[Genma Saotome]

 Lindsayts, on 19 April 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

While this is quite off topic the user interface problem is more complex than is usually understood. First off is personal preference not all people like the mouse interface.

I agree and WRT what I proposed, above, all the keyboard commands remain functional. Use one method, or the other, or both.

A big concern I have about any mouse based interface is the question of how much screen space is used for that purpose. IMO the least amount is best and that's where the idea of a task-specific "ribbon" comes in -- you display icons for only the most common functions for the task at hand... which leads to the question of how does the software know what task is at hand? I think the best way to answer that is to have the player tell the software via the camera system. If you have selected the camera in the cab you're most likely also using the functions for either the engineer or fireman. If you are outside using the railfan roll-by camera it's pretty unlikely you're worrying about connecting the brake hose, and so on. Take that understanding and create sets of cameras: One for the Engineer, another for the Fireman, another for a brakeman, one for the Roll-by, multiple others for tracking. AND of course the good old default, one that is exactly the same as today for those folks who would prefer just that.

Now, with the means to have the player tell the software where "he is", add the ribbon of commands most likely to be used there. The keyboard functions still work so it doesn't prevent the player from doing whatever, but it does provide a HUD of icons he might want to use. I suppose there should also be an option to turn off the ribbon.

Bottom line tho is at present there are a whole lot of keyboard commands to learn. There will be more in time too. What won't change is the number of key caps available as well as the willingness and ability of all users to learn them. IMO something has to give.

[Genma Saotome]

 cjakeman, on 19 April 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

It might look something like this. What do you think?
.
context_help.jpg

Good idea Chris.

[cjakeman]

Hi John,

 johnfrum, on 18 April 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

setting up tutorial activities in a simple one-tile route for each of steam, electric and diesel motive power? The route could include simple but correctly built rolling stock. Scenery wouldn't be necessary and just enough track to demonstrate a bit of switching, coupling, signals, fuelling or whatever.

Very sensible suggestion, especially for the advanced features that OR provides, like wheelslip. I want the OR activities to be more versatile than MSTS (we've had lots of suggestions). If we can deliver, a tutorial could even be responsive to the player's progress through it.

But I think there's a role for context-sensitive help as well.

Apart from "My train won't move", what other situations do you think would benefit from specific help?

[captain_bazza]

Quote

Apart from "My train won't move", what other situations do you think would benefit from specific help?

It's the oldest trap, a novice in the cab and he expects to drive the High-Ball like a pro. :oldstry: !?

Contextural help is okay so long as it's an 'option'.

How about a n/p* driving school, it can be done via SKYPE and shared desktop.

(*Novice to Peer)

Cheers Bazza

[Shay 5]

Here is a suggestion. Watch the "coupler force" line on view F5. If it shows huge numbers when in notch 8 or with the regulator all the way open, it is either engine physics, or too much load on the engine. Also watch the two brake lines.(Engine and Train brakes) They should be 100% released. I kinda like what Microsoft Flight Sim X does. For instance, if the airplane engine is not leaned correctly, the game will give a little transparent popup that tells you what is wrong and how to correct it. My bother is 10 and he can fly a Piper J3 cub like a champ. Just some friendly suggestions.

[cjakeman]

 Shay 5, on 23 April 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Watch the "coupler force" line on view F5. If it shows huge numbers when in notch 8 or with the regulator all the way open, it is either engine physics, or too much load on the engine. Also watch the two brake lines.(Engine and Train brakes) They should be 100% released.

Let's see what we can achieve with the F1 key as it's not at all intrusive.

The important thing is to give useful and appropriate advice, so very pleased to have another suggestion.

I'm not clear if you are discussing the context "Why won't the train move?" or some other context. We can certainly advise on the two brake lines, but I'm not clear what you mean about "too much load on the engine". Are you saying that the player is attempting to start a train which is just too heavy for the loco?

[Shay 5]

Yep. That's what I'm talking about. I've had that happen to me.

[Alexey_Soljenitchev]

 cjakeman, on 18 April 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

This is a real issue for me (and for Bill ? ). I had to ask for help when I first met the need for Initialise Brakes (Shift+/) and again for Acknowledge Alerter (Z) - frustrating and avoidable.

Indeed ! I always had to switch to the simplified physics model to get things moving becuase of that. Plus, the key combinations you mentioned are for American keyboards -- which keys would that be on a German keyboard ?

Z -> Y ?

"/" -> "?"

Quote

"when it's not really necessary":
- help appears after a 30 second delay and only if movement is prevented by one or more of these conditions. Insufficient throttle alone would not trigger help.

"without being too intrusive":
- help appears in a window that doesn't pop up in the centre of the screen but fades in at a corner (as many warnings do these days). It fades out automatically once the train is in motion and contains a "Don't offer help" option.

Are there any other reasons for a train not moving or are the 6 listed a complete list?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Alexey_Soljenitchev]

 Eldorado.Railroad, on 18 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yep, this same question has been coming up over and over again. If the aim is to get new users involved and engaged you will have to ask yourself "why is the same darn question coming up over and over and over again". This wastes your precious development time and has your users shaking their heads. Not everyone has a CS degree and 30 years experience to figure out what was intended. Probably far fewer have a BS in Physics to understand what should happen. I am sure that many view OR as the cheaper alternative to running an HO scale train on a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood. Ask yourself, "how simple are the controls for either DC or DCC to get a train moving"? Getting the train "moving" for the first time is what the new user wants, hard to argue with that.

I will recommend that in the future, some usability testing be done so that the average iPad user can have some way of figuring things out, even if for the diehards you are not being prototypical. The lack of usability testing is what has sunk numerous payware software packages in the past. It always catches the developers by surprise that what was so logical and perfect falls flat on its face with an average user. It takes a developer with backbone to admit "we got it wrong" lets fix it, fast!

I am sure that there are plenty of users here that will give you a ton of suggestions on what they would like to see, even if from the coders point of view the response will be "I don't want to change that!". I have sat in your chair and have had to do exactly that, "change the damn code". You need not look too far back (sorry if 20 years is a long time!) to notice that most flight sims had various levels of "realism". I think OR should take a page out of that book and allow for the iPad way of operation, as well as what we have now. This could be set in the registry as you are doing now for most startup parameters. Even though the "power user" may not like it, the initial install should allow for simple operation as far as registry settings are concerned. There should be menu items in the OR launcher to make the locomotive operations more difficult should the user desire that.

This has two benefits, first, new users will not be scared away, second, experienced users have more control than what they have now. From personal experience, even though I have the keyboard sequences memorized for brakes I still wish there was a way of making it simple for model testing. If you want the artistically inclined to get involved with model making for OR, his/her needs should be addressed. Model making not only involves polygons, but textures, eng files, sound etc. This can become very tedious if the launching of a locomotive involves running through the hoops the way it is forced on the user now, just for testing.

As is, the HUD is becoming very crowded and I don't think you will be able to grab the novices attention with a "the brakes are on, that is why I ain't moving!" message. I have great issues with the HUD not being legible against most skies and have to resort to changing the camera angle into the contrasting ground to see what the heck is going on. Given the free form nature of all the information that is there, putting a dark contraster behind it is they way to go. If this contraster can be switched off and on as the user requires then it should not obstruct the view needlessly. Some flight sims allowed for the color of the text in the HUD (on the fly), which helped with contrast problems.

Finally, even if you believe so, I can assure you that many an iPad user are NOT given to reading documentation for the initial run of OR, regardless of how well you may have written it. Once the user is involved and interested, and it is not to hard to do so, they will read the documentation if they can see some tangible benefit, since this is a game/sim, that implies "fun".

I wish you would use the numpad #5 key to reset camera views to the startup values as I suggested many months ago. This is a usability problem that comes up over and over again for model testing in OR.

regards,

Eldorado

Fabulous ! I can subscribe ALL of the above.

It does not chip away anything from OR's achievable realism if you give the user the option to configure in the setup / options menu what he wants to see in the sim: Precipitation, realistic brakes preparation, release, application etc., derailments, coupler breaks, engine failures, head-on crashes, automatic fireman, whatever. Offer the user a menu which lets him chose what exactly he wants. MSTS already had this feature, why not OR ? Software should become better over time and offer more choices and possibilities, not less !

The changeable HUD color (and I would add font type and size in there !) is also a very good idea, which will help tremendously with reading it in different circumstances (night, day, different screen resolutions etc.).

[longiron]

 Alexey_Soljenitchev, on 20 May 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Indeed ! I always had to switch to the simplified physics model to get things moving becuase of that. Plus, the key combinations you mentioned are for American keyboards -- which keys would that be on a German keyboard ?

Z -> Y ?

"/" -> "?"

Sounds like a good idea to me.

The F1 Help menu has a menu of the keyboard assignments for your system.