[UI] Wanted: Improved Content Download Window

[leifbk]

It would be very nice if it was possible to see which NewGRF's the program sees fit to upgrade. There's an entirely empty field to the right in the window, labelled "Content Info", that IMO would be excellent for that purpose, after you've clicked "Select upgrades" which I have just done in the screenshot:

Utvalg_098.png (14.42 KiB) Viewed 8687 times

With a 350 Mbps Internet connection, the download is so fast that the "Downloading..." dialog box just flashes by in an instant, and I don't know how to figure out what has been downloaded unless I search the NewGRF directory manually.

[jfs]

There's many things to improve about that window. The design made sense when there were at most a few hundred items on the service, but now there's many thousands it's just not good enough.

[Auge]

Hello

See therefore a proposal from the past and the replies.

Tschö, Auge

[leifbk]

I should probably interpret your replies as "This is such a major undertaking that nothing should be expected to happen for several years"?

In the meantime, I think that a hint about the names and version numbers of the NewGRFs to be downloaded would be a bit more interesting than the size of the total download, which normally is in the same order of magnitude as a random image found on the Web.

[odisseus]

Download size matters as well. I need to make a conscious effort in order to avoid any add-ons over 5-10 megabytes. In fact, I would very much like to see the download size for every add-on separately, instead of just the total. (And a red warning flag for anything that contains 32bpp)

Oh, and another thing. Is it possible to split the "NewGRF" type into more fine-grained categories? It would be quite convenient to filter out those add-ons that provide industries, or those that provide track types, or road types, vehicles etc.

[Redirect Left]

Oh, and another thing. Is it possible to split the "NewGRF" type into more fine-grained categories? It would be quite convenient to filter out those add-ons that provide industries, or those that provide track types, or road types, vehicles etc.

I agree this would be a really nice addition, although I fear almost impossible to do, at least 'well', as someone needs to go back and update all the existing NewGRFs and tick boxes to say what they do, and i suspect a lot of the GRFs now are by no longer active devs?

[2TallTyler]

Agreed that a lot of GRFs on Bananas are from inactive developers. However, since this category would likely be in Bananas' recordkeeping and not anything requiring modification of source code (which generally isn't available), it would be easy if tedious for some trusted "librarian" to manually choose a category (or multiple, in some cases) for each. Perhaps Kamnet would be up to the task, as he has become somewhat of a librarian of old NewGRFs.

[kamnet]

Agreed that a lot of GRFs on Bananas are from inactive developers. However, since this category would likely be in Bananas' recordkeeping and not anything requiring modification of source code (which generally isn't available), it would be easy if tedious for some trusted "librarian" to manually choose a category (or multiple, in some cases) for each. Perhaps Kamnet would be up to the task, as he has become somewhat of a librarian of old NewGRFs.

I've been advocating this for years. Some years back when frosch was working on "Bananas 2.0" the spec was to include a "curator" roll which would do exactly this, one or more people who are trusted with the role of making modifications to current entries in order to keep things up to date.

[kamnet]

Here's the proposal: https://github.com/frosch123/bananas2/b ... verview.md

[Auge]

Hello

I should probably interpret your replies as "This is such a major undertaking that nothing should be expected to happen for several years"?

I can only speak for myself. No you shouldn't. I provided the link to the former proposal to inform you about a former proposal and the discussion about it (hypertext, you know? ). You might take the one or another idea from there into accout.

Tschö, Auge

[Eddi]

and as always with open source software project: if you really want something to happen, doing it yourself is usually the fastest approach. if you wait for someone else to do it, it can take a while.

[leifbk]

and as always with open source software project: if you really want something to happen, doing it yourself is usually the fastest approach. if you wait for someone else to do it, it can take a while.

I don't do C++. For what little coding I'm doing these days, I'm getting by with Perl.

[leifbk]

Hello

I should probably interpret your replies as "This is such a major undertaking that nothing should be expected to happen for several years"?

I can only speak for myself. No you shouldn't. I provided the link to the former proposal to inform you about a former proposal and the discussion about it (hypertext, you know? ). You might take the one or another idea from there into accout.

Tschö, Auge

I looked at the thread, but was rather overwhelmed by it. The thing I'm asking for could probably be done in less than ten lines of code.

[Auge]

Hello

I did not want to overtake your proposal but wanted to introduce the information from a similar discussion. Then let's discuss your proposal.

It would be very nice if it was possible to see which NewGRF's the program sees fit to upgrade. There's an entirely empty field to the right in the window, labelled "Content Info", that IMO would be excellent for that purpose ...

Surprisingly there is a box that would fit more appropriately to show, what to download. It's the box on the left side that already shows these entries, currently hidden in the list of all entries. What is definitely needed is a filtering system and a proper and clear UI (buttons and it's behaviour). IMHO there's no need to give the right box, that is intended to show the metadata of one specific entry, a new purpose.

But yes, I also came across this issue several times. It's not only an issue with a highspeed network connection but also with a low speed connention and small NewGRFs. It makes something like *woosh* and the download is done and you have to search in the backend to learn what got downloaded. Alternatively one can study the list of all downloadable items before one starts the download, what is a pain at least with the original graphics set and its hardly visible green (?) check mark.

Tschö, Auge

[Eddi]

could probably be done in less than ten lines of code.

just a friendly reminder that it doesn't speak in your favour to say in one sentence that you can't code, and then make "educated" guesses about how complex a change would be.

[leifbk]

could probably be done in less than ten lines of code.

just a friendly reminder that it doesn't speak in your favour to say in one sentence that you can't code, and then make "educated" guesses about how complex a change would be.

I didn't say that I can't code. I said that I don't do C++, which is an entirely different matter. I can handle a few hundred lines of Perl (and a couple of other languages), but there's no way that I, approaching 70, want to get involved in the coding of a massive software project written in a language that I haven't used more than the mandatory "Hello world".

[LaChupacabra]

It would be very nice if it was possible to see which NewGRF's the program sees fit to upgrade. There's an entirely empty field to the right in the window, labelled "Content Info", that IMO would be excellent for that purpose, after you've clicked "Select upgrades"
With a 350 Mbps Internet connection, the download is so fast that the "Downloading..." dialog box just flashes by in an instant, and I don't know how to figure out what has been downloaded unless I search the NewGRF directory manually.

Hey leifbk
If you want to see a list of add-ons ready for download, you can click the top left corner in the sort bar.

[+] Spoiler

Selected addons.png (133.41 KiB) Viewed 8402 times

Unfortunately, this has the disadvantage that selecting the next add-on will cause a jump in the list. There is also still a problem when you download these add-ons, especially when there are a lot of them - it's hard to remember all of them and even harder to find them in the NewGRF settings window, especially if their names are different in both lists. Currently, I usually take a screenshot of the add-ons download list before downloading - not perfect, but it does help a bit.

Regarding the solutions to solve this problems, some time ago I visualized some ideas. As you wrote, reading the whole thing can be a bit overwhelming. I believe it's true. So I would like to draw your attention to those solutions that relate to the problem presented.

Regarding the pre-download situation, so that you can see what you are downloading / what is downloadable, the solution could be a separate list (point 3), which is what you wanted. In my proposal, the list was placed below the main list. It could not occupy the field on the right, because there, when you click on an add-on, information about it will be displayed. Another possible layout could be the one known from the NewGRF settings window, where you have three parts: two lists and a description - this would be a better solution for situations where many add-ons are downloaded. In addition, new add-ons and improved versions of the ones you have would have the appropriate markings to make them easier to see (point 7), and those add-ons that you have already downloaded would be marked with a faded font (point 2) so that you can more easily see the ones you don't have.

[+] Spoiler

As for finding add-ons after downloading, the solution could be to mark them on the list with a different color or / and sign - the mark will disappear when you use them (point 5).

[+] Spoiler

Download size matters as well. I need to make a conscious effort in order to avoid any add-ons over 5-10 megabytes. In fact, I would very much like to see the download size for every add-on separately, instead of just the total. (And a red warning flag for anything that contains 32bpp)

Oh, and another thing. Is it possible to split the "NewGRF" type into more fine-grained categories? It would be quite convenient to filter out those add-ons that provide industries, or those that provide track types, or road types, vehicles etc.

Quite a coincidence : from the last discussion topic on Github

[+] Spoiler

A slightly modified version of the window compared to the previous ones - a slightly simplified layout thanks to the reduced number of buttons, division of the entire list into categories instead of selecting one category.

Honestly, I didn't take this problem into account, I always look at the size of the add-on before I choose it, but I think that the layout that I presented would be more friendly in the situation you mentioned. First of all, changing the location of the file size information would make it easier for you to see it. The add-ons on the list would have additional, most important information, and among them I think that the resolution is one of the most important. I don't think the size is a particularly important piece of information - the resolution one also fulfills such a function a bit. But if you found the total download size to be alarmingly large, you could always click on add-ons and see which might be responsible for it. I don't think this is a very common problem, and I don't think it's worth making the window layout more complex because of it. What is more important and worthwhile is of course an open question.

I agree this would be a really nice addition, although I fear almost impossible to do, at least 'well', as someone needs to go back and update all the existing NewGRFs and tick boxes to say what they do, and i suspect a lot of the GRFs now are by no longer active devs?

Agreed that a lot of GRFs on Bananas are from inactive developers. However, since this category would likely be in Bananas' recordkeeping and not anything requiring modification of source code (which generally isn't available), it would be easy if tedious for some trusted "librarian" to manually choose a category (or multiple, in some cases) for each.

Even though I'm not a programmer (I repeat myself, I know), I think that it is possible and not that difficult, although it is possible that it is quite laborious (I could help). Here, I was thinking about a solution that would not interfere with the add-ons in any way.
The solution would be based on a text file, similar to, for example, openttd.cfg, which would contain the names or at least the ID of all add-ons along with assigned categories and possibly other information. Such a simplified version (only numbers, e.g. 53134451.02.03 - ID.Category.Subcategory) would be smaller than 50 kB in size and could be downloaded with every NewGRF list update / add-on download. Thanks to this, the division into categories would be available not only in the add-ons download window, but also in the settings window - it would be a great help, especially for those who would like to return to the game after a long break and simply will not remember what all these add-ons with strange names were for. Of course, the authors of additions, when publishing them, would now have the option and the requirement to define a category. If someone assign an existing add-on to a category that the author would not agree with (a very unlikely scenario), it could always be changed (update, request for change).

I've been advocating this for years. Some years back when frosch was working on "Bananas 2.0" the spec was to include a "curator" roll which would do exactly this, one or more people who are trusted with the role of making modifications to current entries in order to keep things up to date.

Regardless of the solution, the curator would be most welcome. If there are rules and people follow them, life becomes a little easier. This is currently missing, the add-on lists are quite chaotic and some moderation would be useful.

[Samohtd]

So just a question. Does everything come from the same server when downloaded through online update? If so then why not go with a Linux type installer system with multiple repositories and an option to add your own into your own computers online content download repository list? Then anyone could say make thier own repository and curate it and list it on openttd's forums or site and you could add the repository/server to the list of ones you use. Also if the list of available content only showed what was in the repository/server you have selected it would be possible to have a repository for each type of newgrf. Repository for graphical, sound, systems, and bonus content. Then if each repositories name described what it was that would already help to borrow down searches.

You could even have repositories based on themes like Japanese, which only have stuff that added Japanese style content like vehicles or graphic styles.

I dunno just a thought. I find the UI alright, but I wouldn't complain if there were a FEW more option on the screen.

Also just a side thought because I feel it's relevant to some extent.

I find one of the biggest killers of open software is the coding requirement for A LOT of it.

People saying the fastest way to get new content is to do it yourself cut out A LOT of people who may be good artists, but without the right tools won't invest the time to make cool graphics. I mean I can fix A LOT on my truck, but that don't mean I could build one from scratch.
I think that's why sandbox games are all the rage. Look at stuff like Mario maker. Nintendo basically outsourced all thier Mario game making to the world, got free levels, and made a bunch of money too. I can honestly say that my 11 year old son can't code, but he has made A LOT of Mario levels.

Get the right tools to people and make getting content made by those tools easier and things will change very fast in any game.