Jump to content


Photo

Geoscape


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
238 replies to this topic

#201 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 10:27 AM

hmm, maybe still a few probs ater all

Edited by Deimos, 17 February 2003 - 10:28 AM.


#202 Micah

Micah

    Colonel

  • [[Administrators]]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2283 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 11:42 AM

Sorry. I'm working on it.

#203 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 12:32 AM

wow deimos that is quite 1337.
Posted Image

#204 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 12:38 AM

what happened to the titlebars of the interceptor windows though?
Posted Image

#205 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 03:29 AM

Streamlining :) I felt after looking at the whole picture they looked out of place.

#206 Maverick

Maverick

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 619 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 03:40 AM

RK, I have 3 .png images (2048x2048, 1024x1024, and 800x800) that are stars with a small amount of blue nebulae in them that can be textured to a sphere. If you would like I can do this myself -- or I can send the images to you to put to your own sphere, as the size of my sphere may vary compared to yours. If you are still interested in those textures you mentioned a few days ago let me know here, via PM, or email.

-Mav

#207 cyberdrift

cyberdrift

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 11:33 AM

Some very impressive artwork and a lot of good discussion here. Gangsta, is the idea of including a Window Manager component a move away from thin client? It would be a way-cool thing to include, but with all the platforms, its a pretty big chunk of OS specific work as well. Also, some suggestions about iconifying and popup menus. Different Linux WMs handle iconifying differently (i.e. windowshades, or "buttons" or minimized down to the taskbar). The Mac can do windowshades in Classic mode, but puts apps down in the taskbar in Cocoa/OS X. Windows minimizes into the taskbar. We may want to develop what we mean by iconifying so that's a similar "feel" for all the targets. A caution about popup menus: they are not a primary navigation tool on Macs due to the single button mouse Steve decided to bless the faithful with. On a standard Mac, popup menus are a two handed event (press the Ctrl key and click). Lots of people add on more standard type mice, but lots haven't, either. Maybe not a huge issue, but I've seen some pretty intense flame wars between old-time Mac types and switchers over the need for popup menus. A final note, the "fade" or slow iconization on the Mac is a low level OS thing, and probably hard to re-produce in Windows (although I think Window Managers like Enlightenment can do similar things in Linux). Sorry if I am taking the Image forum into programming stuff.

#208 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 03:46 PM

Dont worry about OS Dependant issues, cause you have to program a window manager from scratch using OpenGL Generated Events... The single mouse button is another thing...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#209 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 09:55 PM

Deimos. think you'll want a titlebar to drag the window with. the borders are too thin to drag the windows effectively. I suggest making a tab (BeOS like) title/drag bar that also has the the iconification and possibly fullscreen widgets on it.
Posted Image

#210 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 08:28 AM

Do the windows need to be dragged? I've just checked in the original and the interceptor windows can't be moved. They pop up in the centre of the screen and multiple windows pop up around each other. There's enough screen real estate for them not to have to move so what's the point? When the interceptor window pops up it's the centre of focus anyway so why the need to shift it out the way.

Why does it need a fullscreen toggle button? Surely you're not thinking of having the interceptor window at 800x600 res? Talk about in your face :)

The minimise control button is in the bottom left corner which could easily be moved to the top left or anywhere else come to think of it. After all it's just a button elelment.

You don't need to have tabs on the window to move it anyway. For the most part it's just a static animation so if you really want to move the window around just grab it where there aren't any buttons and pull it around.

I honestly think that bars, tab and other 'OS' like qualities spoil the look of the window and don't really fit in the the sci-fi nature of the game, that's the reason I took them off. They look way better now. I'd agree with you about icon controls and tabs if we were making an OS but it not so I'm gonna have to disagree with you over it :)

#211 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:40 PM

Do the windows need to be dragged? I've just checked in the original and the interceptor windows can't be moved. They pop up in the centre of the screen and multiple windows pop up around each other. There's enough screen real estate for them not to have to move so what's the point? When the interceptor window pops up it's the centre of focus anyway so why the need to shift it out the way.

Why does it need a fullscreen toggle button? Surely you're not thinking of having the interceptor window at 800x600 res? Talk about in your face :)

The minimise control button is in the bottom left corner which could easily be moved to the top left or anywhere else come to think of it. After all it's just a button elelment.

You don't need to have tabs on the window to move it anyway. For the most part it's just a static animation so if you really want to move the window around just grab it where there aren't any buttons and pull it around.

I honestly think that bars, tab and other 'OS' like qualities spoil the look of the window and don't really fit in the the sci-fi nature of the game, that's the reason I took them off. They look way better now. I'd agree with you about icon controls and tabs if we were making an OS but it not so I'm gonna have to disagree with you over it :)

I think having dragable windows makes the game more flexible for one thing. Another reason to do this again is the multiplayer geoscape. There you would want to be able to drag windows for sure. In the multiplayer geoscape the base window was also a good idea and that works better being dragable. You want to be able to click on other things in the geoscape while those windows may be open. If one window has a dragbar then you'll want to have a uniform look to all windows. I suggest we use BeOS like Tab Windows. Also the fullscreen widget only appears when it is needed (Base window for instance). nobody said that it would be on the interceptor window.
Posted Image

#212 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 07:16 PM

I think having dragable windows makes the game more flexible for one thing.  Another reason to do this again is the multiplayer geoscape.  There you would want to be able to drag windows for sure.  In the multiplayer geoscape the base window was also a good idea and that works better being dragable.  You want to be able to click on other things in the geoscape while those windows may be open.  If one window has a dragbar then you'll want to have a uniform look to all windows.  I suggest we use BeOS like Tab Windows.  Also the fullscreen widget only appears when it is needed (Base window for instance).  nobody said that it would be on the interceptor window.

For multiplayer, yeah dragging a window could be useful but as I said in my last post just drag the window.I can't give you the names of games I've played where you can but I've definitley played some where you just grab the window and move it.

I've got to admit I didn't have any idea what a BeOS tab looked like so I went searching. All I can say is Ewww. The design the way it is at the moment is quite an uncluttered minimalistic style. Sticking a box onto one corner is gonna be like leaving the draws open on a cupboard. Not to put down the guy that designed BeOS but... Ewwww is all I can think of without resorting to a string of profanities :D

It isn't going to fit into the design. I know you're a programmer and function comes above form but not in this case. It isn't a word processor we're making where being funcional is foremost and ugly can be overlooked. Gamers expect eye candy and flashy lights (cerrtainly the latest batch of them looking at the current crop of games:)). Ugly OS like boxes on the corners of windows are just gonna get people complaining. The original doesn't have boxes so why should the remake. I guess you can tell I feel strongly about this :) The whole reason I dropped the sidebars in an earlier revision was because on retrospect they look Fugly :D Ok so I didn't go into detail why they were dropped as I thought looking at the comparisons on the xencide page it was pretty obvious that they needed to go, nobody complained about the loss so they stayed off :)

I thought we agreed that the base window was going to be dropped as its a redundancy thing for the baseview screen. That was the impression I got from the thread. One window for geo, one for baseview and so on. There'd be no need for a fullscreen icon as the baseview will run in fullscreen anyway. That's the reason I stopped working on it and it's no longer a part of the design.

Sorry about the fullscreen comment it's just the way you worded your previous post it suggested that as you were referring to the interceptor window you meant a fullscreen icon on it. :)

#213 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:12 PM

Well I think BeOS windows are ugly too. But that doesn't mean that a BeOS style has to be ugly. It has been used before and sucessfully too. The AbsoluteE theme for enlightenment is one instance where the style isn't ugly. In fact you know that BlueSteal theme you like so much :) I once spent a week moding it with Gimp and came up with a BeOS style that looks even better than the original theme. I lost it though when upgrading my OS and forgetting to back it up to file. Anyway, I say BeOS style because I think BeOS is the first one to make the titlebars of windows that way. It makes the window very functionally because the titlebar doesn't cover up too much info. Here is an example of a BeOS Style base window for the game.

Image Deleted.

Now this one I did very quickly as a concept. I didn't have the layered version to play with so it was made with cut and paste from a posted jpeg image just to show the possibility.
Posted Image

#214 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:47 PM

I thought we agreed that the base window was going to be dropped as its a redundancy thing for the baseview screen. That was the impression I got from the thread. One window for geo, one for baseview and so on. There'd be no need for a fullscreen icon as the baseview will run in fullscreen anyway. That's the reason I stopped working on it and it's no longer a part of the design.

I think there are a few people on here that are in favor of dropping it. Not me though because I'm also thinking about the future multiplayer game. Having the base and ufopedia open up automatically in multiplayer is a design mistake. The game would be more flexible in the multiplayer game if the player gets to keep an eye out on the geoscape because the geoscape doesn't pause when you go into the base or the ufopedia. being in fullscreen mode leaves one open for an invasion by skyranger where the person could have sent out interceptors to shoot the skyranger down instead for example. I just think having interfaces that are available on the geoscape as windows makes people more efficent while on geoscape duty for a team. Anyway, that's just my view on it and I know the opinion isn't shared by everyone. I just think that it would save work if we do the interface right from the beginning to handle multiplayer than go back later and try to fix it when we might not have the same resources as we do now.
Posted Image

#215 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 21 February 2003 - 05:35 AM

I just think that it would save work if we do the interface right from the beginning to handle multiplayer than go back later and try to fix it when we might not have the same resources as we do now.

The nice thing with the design side of multiplayer is that it's much easier to go back and make changes later on, unlike programming. :)
My main concern is that we're going to be releasing the game into a commercial environment where the standards are high, releasing something that looks bolted on isn't going to win any fans. :) I did try to incorporate your request last time you posted it but it just didn't fit in with the style.

Though I do understand your concerns for the multiplayer side of things I'd like to get the 'look' of the single player game right before modifiying it as that's going to be our first release and the one people remember. I know that the under the hood stuff is really important, but good graphics can make or break a game. I know a lot of people that are so shallow they won't play a game if it looks crap. :)

Its still not decided whether the geoscape is going to feature in multiplayer and even if it is, there are a lot of things still undecided about it. Better to stick to designing what I know will be used in game and coming back later to modify it than to waste time doing things that aren't going to be used. Hence why I'm not working on the base popup window anymore. :)

I want to keep well away from contempary 'OS' styling as its a fantasy environment we're in not based on someone's computer. If you make it look like someone's computer, it diminishes the scale and drama of the game environment. One reason why hollywood never use real email clients or programs in their films and tv. Real life grey and boring. Tv and film, exciting. A mail prog called Incredimail is very popular because people want flashy lights and 'movie like' programs. If the game is restricted to the geekier side with OS' like elements we're going to have a large slice of people just not interested. I'm trying to avoid that. :)

#216 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:47 AM

I just think that it would save work if we do the interface right from the beginning to handle multiplayer than go back later and try to fix it when we might not have the same resources as we do now.

The nice thing with the design side of multiplayer is that it's much easier to go back and make changes later on, unlike programming. :)
My main concern is that we're going to be releasing the game into a commercial environment where the standards are high, releasing something that looks bolted on isn't going to win any fans. :) I did try to incorporate your request last time you posted it but it just didn't fit in with the style.

Though I do understand your concerns for the multiplayer side of things I'd like to get the 'look' of the single player game right before modifiying it as that's going to be our first release and the one people remember. I know that the under the hood stuff is really important, but good graphics can make or break a game. I know a lot of people that are so shallow they won't play a game if it looks crap. :)

Its still not decided whether the geoscape is going to feature in multiplayer and even if it is, there are a lot of things still undecided about it. Better to stick to designing what I know will be used in game and coming back later to modify it than to waste time doing things that aren't going to be used. Hence why I'm not working on the base popup window anymore. :)

I want to keep well away from contempary 'OS' styling as its a fantasy environment we're in not based on someone's computer. If you make it look like someone's computer, it diminishes the scale and drama of the game environment. One reason why hollywood never use real email clients or programs in their films and tv. Real life grey and boring. Tv and film, exciting. A mail prog called Incredimail is very popular because people want flashy lights and 'movie like' programs. If the game is restricted to the geekier side with OS' like elements we're going to have a large slice of people just not interested. I'm trying to avoid that. :)

Well honestly I somewhat disagree with you. I think the interceptor windows as are now are uglier without a drag bar. If you think that titlebar is ugly I'm sure a better looking one is possible especially looking at some of the enlightenment themes of the past. As far as the interceptor windows go where the iconify gadget is at the moment doesn't make sense at all and isn't very user friendly in my opinion. As for window managers they have been used in games before so I don't quite buy that they don't work in games because I've seen them work. I also think that ease of use of the interface is perfered by users over some contemporary look. Another reason to implement windows is that because if we don't we make it harder later on to add new features to the game. Because right now it seems like we are adding a diffrent interface for each thing in X-Com instead of coming up with a standard. BTW, the things you see in the movies sometimes aren't useable in the real world either.
Posted Image

#217 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:58 AM

Anyway as an example of how windows don't have to look traditional here is the aliens theme of enlightenment.

Attached Files


Posted Image

#218 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 06:59 PM

Only one remark about this GUI Discussion, remember that the target is not a person who works with the computer (like we do, programming or doing art, etc) the target of a game, say it or not is those hardcore gamers and kids out there who dont give a s.... for work related interfaces... They wanna have fun and a professional bussiness looking UI wont do the trick.... just my 2 cents...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#219 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 10:26 PM

I think what maters most is ease of use. That's why many games *do* use a window manager when windows are needed especially in multiplayer stratagy or RPG games (this is not an action game where you don't always need windows). As for us not wanting the standard OS looking GUI that has been done before too. Take a look at some of the enlightenment themes. People got very creative with some of those themes and have came up with stuph that works. They even had the star trek style even though that isn't very useable. I think eventually we probably will want windows in the game because it makes it easier to add new featuers with windows than without. I also think that GUIs even for games should be design smart. I'm guessing where that iconify widget is at is the same place as in the original X-Com. That not the most logical place and besides that we'll have to make the interceptor interface diffrent from the original X-Com anyway to play it safe with the copyright and trademark things. I think the only reason that the original X-Com didn't have a fully functional window manager to handle the interceptor windows is because it was a DOS game and they just didn't bother. Anyway these are my opinions and I'll go along with whatever the rest of the group wants. I just think it is possible to make a cool looking window style that doesn't scream out Operating system when you look at it. I've seen those before afterall :)
Posted Image

#220 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 24 February 2003 - 01:22 AM

anyway. :) who said windows have to look like you expect em to

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I think we can come up with a cool look that won't make someone think OS. I'm an enlightenment user :) so I think more abstractly about how a window is shaped. Btw the first one is a BeOS style window too since it has that folder look.
Posted Image

#221 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 06 March 2003 - 10:33 PM

Tweaked final image. Just some minor adjustments in positioning. My starfield is in the background and I got fed up of looking at Africa so I rendered a new image of the globe. :)

Have you guys ever seen a prog called Distant suns? I found it a while ago and have been playing with it, mainly for positioning constellations onto a texture map, but the freebie version (No.4) is a very low system requirement so I was wondering if it would be possible to get the star data from the developer and place it into our geoscape. They have a special seti @home edition so it might be possible to get the data we need for it. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to see the constellations in their proper places for the time period of the game :)

Attached Files



#222 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 06 March 2003 - 10:49 PM

I liked your last geoscape pic better it was almost perfect. This one I tiink the gigantic stars clutter up the display and that along with the purple and cyan colors are a bit distracting
Posted Image

#223 Micah

Micah

    Colonel

  • [[Administrators]]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2283 posts

Posted 07 March 2003 - 11:18 AM

I agree that the brightest star clusters are distracting, but the dimmer ones are okay. Also, that shiny splotch..... :) I hope it's just an eye candy thing for the concept pic. Otherwise, I think it looks good.

#224 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 07 March 2003 - 11:44 AM

It's funny because after posting it, the star clusters are the thing that I thought didn't fit properly. They stood out too much. Oh well back to the drawing board :)

Oh and the reflection of the sun is just a concept thing as far as I know. It was a material property in the modeller I used :)

#225 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2003 - 01:24 PM

Sorry to possibly be a pain but I still like the nebula pictures would it be possible for one to be able to choose style/look/graphics from runtime. Not nessessarily different looking controls but say changing textures or something. For example the background is just one image couldn't that be a simple setting say from a list for which one to blit?

#226 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 07 March 2003 - 06:12 PM

I've got three different starfields I'm working on at the moment plus Jfranzen has one so we're up to four. Admittedly the latest one I posted didn't go down a storm but I'm redoing that so it's more muted and removes the larger stars.

Would it be difficult to program so the user can choose stuff like different starfields? As I'm getting a hankering for nebulae myself. I don't know what it is they just look cool.

While on the subject of the starfield, is the starfield going to be locked to the earth rotation? If so I can map in (I think) the constellations in the proper positions manually.

#227 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 07 March 2003 - 06:56 PM

I've got three different starfields I'm working on at the moment plus Jfranzen has one so we're up to four. Admittedly the latest one I posted didn't go down a storm but I'm redoing that so it's more muted and removes the larger stars.

Would it be difficult to program so the user can choose stuff like different starfields? As I'm getting a hankering for nebulae myself. I don't know what it is they just look cool.

While on the subject of the starfield, is the starfield going to be locked to the earth rotation? If so I can map in (I think) the constellations in the proper positions manually.

Will work on that as soon as posible... I mean the fixed position of the starfield....

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#228 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 08 March 2003 - 12:24 AM

out of curiosity I know we can't use the term Ufopedia. But are geoscape and battlescape ok terms to use or do we have to rename those too?
Posted Image

#229 Maverick

Maverick

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 619 posts

Posted 09 March 2003 - 08:18 PM

I'm not sure G. I don't think they are copyrighted or otherwise protected by themselves, but they do term a system and might fall under (or be construed by ankle biting lawyers as falling under) some kind of protection....

#230 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2003 - 12:05 PM

XenoStrt.exe for Xenocide Strategic (Geoscape)
XenoTact.exe for Xenocide Tactical (Battlescape).

Just a thought!

Well since no one objected maybe I'll throw in a drop-down menu in the customization page for geoscape background. ;)

#231 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 03:30 PM

XenoStrt.exe for Xenocide Strategic (Geoscape)
XenoTact.exe for Xenocide Tactical (Battlescape).

Why those .exe names??? It is not necesarilly, not even encougaged to make it as disctincts executables...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#232 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 11 March 2003 - 03:48 PM

I don't like having two seperate exes either for each of those. Also don't like the strategic name for the geoscape cause I'd like to have diffrent types of strategic enterfaces in the future like a galaxyscape perhaps. I seperate the game logic in my mind into Microworld and Macroworld and geoscape is one type of macroworld interface whereas a random generator screen can be another and Microworld contains the battlescapes.
Posted Image

#233 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 11 March 2003 - 04:39 PM

Macroworld and Microworld are going to be really confusing for the average gamer.

I think Stewy is onto something with Xenocide strategic and tactical.

#234 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 06:52 AM

Macroworld and Microworld are going to be really confusing for the average gamer.

I think Stewy is onto something with Xenocide strategic and tactical.

Sorry Deimos, we are speaking in Programming terms not gameplay... the proposition was to have two executable files instead of one... Microworld and Macroworld is just a way to think it in object design specs.... not in game...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#235 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2003 - 09:05 AM

It was just an off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion. don't blow a gasquet! The exe's were just thrown in for visual reasons; nothing implied.

#236 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 12:56 PM

Macroworld and Microworld are going to be really confusing for the average gamer.

I think Stewy is onto something with Xenocide strategic and tactical.

Sorry Deimos, we are speaking in Programming terms not gameplay... the proposition was to have two executable files instead of one... Microworld and Macroworld is just a way to think it in object design specs.... not in game...

Greetings
Red Knight

Ah, oops my bad. It's just that with it being in the geo thread in the design forum I thought you guys were talking about renaming for gameplay reasons. :blink:

#237 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3310 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 04:02 PM

I think its time to start working on the options panel of the geoscape and the base layout interface... dont constrain to the original one. Thats because i had been working with Deimos interface and it just looks plain amazing, if everything goes good, it will be ready tomorrow even though i have to fix some geoscape lighting issues (dont worry i will release it anyways), be cautioned that the world is not looking that good, YET. Radeon Support is near but not finished, but im almost there not as near to release the support in the next iteration...

To all first look what do you think an options interface must have... IDEA: not only save/load/quit... think in big... texture detail, gamma corrections, model detail, on/off options like setting anisotropic filtering, Vertical Sync, etc... Sound volume, ambient and voices for example, etc....

We can consider this thread closed for a while (until further geoscape interface improvement request)... any admin be my guest. Please move any Exe discution or whatever to the right forum.

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#238 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2203 posts

Posted 14 March 2003 - 12:29 AM

was there a reason why this topic was closed? I unlocked it for now assuming it was a mistake since nobody said they closed it.
Posted Image

#239 LordT

LordT

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 14 March 2003 - 07:41 AM

We can consider this thread closed for a while (until further geoscape interface improvement request)... any admin be my guest. Please move any Exe discution or whatever to the right forum.

Gangsta: ummm... :stupid: just pointing out :)
Take your time and submit a name to the Names Database.

Resistance is futile! (if < 1 ohm)