Posted by: Count Sessine
« on: November 01, 2010, 08:05:04 AM »I don't have much to add creatively at this point, but wow, this sounds exciting!
Posted by: waresky
« on: October 27, 2010, 06:31:40 AM »Steve,do u remember Zhodani War Traveller's like,icons style?
R perfect for Aurora..no? in Squadroon stylez and ships cosmetic.
http://zho.berka.com/rules/war/ship_counter.shtml
R perfect for Aurora..no? in Squadroon stylez and ships cosmetic.
http://zho.berka.com/rules/war/ship_counter.shtml
Posted by: waresky
« on: October 27, 2010, 05:39:00 AM »
Guys..
am back
AWESOME NEWS..!!! Aurora2?..O.M.G.
Good Work Steve,absolutely compliment for ur idea.
Am very happy ear this.
take my humble support,and my poor english too
Posted by: Beersatron
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:44:29 PM »I like the idea of relatively simple icons that convey great meaning over fancy spaceship silhouettes - if this was a vote 
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:02:38 PM »There will be optional text-based information as well, as there is in the real system. This will include speed, course, size, Interesting. My own preference is very much for symbols, even the very limited Aurora ones, rather than ship graphics. I was under the impression that quite a few players wanted to see spaceships rather than symbols so its good to get the opposite view too.I always used to use NTDS in Harpoon....
John
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: October 26, 2010, 04:27:56 PM »I'd definitely vote for having icons fully interchangeable, with adds depending on wanted info.
I'd like to assign symbols depending on the enemy ship, with an additional size measure, speed in text, and color depending on race and diplomatic status.
It's best to allow players to chose, but a symbol system is a good start. I mean, it can only improve over dots.
I'd like to assign symbols depending on the enemy ship, with an additional size measure, speed in text, and color depending on race and diplomatic status.
It's best to allow players to chose, but a symbol system is a good start. I mean, it can only improve over dots.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: October 26, 2010, 03:14:06 PM »I'll play around with it. I might make the level of detection a little more varied in Aurora II so you may see the unknown symbols, generic ship symbols and more specific symbols. I also think that rather than list every contact separately, as in Aurora, enemy ships in the same location will be shown as a single Task Group symbol, with optional text showing a summary of types in one line.Task Group symbols would definitely help with decluttering the screen. How about making the list appear if you hover the pointer over the icon? I have no idea how complex to code what I just asked for was
Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2010, 02:23:31 PM »I have some experience of C2 systems and the MIL-STD-2525 symbols look like they could be the way to go; however, if you are going to implement a multiple resolution solution then I would add a note of caution. C2 system development normally spends months honing the display and that is for a single resolution. The main issue is normally decluttering the screen sufficiently that information can be easily interpreted. The C2 system is obviously attempting to provide information in real time that might lead to engagement, but the issue of screen clutter is still valid. A limited number of icons perhaps for warship, non-warship, fighter FAC and civilian might work.
I'll play around with it. I might make the level of detection a little more varied in Aurora II so you may see the unknown symbols, generic ship symbols and more specific symbols. I also think that rather than list every contact separately, as in Aurora, enemy ships in the same location will be shown as a single Task Group symbol, with optional text showing a summary of types in one line.
Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2010, 02:11:30 PM »Quote
I tend for option one, because it's kind of the Aurora look... But option 3 is quite nice in terms of information available in the display, as long as it's customizable enough in terms of color and has a good reference chart for the time everyone needs until the symbols become intuitive enough to read without trouble. Also, it might be a nice Idea to design your own set of icons and not copy over icons that are in current use. They are likely to not provide the information we're after in a space setting. for example, the first things I care about is a ships mass, and the type of its main offensive layout (if known), not wheather it's a destroyer or cruiser or whatever. I could imagine a system of combined symbols: You have one component that describes the mass, and one component that describes the prevailing weaponry.
There will be optional text-based information as well, as there is in the real system. This will include speed, course, size, etc. Even though the MIL-STD-2525 icons are intended for Earth-based warfare, they translate very well, apart from the occasional one that actually has a ship outline, such as the general surface combatant symbol. I will use the air symbols for fighters and missiles, the surface symbols for ships and possibly the sub-surface symbols for FACs. A reference chart is easy because I can create on in-game and also create a downloadable one based on actual reference charts for MIL-STD-2525.
Quote
As for technical implementation, A Vector format would be far superior to a bitmap format for such a purpose, because they can be scaled down easily if there's too much clutter because the zoom level is too high. Would also go well for color coding.
At the moment I have all the symbols as PNG files. I'll probably try putting them in some form of control array linked to fleets, which means they can handle user interactions directly rather than me having to work out whether a mouse-click is near the graphic. That might have performance problems though so I'll see how it goes. I'll probably allow the user the specify how large the icons will be.
Quote
I think option 4 is really what I would NOT like to see. It adds a lot of work for no real benefit, and restricts the players imagination. I can picture what my ships look like just fine in my head.
Interesting. My own preference is very much for symbols, even the very limited Aurora ones, rather than ship graphics. I was under the impression that quite a few players wanted to see spaceships rather than symbols so its good to get the opposite view too.
Steve
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: October 26, 2010, 01:43:06 PM »The Overlay Maker site has a complete set of symbols for MIL-STD-2525 as well, which is far more extensive than the NTDS set. There are several thousand symbols! Obviously I wouldn't use all of those but on the basis they are much more user-friendly than the NTDS symbols, that would seem like the way to go.I have some experience of C2 systems and the MIL-STD-2525 symbols look like they could be the way to go; however, if you are going to implement a multiple resolution solution then I would add a note of caution. C2 system development normally spends months honing the display and that is for a single resolution. The main issue is normally decluttering the screen sufficiently that information can be easily interpreted. The C2 system is obviously attempting to provide information in real time that might lead to engagement, but the issue of screen clutter is still valid. A limited number of icons perhaps for warship, non-warship, fighter FAC and civilian might work.
Steve
Posted by: UncleBob
« on: October 26, 2010, 01:37:57 PM »I tend for option one, because it's kind of the Aurora look... But option 3 is quite nice in terms of information available in the display, as long as it's customizable enough in terms of color and has a good reference chart for the time everyone needs until the symbols become intuitive enough to read without trouble. Also, it might be a nice Idea to design your own set of icons and not copy over icons that are in current use. They are likely to not provide the information we're after in a space setting. for example, the first things I care about is a ships mass, and the type of its main offensive layout (if known), not wheather it's a destroyer or cruiser or whatever. I could imagine a system of combined symbols: You have one component that describes the mass, and one component that describes the prevailing weaponry. Crude character-composed example:
Mass component could be a sequence of symbols like this:
Symbols for Loadout:
In combination, it might look something like this:
Note that characters used here are in no way representative for how I think the symbols should exactly look, it just goes to show the concept.
Another advantage of such a system is, if the progression for e.g. the mass component has a sequencial logic, people will need much less time to familiarize with them.
As for technical implementation, A Vector format would be far superior to a bitmap format for such a purpose, because they can be scaled down easily if there's too much clutter because the zoom level is too high. Would also go well for color coding.
I think option 4 is really what I would NOT like to see. It adds a lot of work for no real benefit, and restricts the players imagination. I can picture what my ships look like just fine in my head.
Mass component could be a sequence of symbols like this:
Code: [Select]
___ = mass below 1000 tons
___ = mass between 1000 and 2000 tons
I
___ = 2000 to 5000t
I I
___ = 5000 to 10000t
III
___ aso
V
Symbols for Loadout:
Quote
O = unknown loadout
I = beam
M = Missiles
A = Fighters
etc.
In combination, it might look something like this:
Quote
_A_ = Ship above 10'000 Tons with fighter loadout
V
_M_ = ship between 2000 to 5000 tons with missiles as major Armament
I I
_I_ = ship below 1000 tons with beam weapons
aso, you get the picture.
Note that characters used here are in no way representative for how I think the symbols should exactly look, it just goes to show the concept.
Another advantage of such a system is, if the progression for e.g. the mass component has a sequencial logic, people will need much less time to familiarize with them.
As for technical implementation, A Vector format would be far superior to a bitmap format for such a purpose, because they can be scaled down easily if there's too much clutter because the zoom level is too high. Would also go well for color coding.
I think option 4 is really what I would NOT like to see. It adds a lot of work for no real benefit, and restricts the players imagination. I can picture what my ships look like just fine in my head.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:07:14 AM »The Overlay Maker site has a complete set of symbols for MIL-STD-2525 as well, which is far more extensive than the NTDS set. There are several thousand symbols! Obviously I wouldn't use all of those but on the basis they are much more user-friendly than the NTDS symbols, that would seem like the way to go.
Steve
Steve
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: October 26, 2010, 10:14:25 AM »Why not have multiple options for overlays?
Because it's 3-4 times as much work. #:-]
Quote from: On_Target
You could create the default one, but have it be an easily modded file, and allow multiple overlays to be present in a folder, so that they could be swapped between as whims permitted? My ideal option would be having both an interface and a map overlay that could be modified separately from the main database file (even if modifying them required coding help from the forum for those unable to do it themselves). People could then change their interface and map icons to look bare-bones, modern military, futuristic, or even as an age of sail--complete with little sailboats moving around--without requiring additional work on your end.
I was thinking this was just needless extravagance, and if it takes 4-5 days to code up, that's 3-4 extra days we have to wait before getting a chance to play around with Aurora II ourselves. And then . . .
Quote from: On_Target
". . . or even . . . age of sail -- complete with little sailboats moving around . . ."
Ooh! Best. Idea. Ever!
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2010, 10:11:57 AM »Based on further research (and help from the Wargamer forum), it looks like NTDS is being ophased out in favour of MIL-STD-2525. Here is a link to a document explaining the new symbology, which is based on the NATO APP-6A standard. It's detailed but very interesting.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA484484
Steve
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA484484
Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2010, 09:21:53 AM »I would have an easy reference chart available as Aurora II is going to have a lot more popup sections than separate windows. With regard to different colours, WPF is much better for graphics than existing window forms technology so I have the option of either using the images I attached or just drawing them from scratch when needed, in which case different colours are easy to handle. The latter might be the way to go anyway as I could extend the symbol set and even allow user-defined symbols.
Steve
Steve
