Resolution button/dropdown out of sync

[canofworms]

The resolution dropdown box shows all avaliable resolutions on your current system configuration. The button doesn't.

For example: In my Cedega system, I have set it up to have a max size of 800x600 (with Desktop mode). The dropdown respects this, and shows me resolutions from 640x480 -> 800x600.

Now, if I click the button, I can set it to 1024x768, but the dropdown stays at 800x600.

I have not tested what the effect of resolution is when I set the button to 1024x768, but hey! Its a bug :D

(res changes for frontend would be great too, no need to scale up all the pictures, just centre them or something :D )

[Lex]

All this stuff will be addressed with the new frontend that CyberShadow's writing for WA 4.0. Just hold your horses. :)

[canofworms]

Cybershadow?

Has he been given access to WA source too?

Cybershadow:

Dont drasticly change it from the current one, or I may never play WA again :)

[CyberShadow]

Dont drasticly change it from the current one, or I may never play WA again :)

Don't tell me you like the current modal, palleted, fixed-to-640x480-fullscreen, crash-while-minimised-inducing, unskinnable, uncustomizable frontend ;)

[canofworms]

Don't tell me you like the current modal, palleted, fixed-to-640x480-fullscreen, crash-while-minimised-inducing, unskinnable, uncustomizable frontend ;)

Well, higher res is a must, and it is skinnable (though it does replace the original files).

Put it this way, the WA (and WWP) frontend is a nice clear design. There are some places that have become overbloated (Network and Options), but PLEASE dont turn it into some sort of hybrid mess.

Oh and I do like it, when playing in Cedega Desktop mode when I dont get my TFT screwing it all up.

Heh, they dont call me a ranting programmer for nothing :p

[CyberShadow]

Well, like it or not, 4.0 will be highly customizable - and to expose all these options to users, we'd either have to put lots of buttons on each screen, or hide them away in lots of imbricated menus where no one will find them. We'll try to find a sane solution for all these additions, however the current frontend structure (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Frontend_structure_(Worms_Armageddon)) will get a major rehaul. For instance: many people play online mostly, and from starting W:A to getting to #AnythingGoes takes 6 clicks (2 clicks and 2 double-clicks). Infact, I've already been asked to do something about it (back before I didn't have access to the source), and I did (WormKit (http://worms.thecybershadow.net/wormkit/) DirectWormNET module). So, why not reduce it to just a double-click in the new front-end?

Also, be prepared to put Cedega away for W:A, since 4.0 will come with a native Linux/SDL port. :)

[canofworms]

Well, like it or not, 4.0 will be highly customizable - and to expose all these options to users, we'd either have to put lots of buttons on each screen, or hide them away in lots of imbricated menus where no one will find them. We'll try to find a sane solution for all these additions, however the current frontend structure (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Frontend_structure_(Worms_Armageddon)) will get a major rehaul. For instance: many people play online mostly, and from starting W:A to getting to #AnythingGoes takes 6 clicks (2 clicks and 2 double-clicks). Infact, I've already been asked to do something about it (back before I didn't have access to the source), and I did (WormKit (http://worms.thecybershadow.net/wormkit/) DirectWormNET module). So, why not reduce it to just a double-click in the new front-end?

Also, be prepared to put Cedega away for W:A, since 4.0 will come with a native Linux/SDL port. :)

WHEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope its free for all WA users (that just made me delete my Goodbye post :P)

Can I just ask that you can have various config files, so people who prefer the old style can fire up a config file and have it the way they liked it?

BTW. Do you have any designs done? If not, I would be happy to do some. I quite enjoy UI design, and im quite good at it.

[CyberShadow]

Hope its free for all WA users (that just made me delete my Goodbye post :P)Yes, it'll be free :)
Can I just ask that you can have various config files, so people who prefer the old style can fire up a config file and have it the way they liked it?Well, we plan to have profiles (like in most modern games)... users would be able to export the default UI layout files to their profile folder and mod them to their likes.
BTW. Do you have any designs done? If not, I would be happy to do some. I quite enjoy UI design, and im quite good at it.Actually, we don't have any real plans done for the front-end structure yet - this was supposed to be done after we have a good set of widgets from which to actually build the UI (the current MFC-based controls are a no-no for cross-platform-iness).

So, you can give it a try :)

[canofworms]

Yes, it'll be free :)
Well, we plan to have profiles (like in most modern games)... users would be able to export the default UI layout files to their profile folder and mod them to their likes.
Actually, we don't have any real plans done for the front-end structure yet - this was supposed to be done after we have a good set of widgets from which to actually build the UI (the current MFC-based controls are a no-no for cross-platform-iness).

So, you can give it a try :)

OK, I HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD IT WITH OPERA

I have wrote a really long post about WormHTML (a cool idea I had, write the UI out of HTML, since WA already has a renderer), THEN I CLICK THE X BUTTON. No confirmation.

/me screams

Anyhow, this is what I mashed up while waiting for a kernel im working on to compile (ignore my trashy paint skills):

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2733/untitledss3.th.png (http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledss3.png)

The main idea of it, is like your pic said, to cut down the mass of menus. Obviously the design will be better, but you can get the main idea. Frames categorise each section, and we have everything from the old 1p menu in the Single Player frame, the online functions and offline multiplayer in another, and options in one more. Less menus!

EDIT: Cross platform widgets? You could try wxwidgets, or make your own.

WHAT? You could do the funky buttons with MFC?

/me grabs his Visual Studio CDs

[CyberShadow]

Ok, first.

1) What browser does ask you for a confirmation? o_O
That's why I type long posts in a text editor - or at least, "save" them manually by periodically copying them to a Notepad instance.

2) HTML is trash for writing UIs, trust me. Mozilla uses XUL to write UIs, Microsoft is developing a new XML-based format for .NET 3.0, and we'll go a similar way and develop our own XML-based interface/layout language.

3) That... doesn't look much more usable to me. When I said that the new front-end will be non-modal, I meant that all "screens" will open in windows, which you can resize, move around, minimize/maximize and close at will. Also, there will be real drop-down menus - like the ones in usual Windows programs. So, no more need for oversized buttons.

People only go to fiddle with the settings once in a while, it doesn't deserve 1/3 of the initial screen IMO. Instead, I was thinking of something like a separate "control panel" with all the settings, categorized similarly to KDE's Control Centre. The network options should be there as well, instead of some network game screen.

The only useful help feature is when it's context-sensitive. By far not everyone will be arsed to peruse some generic help book to find whatever they're looking for. Besides, a well-designed application doesn't need any help. (Note that this doesn't apply to troubleshooting, which can just as well be moved to external documentation). Either way, I don't see how "help" should be in "Settings" :)

Anyway, I think I'll stick to thinking the UIs for now, but when I have something to show I'll let you express your opinion on it.

4) We are not going to use some 3rd-party cross-platform widget solution. First of all, these are desktop-level widgets - I'm talking about visual elements that all render to the same hardware-accelerated device/canvas.

5) No, you can't do that with just MFC. W:A uses a layer called DXMFC to render the MFC buttons to the DirectDraw surface.

[canofworms]

Yeah, i thought XML was more appropiate too.

Playing Neverwinter Nights a bit did help me appriciate the idea of a windowing system (interesting, the kde spell check likes the words kde and neverwinter, but not kcontrol :P) It worked really nicely on there.

As for your kcontrol idea, kcontrol is a bit bloated tbh, Ubuntu had a nice thing, was similar to what Mac has.

What you said about a low level widget system, is that similar to what X has?

Keep up the good work!

/me goes back to his hidden cave where he tinkers on his kernel, and screams and shouts infront of the super sheep training.

[CyberShadow]

Well, I only have Kubuntu 6.10, so I meant whatever that thing's there. Icons arranged in categories is what I had in mind.

And I'm even less familiar with X's widget system to compare anything with that :)

[canofworms]

Heh. As far as my understanding goes, X bypasses the normal Linux routines to write to the graphics card, which is why it runs as root. Not that means anything to Windows users.

And the kubuntu thing was exacly what I was saying, though, it will be interesting how many options there will be.