Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Optimized GUI


Jaiden
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Frosty:

> back on topic….
> the GUI has a large unused area in the bottom right.  I'd follow robin's advice and make the windows floating while taking out the right column.  Also, he doesn't mean to make the chat floating, keep the bottom HUD the same just take out the right side and make it into windows.

What do you mean unused area? That's the chatbox. If I remove the inventory and make it floating and leave the chat box, it becomes even more bothersome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

@Jaiden:

> What do you mean unused area? That's the chatbox. If I remove the inventory and make it floating and leave the chat box, it becomes even more bothersome.

wow, it was so oddly shaped I didn't even notice it was a chatbox XD  I'd reccomend drawing the text directly to the screen, it saves some space.  Then you can also make a movable floating inventory panel and the like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyprien:

> I know. However I would hope no one would be as crazy to try to even use one of them to play a eclipse game. It can be done but it would be like trying to use a iphone to play an eclipse game (somewhat pointless) [ps. iphone can't be done].

The iPhone would support Eclipse games quite well with a bit optimisation, but that would imply the game is to be written in C, C++ or ObjC.

If you lack knowledge in the market of embedded devices, then rather not make statements like those.

@Cyprien:

> Netbooks however are able to show a good width resolution of 1024\. There height on the other hand goes to 600 which is shorter then a basic computers 1024x768\. The problem is it will look small because of the screen size of the notebook. There are 12inch notebooks which do have a higher screen resolution of 1280 x 800.

Thanks for sharing something I already knew. Also, since the height is a mere 600, it would be best to support 800×600 as minimal, which is exactly my point here.

@Cyprien:

> Alright… now for the people using a outdated gpu. Well most gpu outdated or not should at least support 1024x768 as long you have a computer before the year 1995 I think your alright. If your not do your self a favor take your computer out back and hit it with a hammer a few times and buy a cheap $400 computer it will be x20 greater then anything 1995 had.

You are assuming here. Most GPUs might even support exotic modes you'll never hear of when using modern GPUs. This has to do with VGA, SVGA and VBE. Obviously, the standards are old, but it makes sense to actually rely yourself on even the 640×480 resolution, like most game developers do, even when dealing with 3D.

Your claim is also false. A modern dual-core computer will usually be about 80× to 160× better than an Intel machine from '95, just taking processor power into account (not the ISA vs. PCI vs. PCIe busses, GPUs with thousands of stream processors, etc.). A modern quad-core computer will top that with 160× to 320×. In comparison with my Amiga, a modern quad-core machine might even be 1600× to 3200× better.

However, a modern computer has some losses. Memory is 400× to 600× slower compared to 1980, the gap is filled in by deploying caches, but ironically the software is optimised for processor speed, and not for cache misses. Then there is also processor security such as paging, ring levels, etc. which are all horribly slow (hence why µ-kernels still aren't popular in 2011). Not to mention that software is usually poorly designed and will therefore run poorly compared to software from 1980.

In reality there is no difference in performance, because whilst the machines have been improved, the software has lost a magnitude of performance.

@Cyprien:

> While developers try to help and support the people with as much compatibility as they can there is a point where there nothing they can do.
>
> I hope that helps.

I am a programmer myself, who still actively uses Assembly and C, and the majority of my software is still compatible with Windows 3.1 or at least Windows 95, whilst I don't even really care about those platforms, but it's because I cared about backwards-compatibility and because I design my programmes with care. A developer can go back as far as the API allows him to and with Windows that is back to Windows 3.1, at most.

Regards,
  Stephan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jaiden:

> What do you mean unused area? That's the chatbox. If I remove the inventory and make it floating and leave the chat box, it becomes even more bothersome.

lolwat. Never, ever create a chatbox like that. It looks terrible!

Clean up the bottom of the GUI and put the chatbox in there. It's all very messy at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rithy58:

> Wow, this is beautiful.
> I don't know if you don't want to but having everything inside the game screen(picScreen) is even better.
> By everything, I mean the health bar, the buttons, etc.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rithy

Thanks a lot. Most of it is recycled from Origin's though, I just redrew most of it and moved things around.
And no I don't want to draw everything to the screen. Even if I wanted to I have no experience to even attempt doing that.

@Robin:

> lolwat. Never, ever create a chatbox like that. It looks terrible!
>
> Clean up the bottom of the GUI and put the chatbox in there. It's all very messy at the moment.

Ahhhh you're right but I'm so satisfied with all of the other graphics under the screen that I just threw the chat on the side. Admittedly it is a very bad place for it. But I reaaaaallly don't want to draw to the screen because of my method of setting up maps. I don't like to make scrolling maps, so if you have something unmovable at the bottom, like the chat, then it limits the player's view of the map, and since it doesn't scroll they'll never see what's under the chat letters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. Trying that, I came up with this:

![](http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6863/guigb.png)

That actually looks…a lot better. Though it tosses any sort of compatibility out the window. I'm making it larger than 800x600 anyway, but I may have to align it better and reduce the screen just a little so it isn't so damntall. I'm not sure if I like the buttons on the side too much, but I'll line them up better when I fix up the actual GUI in photoshop.

But now I have to figure out how to draw the inventory, abilities, etc. so they float on the screen, preferably the entire window. Which I have no idea where to even begin with that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Reign:

> The iPhone would support Eclipse games quite well with a bit optimisation, but that would imply the game is to be written in C, C++ or ObjC.
>
> If you lack knowledge in the market of embedded devices, then rather not make statements like those.
> Thanks for sharing something I already knew. Also, since the height is a mere 600, it would be best to support 800×600 as minimal, which is exactly my point here.
> You are assuming here. Most GPUs might even support exotic modes you'll never hear of when using modern GPUs. This has to do with VGA, SVGA and VBE. Obviously, the standards are old, but it makes sense to actually rely yourself on even the 640×480 resolution, like most game developers do, even when dealing with 3D.
>
> Your claim is also false. A modern dual-core computer will usually be about 80× to 160× better than an Intel machine from '95, just taking processor power into account (not the ISA vs. PCI vs. PCIe busses, GPUs with thousands of stream processors, etc.). A modern quad-core computer will top that with 160× to 320×. In comparison with my Amiga, a modern quad-core machine might even be 1600× to 3200× better.
>
> However, a modern computer has some losses. Memory is 400× to 600× slower compared to 1980, the gap is filled in by deploying caches, but ironically the software is optimised for processor speed, and not for cache misses. Then there is also processor security such as paging, ring levels, etc. which are all horribly slow (hence why µ-kernels still aren't popular in 2011). Not to mention that software is usually poorly designed and will therefore run poorly compared to software from 1980.
>
> In reality there is no difference in performance, because whilst the machines have been improved, the software has lost a magnitude of performance.
> I am a programmer myself, who still actively uses Assembly and C, and the majority of my software is still compatible with Windows 3.1 or at least Windows 95, whilst I don't even really care about those platforms, but it's because I cared about backwards-compatibility and because I design my programmes with care. A developer can go back as far as the API allows him to and with Windows that is back to Windows 3.1, at most.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

lol, really if you want to defend this so much I'm not going to stop you.

I'm sure someone somehow could do something with the iphone. Then wouldn't the game would be somewhat small for computer users. Yes the game would still work on computer. I guess if people don't mind playing a game which is 480x320 that's great.

Your welcome! I'm happy to share info you already knew. I only wished I could have read your mind so then I would have known you already knew it. Then your time reading it wouldn't been wasted as it was so. I guess I was posting it for other people reading who might not have known about it.

I do care about backwards-compatibility as a website maker I tend to try my best to support as much backwards-compatibility coding as I can so pages will look right.

Anyways robins idea could/might work. Thanks for suggesting something which isn't on screen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> Better but still way too big. Height specifically.
>
> Make the screen size shorter.

Yeah I'll reduce the screen a bit. I'm not shooting for 800x600 though. It's stupid and stubborn, but I want a larger screen size.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also fix up the chat screen, looks like you just did a bit of a lazy job on that.  Won't require much work to fix it up though.
now I have one question.  Will this be downloadable for everyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jaiden:

> Yeah I'll reduce the screen a bit. I'm not shooting for 800x600 though. It's stupid and stubborn, but I want a larger screen size.

It really isn't. The simple fact is that this is not a full size game. People are not going to be sat there with their entire screen taken up by it. They'll play it windowed whilst alt-tabbing through conversations, Firefox and the like.

By making it so big you're cutting out a large amount of players as well as simply making it unsightly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May be to big for some screens but all the current 2d game windows are pretty damn small. Yes people still use laptops but many people have upgraded to the bigger monitors currently on the market. I think the GUI looked pretty awesome in the first shot but with a lot of empty space on the right. I wouldn't make it close to full screen but it doesnt need to be tiny. I have pretty big monitors though.

As far as your floating windows go it can work if it is done correctly. Your party box just looks way to big. Keep in mind that when anyone opens one of these windows it covers a huge amount of there game screen. They will be closing it but sometimes you want to leave the window open.

World of warcraft is a good example, the character screen and stuff is huge and will block half your screen. But your most likely just checking something and closing. Stuff like the inventory (or party info) only takes up corners of the screen and the game can still be playable with it open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size can be deceptive. You can do a lot with what might seem like a small size when you talk about it.

Hell, Crystalshire is 800x600 and looks pretty big.

![](http://www.crystalshire.com/files/screens/7.png)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> It really isn't. The simple fact is that this is not a full size game. People are not going to be sat there with their entire screen taken up by it. They'll play it windowed whilst alt-tabbing through conversations, Firefox and the like.
>
> By making it so big you're cutting out a large amount of players as well as simply making it unsightly.

Why not they pretty much already do it. Pretty much if you need to do anything you'll still have to alt-tab unless you can use what small part is left of the screen.

Edit: Don't get me wrong… I do love the look of your game and how compact it is.

![](http://s3.postimage.org/8dm4a0r6q/Image.png)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyprien:

> Why not they pretty much already do it. Pretty much if you need to do anything you'll still have to alt-tab unless you can use what small part is left of the screen.
>
> ![](http://s3.postimage.org/8dm4a0r6q/Image.png)

Well done, you completely missed the point. Also; Use an image host which allows direct links.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm pretty clueless… I'm sorry but I really don't understand the point. Is it to make the screen small where the rare people who do use 600x800 by some reason can also play? To have it compact so people can view other things which is on there screen?

Here's a simple mockup I made using floating, on screen... ect.
![](http://s1.postimage.org/a64o9d0gy/Test_GUI.png)
Still uses same upload.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also cyprien that GUI looks absolutely horrendous.  It uses space inefficiently unless it has alpha blending(which it doesn't) and isn't compact at all.  The GUI pretty effectively takes up the left half of the screen.  instead of doing a GUI like that, just make it take the bottom of the screen, it looks a lot less awkward that way.

anyways, Jaiden's trying to make a GUI that allows for a larger picScreen and has a unique feel to it.

Robin is trying to convince jaiden to make the window smaller because most people are multitasking while playing a little 2D MMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyprien:

> lol, really if you want to defend this so much I'm not going to stop you.

Wrong way of interpreting my posts: I am not defending _anything_ here, I am merely pointing out your arguments' invalidness.

@Cyprien:

> I'm sure someone somehow could do something with the iphone. Then wouldn't the game would be somewhat small for computer users. Yes the game would still work on computer. I guess if people don't mind playing a game which is 480x320 that's great.

I don't think I ever said that a mobile application should look exactly the same as a desktop application, what I however did say was that it is possible to create an iPhone Eclipse game, were it to be that someone used C, C++ or ObjC.

Besides, when you actually deal with cross-platform programming you'll actually learn a simple word: 'native'. Most libraries will actually aid you when developing cross-platforms applications, in the sense that they will try to make your application fit the environment (e.g. on Windows it will use the Windows interface, on Linux it will use GNOME or KDE and on Mac OS X it will use Cocoa/Carbon).

@Cyprien:

> I do care about backwards-compatibility as a website maker I tend to try my best to support as much backwards-compatibility coding as I can so pages will look right.

The only backwards-compatibility I ever heard of when creating websites is the fact whether it works on Internet Explorer 6 or not, which is now out of the question. You are comparing two entirely different things here, namely _programming_ and _website development_. In the latter there are only your W3C-standards and browsers that are compliant to them. Nothing similar to Windows XP not supporting your IPv6-interface completely, or Mac OS X only having the essential POSIX standard implemented, and not the enhanced one, to give a few examples out of many.

@Cyprien:

> I have to say I'm pretty clueless… I'm sorry but I really don't understand the point. Is it to make the screen small where the rare people who do use 600x800 by some reason can also play? To have it compact so people can view other things which is on there screen?
>
> Here's a simple mockup I made using floating, on screen... ect.
> ![](http://s1.postimage.org/a64o9d0gy/Test_GUI.png)
> Still uses same upload.

Let me first state that the common convention _is_ and _has always been_ width × height (therefore 800×600). The second thing I want to state is that it isn't rare to run a game using a resolution of 800×600 (windowed mode), or heck even 640×480\. It's a very common habit of many people, considering we live in a social world. The major amount of the games I play, I do play with such a resolution, essentially for the reasons Robin has stated, even though I have a dual-monitor setup, 3360×1080 total. Everything else I have already stated before.

@Frosty:

> Also cyprien that GUI looks absolutely horrendous.  It uses space inefficiently unless it has alpha blending(which it doesn't) and isn't compact at all.  The GUI pretty effectively takes up the left half of the screen.  instead of doing a GUI like that, just make it take the bottom of the screen, it looks a lot less awkward that way.
>
> anyways, Jaiden's trying to make a GUI that allows for a larger picScreen and has a unique feel to it.
>
> Robin is trying to convince jaiden to make the window smaller because most people are multitasking while playing a little 2D MMO.

This pretty much says everything else I wanted to say.

Regards,
  Stephan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Frosty:

> I'd also fix up the chat screen, looks like you just did a bit of a lazy job on that.  Won't require much work to fix it up though.
> now I have one question.  Will this be downloadable for everyone?

No, I'm just showing it off. Is this suppose to be a sharing place for resources? If so that was an honest mistake on my part.

@Robin:

> It really isn't. The simple fact is that this is not a full size game. People are not going to be sat there with their entire screen taken up by it. They'll play it windowed whilst alt-tabbing through conversations, Firefox and the like.
>
> By making it so big you're cutting out a large amount of players as well as simply making it unsightly.

No no, I mean my being adamant on not making it 800x600 is stupid and stubborn. I know I will lose audience, but I recall playing a game that had a terrible GUI that was bulky, slow, and just plain ugly and the game had tons of dedicated players. I've played a game with terrible mapping and design but still had a huge community. Face it, as a game designer you'll never make every single person happy. It just won't happen. You can shoot for the biggest audience possible, of course. But I'm not planning on making a game that will have tons of people, I plan on having a small dedicated community. And in a small dedicated community, they like the game because it fits their needs. Be it a larger graphical interface or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> Size can be deceptive. You can do a lot with what might seem like a small size when you talk about it.
>
> Hell, Crystalshire is 800x600 and looks pretty big.
>
> ![](http://www.crystalshire.com/files/screens/7.png)

Yeah. But you know what you're doing. I need to work around to fit my limits. I simply don't have the experience to make everything fit perfectly in an 800x600 GUI.

I thank you for your opinions, I really do. I was hoping for critique and opinions, but I am going to draw the line at a certain point. And that point is my GUI will support 1024x768 resolutions as a minimum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...