Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!

Topic Summary

Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: March 29, 2022, 10:44:35 AM »

I have been thinking about how to improve the display in Aurora while staying lightweight (relatively) on the possible code it would demand. Here are two suggestions:

1 - To disambiguate (partially) fleets etc. instead of having only a plain circle, how about:
a) each ship class has 2 optional extra fields. One is the symbol to use on the map, the second is the weight of this symbol. Default is Plain Circle / 1.
By symbol, I mean something extremely simple to make, even if modders are encouraged to provide more. Initial library could be triangle, square, diamond, circle, etc.

b) during the drawing procedure, instead of the plain circle, simply compute for each ship at the same location each weight, and use the heavier one to get the symbol to display.
As with planet names, the code would regroup entities within a certain distance together in the same calculation.

2 - To remove (optionally) the text clutter on screen, an option to not draw any text pertaining to moving entities (ships, missiles, etc.) or events (explosions etc.) if not within a **certain** distance of the mouse cursor (distance is a value between 0 and very high value, 0 mean don't use the feature).
If you approach the mouse, texts within a certain radius are displayed normally.

Related to that, if the option is active all such moving entities or events get instead 2 numbers, separated by a slash, like 3/7
3 refers to the number of moving entities at this location. 7 would refer to the number of explosions or others events to report. This is to get a loose sense of the things you see on screen, even without the mouse close to the entity.

That's just an idea, that can certainly be refined. I'm curious if Steve see in it some merits and/or if he is considering doing anything for 2.0 about this subject.