2) I've rearranged the colony cost, population and atmosphere columns to put pressure next to atmosphere.
3) The atmosphere column no longer shows details of each gas, with one gas per line. Instead, the basic type of atmosphere is shown on a single line. This display is either the main two gases, the main gas and oxygen (if oxygen is present and not the main gas) or 'Venusian' for those high pressure, high temperature worlds with a runaway greenhouse effect and a combination of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (open to suggestions for a different term than 'Venusian'). If oxygen is present, the oxygen pressure is shown.
4) Clicking on a body shows detailed atmospheric composition at the bottom of the window.
5) This section also shows the factors for the temperature calculation ( Surface Temperature (K) = Base Temp (K) * Greenhouse Factor * Albedo ) plus the base temp and surface temp in Kelvin and Celsius.

BTW for some reason the windows forms Listview control insists on changing the text colour of any selected row to the default for the control (see Mars below). This remove the indication colour (blue = habitable, etc) until that row is no longer selected. Very annoying and wasting a lot of time trying to fix it . Any suggestions welcome.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Another system view screenshot, this time showing Alpha Centauri. This demonstrates just how much more real estate is now available for colonization. Note in the star listing that Alpha Centauri-A has 2 habitable bodies (less than 2.0 CC) and 142 near-habitable (between 2.0 and 3.0 CC), many of which are asteroids. Colonisation is no longer about finding potential colony sites but rather judging which of the many options is most suitable. With the new capacity rules, there are likely to be more colonies, but smaller ones.

[Zincat]

Looks rather good.

However I do have one suggestion, one to help us "filter" possible colonies. Now that LG worlds are a thing, the list of possible planets to colonize is very long. So I would have one suggestion. Since most of those planets have extremely low population capacity, it would be nice to have a filter to only show possible colonies with population cap above a certain limit.

I don't know, 25 millions? 10 millions? Because when I see a planet with a max population capacity of 0.05, I'm not really interested in colonizing that. Except in extremely rare cases.