[mjn.mixael]

Looking over the commandline, I noticed a few options that would benefit from a little pruning. Then AdmiralNelson mentioned how one of them interfered with UW. So, that was enough of a reminder for me to make this post.

There may be a few more, but I was wondering what people thought of moving these to a table option instead of the commandline.

-rearm_timer
-dualscanlines
-targetinfo

[Dragon]

They'd fit better into a table, allright. That's mostly visual stuff, not really important, though I think I'd actually miss having a rearm timer on by default. Perhaps a table override instead?

[Kopachris]

Existing table or new table?  Can we have a mod-global "options.tbl" and player-specific "<callsign>-opt.tbm" tables?

[Admiral Nelson]

Shouldn't at least some of these be hud-gauges options?  The -targetinfo one creates issues for UW, at least.  I want to be able to hide that targetinfo from the player.

[Dragon]

I imagine that's the table he had in mind. It's a logical place to put such stuff into. I agree, there should be Hud_gauges.tbl overrides.

[Echelon9]

Existing table or new table?  Can we have a mod-global "options.tbl" and player-specific "<callsign>-opt.tbm" tables?

I don't think we should require individual users/callsigns from having to edit tables to change their settings. Many users do not even know tables exists -- they set their chosen settings through the launcher or in game options.

[jr2]

Put the options in a table then have the launcher view / edit that table based on user selection.  Then fsopen reads the table file on launch.

[zookeeper]

Is there some reason for -missile_lighting ("Apply lighting to missiles") to exist, besides truly marginal performance gains? If not, then it seems like unnecessary clutter, especially considering that modders can and should use the "apply no light" weapon flag anyway, if they want their missiles to not be lit.

[Kolgena]

Lighting settings would be nice if they were mod specific. We have campaigns ranging from Windmills to BP which don't necessarily look right without tweaked lighting on a per-mod basis.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Lighting settings would be nice if they were mod specific. We have campaigns ranging from Windmills to BP which don't necessarily look right without tweaked lighting on a per-mod basis.

You can make them mod-specific in wxLauncher by just making a separate profile for each mod.

[mjn.mixael]

My question, at this point, is if anyone is actually interested in pursuing making this change.

[mjn.mixael]

 

Just cause I think this is worth it.

[General Battuta]

I stoop to concur. Do you get it. It's a pun

e: also would love the ability to move 'use models for ship/weapon selection' to a table force

[mjn.mixael]

e: also would love the ability to move 'use models for ship/weapon selection' to a table force

Indeed, though I figured out a way to "force" it for BtA... don't remember how I did it, though. It was something along the lines of using a table entry for every ship and weapon to remove any icons that were loaded forcing FSO to use models for the selection screen as a backup.

Edit:

Remove these in ships.tbl entries

Code: [Select]

$Ship_Icon:
$Ship_Anim:
$Ship_Overhead:
Add these in weapons.tbl entries

Code: [Select]

$Icon: none
$Anim: none

[Mongoose]

Honestly I think these types of options are the things that could properly belong in that oft-proposed in-game "advanced" settings menu.  I mean I like having stuff like the dual lines and extra target info on, but as an end-user I don't really want to have to go faffing about with table files just to get them turned on when I so choose.  And I'm part of the relatively-small percent who would actually know how to do that...your average newbie wouldn't have any hope at all.

[mjn.mixael]

There is not doubt this would step into mod dev rights vs player rights (or whatever you want to call it) and I'm not sure what the answer is. However, I don't think the in-game menu is an option, cause honestly, who knows if we'll ever have it. I'm betting not for now. If the menu became a reality, we could have them moved again. But the commandline is not really a place for these anymore.

[jr2]

Honestly I think these types of options are the things that could properly belong in that oft-proposed in-game "advanced" settings menu.  I mean I like having stuff like the dual lines and extra target info on, but as an end-user I don't really want to have to go faffing about with table files just to get them turned on when I so choose.  And I'm part of the relatively-small percent who would actually know how to do that...your average newbie wouldn't have any hope at all.

QFT & Ditto...  At least if I ever get back to playing.

[Macfie]

What about turning them on by default and have a disable option in the launcher the way we do with some of the visual stuff.  That way they would only be in the command line if you turn them off.

[mjn.mixael]

The defeats the whole purpose of pruning the commandline, though. The whole point is to clean out flags that don't really belong there... for example, dual scan lines. I love me some dual scan lines, but we are talking about a single line moving across a small area of the HUD... a whole commandline for that?

[Goober5000]

Ideally, as you said, the best place to put such things as dual scan lines is an in-game options screen.  But since we don't have that, the next best place is the command line.  Neither tables nor registry settings are appropriate, and no other option is practical.

But we can't simply remove working command-line features if no replacement option exists.

EDIT: This post assumes dualscanlines is a user-preference option, as elaborated in later posts