Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion

[ivagiglie]

First I have to say it's nice to see so many new options and all the possibilities that these should open to us mission builders, good.

Now the not-so-good thing about the GUI:
it is terrible, really - it would have looked cool in 1995 but 15 years have passed since then.

I really would like to give feedback that could bring some improvements with a little work but this really needs to be rewritten from scratch in my opinion!
I'll try anyway:
- try to use toolbars, for example for the selection of the displayed objects, no one wants to navigate to a submenu 15 times in a row to show what is really needed on screen at that moment
- same could go for types of planes or nationalities
- try to minimize the number of objects you can select from a list - if the number of items exceeds a couple of dozen the list become unusable - order the items using some criteria is not sufficient, sorry
- try to minimize the interactions with the windows and instead focus on the GUI items themselves, for example to insert a waypoint between two existing ones you could simply double click on the first waypoint
- allow multi selection of items and allow all permitted operations that are generic and disable the ones which are specific (e.g. if you multi select two flights you could change their altitude at the same time but not their callsign which must be unique)
- allow smart operations on multi selected items via context menus (the menus that usually pop up when you click right mouse button) no need for big space consuming windows all the time - for example you could multi select a number of flights and then via context menu decide to scale their altitude by 500 m / 1000 m / 2000 m and so on
- provide two (or more) mode of operations, for example a basic one and an advanced one - when sketching a mission I'd like only the most important parameters to be shown saving precious screen estate, when refining the mission I'd take care about the details (e.g. weathering) - let me concentrate on what's important at that moment
- use the native File dialogs for god's sake! no need to see that 15 year old file selection dialog where I can't even create a directory!
- add undo/redo, of course for multiple operations
- again on item selection: have you thought about trees? in some cases they allow a much easier navigation compared to flat lists
- use dockable panels instead of windows, really, it's 2010 - GUI toolkits have made huge progresses in the last 15 years

I could go on for hours...
Sorry Oleg but this GUI can't be fixed easily, it really would need a major redesign to be in par with the quality of your simulation (which we all assume here will be the new state of the art).

Writing a new GUI of that complexity could easily require a couple of person years and I don't think you would want or could afford to do that now.

So one last request: please leave the game open as much as possible for external mission creation and interaction.
Document the format used for the mission (that shouldn't be too expensive), you'll save the community the long time it would take to understand otherwise and maybe we could come up with something more modern that could complement this new FMB.

And thanks if you've read my whole post

[Jimko]

Very interesting maps and accompanying tools!

I have never used a FMB, and perhaps never will, since life is far too busy for me to spend more time than I already can on WW2 flight sims.
But, it's interesting to see the scope of the SoW BoB chapter, at least, and to see the operational field that we will have to start with.

I'm glad that the mission builders seem to be pleased and look forward to (hopefully) what they can share with us eventually.

Thanks for this update.

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think this will be very great game so many options thanks

[Schallmoser]

Originally Posted by ivagiglie

First I have to say it's nice to see so many new options and all the possibilities that these should open to us mission builders, good.

Now the not-so-good thing about the GUI:
it is terrible, really - it would have looked cool in 1995 but 15 years have passed since then.

I really would like to give feedback that could bring some improvements with a little work but this really needs to be rewritten ...
...
...take to understand otherwise and maybe we could come up with something more modern that could complement this new FMB.

And thanks if you've read my whole post

Hi everybody,
Thanks for the great update!
But I'd like to second what ivagiglie said. The major reason why I didn't use the IL2 mission builder much over all these years was the interface.

I know that right now all development effort is on much more important things but I think it would be worth to re-think the GUI.

I've been working as a software architect for 20 years now and in most of my projects the GUI was or is one of the key elements that are very important.
The way I would go, would be Qt4. Qt4 is a set of C++ libraries that are available for windows, linux, Mac and even embedded platforms. They include everything to make highly ergonomic and modern GUI applications with just a few lines of code.

If you provided some kind of front-end library in C++ for all the functionalities of the FMB, we (the community) would be able to give you a hand or even develop a standalone application that has all that ergonomic appeal and bells and whistles that would make the FMB an even more outstanding tool.

cheers,
Schallmoser

[first-things-first]

Hi Oleg

In the fourth picture - showing airfield names.

You have "Sounthend" listed - firstly a spelling mistake - should be Southend (aka "London by the Sea" ).

Secondly, it was called Rochford during the BoB period.

Will we get the pier - because I do love to be beside the seaside.

Regards

Andrew

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Schallmoser

Hi everybody,
Thanks for the great update!
But I'd like to second what ivagiglie said. The major reason why I didn't use the IL2 mission builder much over all these years was the interface.

I know that right now all development effort is on much more important things but I think it would be worth to re-think the GUI.

I've been working as a software architect for 20 years now and in most of my projects the GUI was or is one of the key elements that are very important.
The way I would go, would be Qt4. Qt4 is a set of C++ libraries that are available for windows, linux, Mac and even embedded platforms. They include everything to make highly ergonomic and modern GUI applications with just a few lines of code.

If you provided some kind of front-end library in C++ for all the functionalities of the FMB, we (the community) would be able to give you a hand or even develop a standalone application that has all that ergonomic appeal and bells and whistles that would make the FMB an even more outstanding tool.

cheers,
Schallmoser

Probably the stand alone would be a great mistake. Like did it some others in the past. Also you will need to write so many other tools that to display the map, in 2D and 3D, all 3D objects and its options, change the features that render the engine, etc then you should be able to make BoB 3D engine. Don't you think so?

And if you can't use so simple in use tool..... just because you are thinking that it should have other interface and even didn't try to read instruction... translating your words why you didn't use it ever...

Who understand architecture of Il-2 builder begin to think by other way.... If my 6 year old son can use it easy, then i'm "sure" something wrong ..... When my older son (he was 10 years old) begun to use FMB, he also didn't read any instructions, but after a couple of hours try, he did the first his mission. The only one thing that I was need to say him - use button Ctrl...

The goal to keep the Il-2 looking new builder is that to get involved in mission building right from the release day a lot of people who was able to make it with Il-2 in the past. This is the most fast way to invite the other wide auditory of players to new missions and features right from the beginning... Ist it the right way?

If to speak about other way looking colors etc... then proably it may happens.

I know a lot of people photographers, that can't learn simple Canon's Digital Photo Professional program... I really learned it for 30 min...
I know the people who make really great photos, but can't learn simplest program Adobe Lightroom to make theri photos even more greater looking...
I know a lot of people who know well Adobe Photoshot, but can't use very simple for understanding Adobe Camera Raw module integrated in Photoshop.

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.

And finally I did in the past the poll to keep ot not to keep the interface of Il-2 FMB...

I don't remember now exact digit, but more than 90 or 95% said to keep.

And we did it, adding a lot more features.

How it looks and how it works - it is too different thing.


PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine. Trust me.


PS2. I know another one guy who was speaking many times that he is great specialist in Interface... I found then other... and many other people think the same now about him.... comparing with the old design that was...

[Schallmoser]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Probably the stand alone would be a great mistake. Like did it some others in the past. Also you will need to write so many other tools that to display the map, in 2D and 3D, all 3D objects and its options, change the features that render the engine, etc then you should be able to make BoB 3D engine. Don't you think so?

And if you can't use so simple in use tool..... just because you are thinking that it should have other interface and even didn't try to read instruction... translating your words why you didn't use it ever...

Who understand architecture of Il-2 builder begin to think by other way.... If my 6 year old son can use it easy, then i'm "sure" something wrong ..... When my older son (he was 10 years old) begun to use FMB, he also didn't read any instructions, but after a couple of hours try, he did the first his mission. The only one thing that I was need to say him - use button Ctrl...

The goal to keep the Il-2 looking new builder is that to get involved in mission building right from the release day a lot of people who was able to make it with Il-2 in the past. This is the most fast way to invite the other wide auditory of players to new missions and features right from the beginning... Ist it the right way?

If to speak about other way looking colors etc... then proably it may happens.

I know a lot of people photographers, that can't learn simple Canon's Digital Photo Professional program... I really learned it for 30 min...
I know the people who make really great photos, but can't learn simplest program Adobe Lightroom to make theri photos even more greater looking...
I know a lot of people who know well Adobe Photoshot, but can't use very simple for understanding Adobe Camera Raw module integrated in Photoshop.

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.

And finally I did in the past the poll to keep ot not to keep the interface of Il-2 FMB...

I don't remember now exact digit, but more than 90 or 95% said to keep.

And we did it, adding a lot more features.

How it looks and how it works - it is too different thing.


PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine. Trust me.


PS2. I know another one guy who was speaking many times that he is great specialist in Interface... I found then other... and many other people think the same now about him.... comparing with the old design that was...

Hi Oleg,
thank you for answering my post. I really did not want to say that the old or new FMB was not good. It is the ergonomics I was talking about.
Things like when you open for example the object window to modify plane settings then you go fly the mission and come back to FMB it would be nice to see tha same window with the same size at the same position.

Another great feature would be to be able to register macros to do repeating tasks. for example:
1.select a flight
2.<hit start macro button>
3.set certain army, altitude loadout and other settings.
4.<hit stop macro button> FMB asks you for the name to register the macro under.
then you can select another flight and apply the same macro. This could save a lot of time.

Concerning the rendering in 2D and 3D, this could be done by your library for example in form of an ActiveX control that has its COM interface to control the functionalities from within QT. QT would only invoke well defined functions to create objects, delete them, controll zooming, panning etc. but all the real work would be done by your engine.

Anyways I did not intend to criticize your work but just give my thoughts. I'll be happy with whatever you decide

cheers
Schallmoser

[kendo65]

on fmb

I remember being a little surprised and underwhelmed by the starkness of the il2 fmb gui when I first used it - in comparison to the slickness of the rest of the product. But as I started to use it and learned how it worked my opinion changed. It really did what it had to do pretty well. 'Functional' is maybe the right word.

I think the fmb is a bit like the engine and transmission of a car: in comparison to the shiny bodywork and plush upholstered interior it's not particularly pretty, but it's tucked away out of sight of the casual driver / user so it doesn't have to be. I think the new SOW fmb will still feel a bit like 'diving under the bonnet' ('hood' for U.S. readers )

It could no doubt be made to look slightly more 'contemporary' (Windows 7 rather than Win 95 style text boxes, etc) fairly easily, but i'm pleased to recognise the overall feel that I'm used to in il2.

Some comments on the new features:

weathering on the slider is good - presumably we can then choose to keep it off if desired (thought that some of the skinners might prefer to have complete control of this aspect of their skins? - though will that work in the campaign ??)

filtering on the objects / aircraft is welcome

#passes on the Waypoint tab I suspect will be useful

having radio silence as an option suggests that the game will do a very realistic job of simulating limited defensive awareness and allowing the possibility of surprise attacks? I suppose that if radar is being accurately modelled then this needs to be done too. Raises the possibility of some interesting bombing missions - low level, under the radar, strict RT silence!

the ability to set initial formation in the fmb is much needed. As others have asked, I'd be interested in knowing what features are available for controlling large squadron-level and bigger formations as one group?

Look forward to hearing more about the weather and scripting options

[Freycinet]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine.

Oleg, if other 3rd party volunteers make the texts for pop-up help bubbles, do you think someone on your team could put them into the FMB? - That would be a great "division of labour".

Sorry you spent so much time responding to a provocateur, but well, your choice...

[VectorForFood]

Oleg, just dropping in to say it looks fantastic... I hate to wish my life away, but this looks FANTASTIC!~