22 replies to this topic

[Raeven]

Could they be differentiated? Instead of two triangles that look exactly the same, could we get a different symbol to indicate the center torso?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

At leadt different colours -maybe make one a diamond?

[autogyro]

Yeah I think this is a good idea. Different shapes or different colours would be nice.

[Spooky]

Looking at this screenshot I would have to agree. At a glance, it is not apparent, whether this mech's torso is turned slightly to the left or to the right.

[Aegis Kleais]

I would prefer a line jutting out up and down from the center indicating no twist, and as you twist, a bar extends out the left/right side of this (a bar whose height is not equal to the center indicator) to showcase how deep into a twist in that direction you are.

Kinda like this:

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 08 March 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Spooky, on 08 March 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Looking at this screenshot I would have to agree. At a glance, it is not apparent, whether this mech's torso is turned slightly to the left or to the right.

According to the Blog, the Torso is pointed to the Right (slightly),when combined with info provided from the Mini map image, which shows that the Mechs Feet are pointed to the Left.

[Spooky]

Yes, but I meant solely from the two triangles, it is not apparent at a glance.

[autogyro]

Aegis Kleais™, on 08 March 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I would prefer a line jutting out up and down from the center indicating no twist, and as you twist, a bar extends out the left/right side of this (a bar whose height is not equal to the center indicator) to showcase how deep into a twist in that direction you are.

Kinda like this:

If I recall, that's how it was done in some of the previous games, which worked very nicely and intuitively. Wouldn't mind having it back.

[MaddMaxx]

Spooky, on 08 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes, but I meant solely from the two triangles, it is not apparent at a glance.

Understood, but given that driving a Mech may be a bit more complex than say a Car, the need for a combination of info sources to provide a full picture would not be poorly met.

I do like Ageis's reticule idea though.

[FinnMcKool]

I hope we can customize all the hud portions by colors .

I mean any portion , any color we want.



well I dont really expect this but maybe if they see this thread???

[Raeven]

MaddMaxx, on 08 March 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Understood, but given that driving a Mech may be a bit more complex than say a Car, the need for a combination of info sources to provide a full picture would not be poorly met.

I do like Ageis's reticule idea though.

When I hit my turn signals on my car, I get a flashing light that corresponds with the side of the vehicle the lights are blinking on. The technology isn't THAT complex.

[risky1337]

In any case a simple indication either on the crosshair or anything else that you could quickly glance at would be enough.

As long as its distinguishable it doesnt matter to me.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Aegis Kleais™, on 08 March 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

I would imagine if/when we get Mechs with 360 degree twist, the bar would extend all the way to the leftmost marker and then instantly be fully extended to the right most marker, decreasing in size as the torso comes full 360.

Which mech in canon has a 360 torso twist?

[-Teiwaz-]

A simple fix for the torso or leg identifier would be, the torso triangle points up while the leg triangle points down.

[MaddMaxx]

Raeven, on 09 March 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

When I hit my turn signals on my car, I get a flashing light that corresponds with the side of the vehicle the lights are blinking on. The technology isn't THAT complex.

And has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicles facing versus Torso angle. Come on...

[Agent CraZy DiP]

TigersRoar, on 09 March 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

A simple fix for the torso or leg identifier would be, the torso triangle points up while the leg triangle points down.

And when everything is center it makes a diamond! HA-ZAH!

[Spooky]

MaddMaxx, on 08 March 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Understood, but given that driving a Mech may be a bit more complex than say a Car, the need for a combination of info sources to provide a full picture would not be poorly met.

So, just because driving a Mech may be more complex than something else, justifies a specific read-out to be arbitrarily unreadable than simple alternatives?

No .

[MaddMaxx]

Spooky, on 10 March 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

So, just because driving a Mech may be more complex than something else, justifies a specific read-out to be arbitrarily unreadable than simple alternatives?

No .

Where did you get "arbitrarily unreadable" from anything in the Post you quoted?

[Spooky]

MaddMaxx, on 10 March 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Where did you get "arbitrarily unreadable" from anything in the Post you quoted?

->

MaddMaxx, on 08 March 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

the need for a combination of info sources to provide a full picture would not be poorly met.

There is no need to combine multiple info sources, in order to determine your torso twist in those instances, where it is not clear from the triangles, since other representations can fix this problem. Hence, in those instances, for this specific aspect, it is "arbitrarily unreadable". That you may have to combine information sources for other aspects is all well and good, but for this particular, specific aspect, it is not necessary.


Not saying it's the end of the world, neither was anyone else, I guess. Just something for consideration.

Edited by Spooky, 10 March 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Raeven]

MaddMaxx, on 09 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

And has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicles facing versus Torso angle. Come on...

Where we going?

Just because something might be complex, doesn't mean it can't be simple.