The g2 HUD

All things BZFlag - no [OT] here please
Post Reply
User avatar
Razzberry
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Louisville, KY. USA
Contact:

The g2 HUD

Post by Razzberry »

HI All,

I have a question/ complaint about the heads up display (HUD) in the latest stable version of bzflag (g2).

Let me explain the situation.

In earlier versions, the default size for the HUD was perfect. It gave me (a mouse player) plenty of room for fine speed control with the mouse pointer inside the large HUD box. And the targeting box was perfect too. When you wanted to make a one shot sniper kill, just jump lined up on the target and when the tank was in the targeting box, shoot. If they weren't paying attention, easy kill.

With the new HUD (in g2) the targeting box is tied to the size of the larger HUD fine control area. Even with it set to the smallest setting, the targeting box has an error margin, so that you have judge very finely or a shot will go slightly over a tank or hit the wall just below them. In addition, with the HUD set small, the fine speed control area is about HALF the size I was used to. This results in a lot poor jumps on my part, since I'm STILL getting used to it. If I increase the HUD size for fine speed control back to a larger size (like e6 default) the targeting box is just plain useless (you can shoot at the target in the box, but unless you're on the ground together, good luck hitting anything).

My question/request is this. Can we unbind the two HUD boxes so that you can choose a size for targeting box and a separate size for fine speed control? I think this would be a popular move and it would improve playability.

Ok, that's my $0.02 for now. See you on the playing field.
Last edited by Razzberry on Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Razzberry
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Louisville, KY. USA
Contact:

Post by Razzberry »

Apparently, I'm the only one that it bothers. ;)
User avatar
sn0w_m0nkey
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:26 pm

Post by sn0w_m0nkey »

i havn't gone to g2. i think i'm gonna stay with g1 until i kicked off servers for it.
:)

sm
oi!
Spaceman Spiff
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:59 pm

Post by Spaceman Spiff »

Hmm.. not sure, Razz. In all honesty.. I can count the amount of times I've visited a FFA server (in the last month) on one hand. So I guess you could say that I haven't payed a lot of attention. However, I did notice that my spin-jumps weren't flowing like they used to. I just attributed it to the fact that I don't play FFA much anymore, but maybe this is a part of it. :)
User avatar
JeffM
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 5196
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:11 am

Post by JeffM »

sn0w_m0nkey: G2 is the release version of G1. So you have been playing G2, just a buggy version of G2, updating shoudn't change anything for you, cept for the less bugs. G1 was never a public build, it was only avalable via CVS.
ImageJeffM
User avatar
sn0w_m0nkey
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:26 pm

Post by sn0w_m0nkey »

ahh no wonder i suck at bz these days :) my aim has been off hehehehe!!

hmmm...after taking a look razz, i'm with you. the target box is resized and long sniper shots harder to sight-in. good catch.

sm
oi!
User avatar
The Red Baron
Sergeant First Class
Sergeant First Class
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 6:21 am
Contact:

Post by The Red Baron »

what about g0
Beware! I'm going to clone myself and spread those clones all over the world!
User avatar
Razzberry
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Louisville, KY. USA
Contact:

Post by Razzberry »

Whew, I was worried that I was becoming too picky these days ;)
User avatar
Chestal
Dev Guru
Dev Guru
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: Siegen, Germany
Contact:

Post by Chestal »

Earlier versions uses a different formula to calculate the size of the two mouse boxes. I don't remember the details, but it was based on horizontal and/or vertical resolution somehow. With the introduction of two different view layouts (opaque or transparent console/radar) and the option to resize your radar, the formula had to be adjusted. Now it does not resemble to old formula exactly, not even when your screen and 3D view resolutons are the same as before I guess.

Because this bothered me, I added the additional option to change the size of the mouse boxes. However, it's still not possible to get the exact same sizes as before I think. The curent solution is good enough for me, although I sometimes feel the urge to change the size of the boxes, butmaybe I should change my mouse instead (it's getting old).

If there is much need for a more fine-grained control, i.e. let you change the size of both the inner and outer mouse box, it could be added. On the other hand, toomany options just clutter the interface.
User avatar
Razzberry
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Louisville, KY. USA
Contact:

Post by Razzberry »

Well, how about NOT resizing the targeting box with the fine control one? And make the target box smaller?
Post Reply