Transport Tycoon Forums

yes. this works like the average status bar in a browser. it immediately shows e.g. the link you are currently hovering, so you can see where you go when you click it.

_________________
You might not exactly be interested in Ferion, but if you are, have fun

Personally I think it might get annoying.

_________________

Dutch Trainset for OpenTTD | Dutch Trainset Topic | Combined Roadset v0.10

Having to click on every option isn't annoying?

But realistically, that's probably the best way to implement it now. Then users can see if and how they like it. When clicking will indeed proove annoying, it can be changed in one go to something else, together with the newgrf parameter window.

_________________
FooBar's Tram Tracks | TransRapid Track Set | Metro Track Set | OpenGFX base graphics set | FIRS Industry Replacement Set
Dutch Tram Set | Dutch Trainset 2 | Dutch Road Furniture

Really it all comes down to different users having different capabilities and different input devices. Some are good at hovering but have buttons that takes a lot of effort or pain to click. Others have pain-less buttons but need a lot of effort to hover over a setting or worse the very tiny rectangle to trigger and keep a tooltip open. This is why there have to be a setting for the tooltips in OpenTTD or one of these two groups will complain.

And I think you have figured out that I'm personally favouring option 1 in the list that Alberth made.

_________________
My OpenTTD contributions (AIs, Game Scripts, patches, OpenTTD Auto Updater, and some sprites)
Junctioneer (a traffic intersection simulator)

Do I understand the svn-log correctly that you added this in r24234-r24239? Or is that something completely different you added there?

_________________
Coder of the Dutch Trackset | Development support for the Dutch Trainset

You should also count my previous patch serie, as it paved the way by removing hard-coded colours in the advenced settings strings, but yeah, you read the log correctly

Almost all advanced settings now have a description. Some have short ones, some have longer ones.

If someone thinks there is something missing in the description or has suggestions for improving some wording or whatever: Suggestions on this topic are welcome! Just post them here.

_________________
⢇⡸⢸⠢⡇⡇⢎⡁⢎⡱⢸⡱⢸⣭⠀⢸⢜⢸⢸⣀⢸⣀⢸⣭⢸⡱⠀⢰⠭⡆⣫⠰⣉⢸⢸⠀⢰⠭⡆⡯⡆⢹⠁⠀⢐⠰⡁

A couple of months ago I made a topic in the same vein:(viewtopic.php?f=29&t=52827&p=929181#p929181)

The main talking points was that parts of OTTD had got to complex and was causing problems in the expansion of the game in the user base and the game itself, and one area was the settings. In my mind the settings in OTTD needs an overhauling. The key point that are an issue to me are:

- There are too many menus, there should be one and not several,
- Some of the setting should be moved closer to their need in the game, E.g the save date format of game should be placed in the saved game screen,
- Finally the way the settings are displayed, list of setting in small text in long lists needs changing.

I come up with a basic idea shown below of the layout that would be good; it used the suggestion from here, (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=59694) using clear and larger text, using more screen space. There are some suggestions on the settings that should or should not be in the menu in the top link.



John.

_________________
I not an boring person, I just get excited over boring things.

Given that you want one menu, where are the other 119 settings?

@ Alberth, it was only an example to give ideas to people, not what it going to happen.

John.

_________________
I not an boring person, I just get excited over boring things.

I made a small testcase to add dropdown menus to the advanced settings.

• Settings with a limited amount of values get a dropdown instead of increment/decrement buttons.
• The dropdowns are at the left aligned with all other buttons.

Attached is an image for everyone to see, and a diff for those able to compile to get the feeling themself
If you are testing the diff, mind that it is only a prototype-hack. I am well aware of it's bugs, so just report back on the usability, not about the limitations of the implementation

_________________
⢇⡸⢸⠢⡇⡇⢎⡁⢎⡱⢸⡱⢸⣭⠀⢸⢜⢸⢸⣀⢸⣀⢸⣭⢸⡱⠀⢰⠭⡆⣫⠰⣉⢸⢸⠀⢰⠭⡆⡯⡆⢹⠁⠀⢐⠰⡁

I like the idea frosch however with an issue as important as this it is only one part of the picture an rough overall picture is needed be before started. As something that is used by everyone, nearly every time needs careful thinking about before starting.

John.

_________________
I not an boring person, I just get excited over boring things.

I am guessing that "a rough overall picture is needed" refers to the discussions about which settings exist and/or where and/or which windows exist?

I think it is best to keep the problem of operating a single setting to a desired value separated from that.
The proposal of Frosch only addresses the former, and none of the latter.

(ie no matter what the "rough overall picture" picture looks like, you 're going to have to set them to their desired values.)

@ Alberth, yes and no, part of the solution is clearing up settings that exist. The main problem is the fact is, a large amount of setting, that I called “developer setting” are in the main player space. For example in the Advanced Settings, you get to choose the pathfinder for in game vehicles. I know people use this, but how many understand this setting and do activity use it? My prediction it a very small amount of people, mostly the developers testing new patches. Separating the settings into two clear groups, first a player settings and developer settings and keeping the two separate will improve game for all. In addition there is a need to merge the different settings locations, currently around 6 different locations.

John.

_________________
I not an boring person, I just get excited over boring things.