[Mongoose]

I know there's generally an aversion toward adding additional launcher flags, and for good reason, but a flag to control the use of radar icons seems like it would make perfect sense, in the same vein as the 3D radar flag.  As it is, you have to remove/rename the icons VP in order to turn them off.  Seems like it would be a handy feature to have, if it wouldn't require some pain-in-the-ass bit of coding.

[Thaeris]

Good sir, I believe this is a fair request...

[karajorma]

No.

If a mod has included radar icons they should definitely be used. I definitely don't want to see the inclusion of yet another flag we have to tell people to switch on to make certain mods work.

Now if you want to have a table setting to turn them on or off that would be a different matter.

[Mongoose]

No.

If a mod has included radar icons they should definitely be used. I definitely don't want to see the inclusion of yet another flag we have to tell people to switch on to make certain mods work.

Now if you want to have a table setting to turn them on or off that would be a different matter.

Are there any mods that would utilize radar icons as some sort of make-or-break attribute, as opposed to the dots we've been using for a decade?  The only released things I'm aware of that have them are the MediaVPs, FSPort, and Blue Planet, and in each of those cases they're a completely-optional minor graphical tweak.  Unless I'm just not grasping some theoretical complex purpose they could be used for, I feel like they're in the exact same vein as the 3D radar or extra scanning line, both of which have had launcher flags for years.  Should they be treated differently than those?

[karajorma]

Neither of those should have been a launcher flag in the first place anyway. They certainly wouldn't be if they were added today.

Secondly there are mods like Diaspora which do need radar icons. Dots would not look like DRADIS.

But more importantly this is one of those "The campaign should play the way the campaign designer intended" issues. Not to mention that it would be a PITA in multi if people used different systems in order to get an advantage.

[Iss Mneur]

Neither of those should have been a launcher flag in the first place anyway. They certainly wouldn't be if they were added today.

Secondly there are mods like Diaspora which do need radar icons. Dots would not look like DRADIS.

But more importantly this is one of those "The campaign should play the way the campaign designer intended" issues. Not to mention that it would be a PITA in multi if people used different systems in order to get an advantage.

I agree, there are currently 100 flags that are accepted by FSO.  A quarter or more are actually gameplay type things which should have never been made into flags to start with.  The fact that wxLauncher even needs to consider adding a forcedflagson and forcedflagsoff to our extended mod.ini specification is completely against any sane user interaction guidelines.  The only thing that flags should be used for are performance reasons (think -normal, -cap_object_update), platform configuration reasons (think -mod, -res), to work around hardware bugs (think -novbo or -noibx), or development tools (think -fps, -window, -pofspew).

As for the topic at hand, I suppose that a -use_radar_icons could be used like what was proposed for -nomotiondebris (yet another flag that really shouldn't have existed) where -use_radar_icons only has an effect where the MOD (TC) maker doesn't specify whether the feature is forced on or off (using a .tbl/.tbm, not wxLauncher's crappy mod.ini hack).

[Galemp]

Bah. We need a new, scripted Options screen in FSO where we can configure lighting settings with a demo model and turn on and off FSO graphics and gameplay options.

[Goober5000]

We really do.  Taylor was working on it at one point, but it got put on hold because he was working on so much other stuff.  We really need someone to pick up where he left off and run with it.

In the absence of an options screen though, a launcher flag is the next best choice.  To be clear, I'm not referring to something like the old -tbp or -wcs flags which modified the intrinsic look-and-feel or a mod, and caused problems if used for other mods.  But something like the 3D radar, which is very specifically a mod-independent HUD change, should be able to be toggled according to user preference.  For something like that a launcher flag is entirely justified.

And I would say that even the radar icons should be a user-changeable selection.  Dots may not look like DRADIS, but a user may prefer them anyway.

[karajorma]

And I would say that even the radar icons should be a user-changeable selection.  Dots may not look like DRADIS, but a user may prefer them anyway.

Tough.

Modify your tables and have the mod automatically break in validated multiplayer then.

There are certain things the mod designer should be able to choose to be forced on regardless of the users preferences. Cockpits are a big example of this. You don't want some multiplayer pilots having to turn them off because others have and gained a huge advantage as a result.

[Goober5000]

And why not?  Other space flight simulators offer that as a user-interface option, for the very reason that it makes things easier in a dogfight.  In TIE Fighter and X-Wing, you just need to press one key to toggle it off and on.

[chief1983]

Some sims do offer it as an option, but others have realized that it _does_ present a balance issue, like IL-2.  IL-2 offers it as an option, but offers servers the ability to lock down that option, eliminating user control over that.  _That_ would be the ideal solution, but barring that, I'm fine leaving that control fully in the mod's hands if it has been there from the start.

[Nuke]

i kinda think that some of those options in the flags should be in game settings, which can be turned on and off while in the game. for example pretty much everything in the "graphics" and "game speed" sections of the launcher should probably go into the "detail" section of the options. some settings, like gameplay would probibly need its own screen. seems to me the only constraint in the game is the hard coded ui.

scripting already has all the means to render a ui at all points in the interface.  but what it lacks is control over the data that the hard coded interface changes. if you can edit the data with script then it would just be a little bit of work to script a replacement interface. ive already started a ui script which would make it very easy to set up window elements for such a replacement. once a fully scripted and skinned ui is in place, it should be fairly trivial to add options to the ui. simply adding a ui library to scripting. this would contain the actual setting data, not the gui at all. you could probably script a console interface if you want with the same library.

[Sushi]

I have a hard time seeing how what kinds of dots you use on your radar (or whether or not you can see the cockpit) is going to make a bigger "competetive advantage" difference than the size of your graphics card or the speed of your internet connection, but nobody is proposing we lock screen resolutions or have a minimum ping... the thing is, *everything* user-configurable is arguably a balance issue. You can't lock them all down, and IMHO locking down something like the appearance of your radar is going too far.

[chief1983]

If one person can tell where a bomber is vs a fighter for instance, that's a big difference right there.  Or, I want to fly towards the fighters but away from the capital ship with beams of death.  Icons make that possible without any hesitation.

[Mongoose]

There are certain things the mod designer should be able to choose to be forced on regardless of the users preferences. Cockpits are a big example of this. You don't want some multiplayer pilots having to turn them off because others have and gained a huge advantage as a result.

So if some mod out there wants to force that ugly-as-hell 3D radar on me, I'll just have to bend over and take it?

[Sushi]

If one person can tell where a bomber is vs a fighter for instance, that's a big difference right there.  Or, I want to fly towards the fighters but away from the capital ship with beams of death.  Icons make that possible without any hesitation.

Yes, but if someone wants to opt out of that extra information, of their own volition, why stop them?

[chief1983]

Who is to say which side has more advantage over another?  That's just one example.  The point is that it may need to be consistent.

[karajorma]

And why not?  Other space flight simulators offer that as a user-interface option, for the very reason that it makes things easier in a dogfight.  In TIE Fighter and X-Wing, you just need to press one key to toggle it off and on.

I have a hard time seeing how what kinds of dots you use on your radar (or whether or not you can see the cockpit) is going to make a bigger "competetive advantage" difference than the size of your graphics card or the speed of your internet connection, but nobody is proposing we lock screen resolutions or have a minimum ping... the thing is, *everything* user-configurable is arguably a balance issue. You can't lock them all down, and IMHO locking down something like the appearance of your radar is going too far.

It's one thing to be limited by your hardware and a completely different one to be forced to turn things off due to the fact you will lose a competitive edge in the game from having them turned on even though you have the power to run them. It basically forces you to drag the quality of your gaming experience down due to the actions of other players rather than what you can handle.

It also becomes yet another stupid thing for people to argue over in the lobby.

And that's before we get into the fact that making this a launcher flag now means that it increases the work for the mod involved. When it's a table setting that the mod decides to set or not then the mod decides and supports that configuration. Changing that involves a table mods and we can legitimately call it the users problem if it buggers things up. If on the other hand we make it a user's choice whether they want cockpits, radar icons or whatever then the mod has to make sure the mod still works if the user turns things off or bring back the ugly idea of mandatory launcher flags, something I spent a fair bit of time removing the -tbp and -wcs flags in order to avoid.

I'm still very much of the opinion that the mod designer should be in charge of what their game looks like. Turning off graphics so that the game will run on lower spec machines is one thing, altering the basic look and gameplay of the game by turning of elements that could be relevant to the actual gameplay of the game simply because the user wants to is another.

So if some mod out there wants to force that ugly-as-hell 3D radar on me, I'll just have to bend over and take it?

I should point out I'm might be willing to compromise and have the table option be "Feature On", "Feature Off" or "Use whatever the user says" but if the mod designer has said that the 3D radar is integral to his plot or mod design then yes, you should clutch your heels or persuade him to change it.

Some sims do offer it as an option, but others have realized that it _does_ present a balance issue, like IL-2.  IL-2 offers it as an option, but offers servers the ability to lock down that option, eliminating user control over that.  _That_ would be the ideal solution, but barring that, I'm fine leaving that control fully in the mod's hands if it has been there from the start.

It would be a rather big PITA to do that. I'd have to come up with a system generic enough to handle anything people could throw at it so that they'd register all this stuff as being a user option which the server can demand is on or off. It would then need it's own options screen which would have to be kept up to date as new features were added.

 What makes me unlikely to bother is the fact that even if I published detailed instructions on how everything works (as I did for the multiplayer SEXP system), only a couple of coders would bother to make sure their features actually used it.

[headdie]

is there a SEXP control for FREDders to use so for example the player's faction start out with a radar system only able to to show the location of contacts but then develop the technology during the campaign to show types (i.e. Icons)

[chief1983]

Kara, I know, I was just pointing out the example of the 'proper' way.  You're right, it would take a whole overhaul of the system.  A host would need the ability to tweak what options are configurable and controls are disabled, the game would need in game support for editing a lot of those options in the first place, etc.  Would be a huge PITA and probably klunky.  Mods want to be able to customize the look of their interface and cockpit as much as possible, we should let them do that and enforce it.