[Phantom Hoover]

FSO also has some pretty questionable command-line options already, like the dual scanlines or the 3D radar.

[AdmiralRalwood]

FSO also has some pretty questionable command-line options already, like the dual scanlines or the 3D radar.

Is that an argument for keeping an IBX commandline option, or an argument for getting rid of it and both the aforementioned?

[karajorma]

I read it as an argument for not adding more stupid things to the commandline.

Command line options have their place but far too often we've allowed things to remain in the command line that have absolutely no business being there.

[mjn.mixael]

Indeed. I once suggested moving some of those options to mod.tbl or hud.tbl and was quickly shot down because people couldn't handle the idea of playing a mod where the creator didn't enable dual scan lines...

This is no different. Dragon is afraid of change despite the stacking evidence that this change is extremely minimal, bordering unnoticeable.

[karajorma]

Yep and when someone starts pushing for this sort of silly change, we should push back. Cause while I agree with you about sticking such things in a table, and I couldn't give a stuff about people who think that sort of thing should be a user option, if we were to change it now, we would have (hopefully minor) problems with the launcher reporting unknown commandline entries. Better to stop nonsense ever becoming a commandline in the first place.

[Phantom Hoover]

Indeed. I once suggested moving some of those options to mod.tbl or hud.tbl and was quickly shot down because people couldn't handle the idea of playing a mod where the creator didn't enable dual scan lines...

No, that's reasonable. These are preferences to set by the user, not by mod authors; they should be somewhere in the ingame HUD settings.

[The E]

Ideally, that's where they'd be, just as a lot of other switches should be accessible in-game.

However, to the best of my knowledge, noone has started something like that yet.

[mjn.mixael]

Indeed. I once suggested moving some of those options to mod.tbl or hud.tbl and was quickly shot down because people couldn't handle the idea of playing a mod where the creator didn't enable dual scan lines...

No, that's reasonable. These are preferences to set by the user, not by mod authors; they should be somewhere in the ingame HUD settings.

Well, I'm going to disagree knowing full well that this is the internet where you don't actually listen to others, you just entrench... but whatever. I don't have a horse in this race other than to clean up the over-filled commandline.

Most (not all) of these commandline features were implemented in the Wild West era of FSO when all kinds of things were put in the commandline. If they were created now, they would most definitely be put in a table and no one would bat an eye.  Everyone is so used to them being a "user option" that they can't stand the idea of letting a mod creator to choose between single and dual scan lines. (Dear lord, why does anyone ever care this much about a scan line thing... thank you internet.) I would argue that mod creators should have some degree of choice for changing some of these settings to fit the style of their mod...

There is no way I'll believe anyone who insists that dual scan lines or flash upon warp are game breaking to the user experience. I just don't buy it. The biggest argument for users is 3D radar and maybe rearm timer... possibly 3D warp, but I'm not sold on that. Models for ship/weapon selection? That one I absolutely believe should be modder choice (and to an extent already is if the modder doesn't make icons).

But now I'm waaay off topic. My original point was that cache files don't need a commandline option because it's been proven that this speed stuff is negligible. Which is all I was wanting to see with my original hesitation.

[Phantom Hoover]

So what you're really saying is that you don't believe FSO should have any user-configurable options? I mean take the orb radar: some people like it, others prefer the original 2D one. It's insane to have mod authors setting it on a per-mod basis! The problem is that right now in FSO it's a choice between tables or the command line for any and all miscellaneous settings, when neither are really appropriate. It'd be a significant amount of work to properly extend the ingame settings to cover that kind of stuff and I understand why it's low on the priority list, but pretending everything's fine as it is gains us nothing.

[mjn.mixael]

So what you're really saying is that you don't believe FSO should have any user-configurable options? I mean take the orb radar: some people like it, others prefer the original 2D one. It's insane to have mod authors setting it on a per-mod basis! The problem is that right now in FSO it's a choice between tables or the command line for any and all miscellaneous settings, when neither are really appropriate. It'd be a significant amount of work to properly extend the ingame settings to cover that kind of stuff and I understand why it's low on the priority list, but pretending everything's fine as it is gains us nothing.

  That's... not at all what I said...

I... Oh whatever. You're on your own, dude.

[Swifty]

The new index buffer generation code is actually in the soft shadows and deferred lighting pull request. However, I'm realizing it might be prudent to separate that and the microsecond resolution profiling code into separate pull requests.

As for making IBX files a command-line option, no, I'm going to strip out the IBX file code. The IBX file generation code ended up having two code paths for generating vertex attributes for submodels. When I created the GPU submodel transformation code, I only updated one of those code paths because it wasn't clear that the index buffer code necessitated two different paths. As a result, weird rendering bugs started occuring when cache files were initially being generated and I couldn't find the problem until I produced this fix.

So no, I don't want to maintain two different code paths anymore. Let's reduce the entropy of code and minimize the potential for bugs. Let's keep it clean.

[jr2]

Any way to easily make an in-game 'menu' w/out interface art temporarily?

Like, press shift-F2 to bring up the alternate, barebones config menu?  Then when it's done being created, map it to the regular F2 menu instead.

Or replace the system with a parallel interface art that is more easily customizeable with simple or complex themes.  That's what is happening eventually, right?  As in, we aren't redoing the current in-game UI, but replacing it with a better, easily updated / maintained / skinned, visually identical/upgraded (for FS1/2 campaigns) in-game UI?

[Dragon]

FSO can't break retail. That means no messing with interface, because the original art still needs to be sufficient for running FSO. Unless some way of getting around that is found, command line is here to stay.

The biggest argument for users is 3D radar and maybe rearm timer... possibly 3D warp, but I'm not sold on that.

3D warp might have used to be a performance option. There certainly used to be a time where such a thing would matter. Regarding the others, I very much like them where they are. Dual scan lines are not a big deal (though they are nice), but what is really important is the 3D radar. Personally, I can't stand it. If a modder tried to force me to use that, I'd probably have to edit the mod to get an actually usable radar back. Some people think otherwise, but that's why it can be toggled. FSO needs more user customization options for things like that, not less. Minor visual things that don't affect gameplay, but which some people like one way, some the other.

[Phantom Hoover]

FSO can't break retail. That means no messing with interface, because the original art still needs to be sufficient for running FSO. Unless some way of getting around that is found, command line is here to stay.

The MVPs exist, you know?

[karajorma]

FSO can't break retail. That means no messing with interface, because the original art still needs to be sufficient for running FSO. Unless some way of getting around that is found, command line is here to stay.

By that logic the lab feature can't exist.

jr2 does have a good idea, one that I'm sure has been mentioned before, using something similar to the lab's code to generate an interface on the fly. I don't think anyone has shown any interest in doing something along those lines so far though.

[Goober5000]

A new interface configuration screen was one of Taylor's unfinished projects, but then he got burned out.

Stuff like -dualscanlines could be put in hud_gauges.tbl, since that didn't exist at the time Phreak added that feature (which was one of the very first things added to FSO IIRC).  But IMHO the 3D radar should be user preference.

[mjn.mixael]

As I recall, Valathil was once working on an in-game UI that could even control lighting settings.

[LaineyBugsDaddy]

...but what is really important is the 3D radar. Personally, I can't stand it. If a modder tried to force me to use that, I'd probably have to edit the mod to get an actually usable radar back. Some people think otherwise, but that's why it can be toggled. FSO needs more user customization options for things like that, not less. Minor visual things that don't affect gameplay, but which some people like one way, some the other.

I disagree about 3D Radar. It's not so good with just blips, but with radar icons, it works rather well. Unknown contacts that can't be locked are a little harder, but can still be deciphered with some effort.

[jr2]

Unknowns (for me at least) require pitching and yawing a bit to see beyond the center "yourself" that gets in the way -- a few times back and forth and I can usually gather the general idea of where something is.

Honestly, I would love it if you could flip 2D/3D on the fly, as sometimes a glance at 2D would be nice (back when I was playing a lot I always flew with 3D on but sometimes wished I could toggle just for a second or two).

[mjn.mixael]

You know... with the new HUD.tbl stuff, a modder could probably SEXP that up pretty simply.