Alternative Contracts Interface

[cim]

Among the things that gets requested every so often is a parcel transport contract (as in FE2/FFE, these would not require special equipment or hold space) to go with the cargo and passenger contracts on the F8 F8 screen. However, there's really not space on the F8 F8 screen to fit them in its current format, and reducing the number of contracts per type visible at once could get frustrating for those using the existing contracts.

So, what I'm looking at doing is using some of the new mission screen features to re-do contract selection. This changes the interface for contracts quite a bit, with advantages and disadvantages, so I'd like comments - especially from those who do a lot of contracts - on whether you think it's a good idea or not.

To test, you will need:

• a nightly build of Oolite from 9 September or later, or a self-compiled version from SVN r5307 or later
• this test OXP (updated 9 Sept)
• ideally, at least one free passenger cabin

The test OXP lacks many features essential to proper contract handling: it is solely to test a possible alternative interface for contract review and selection before I go further down this route. (Among other bugs, it destroys access to cargo contracts entirely, it doesn't preserve available contract information across save/load, and there's some horrible bits of coding underneath)

To activate the new passenger contracts interface, go to F8 F8 (this is not the final form; it's not that bit I'm wanting testing right now [1])

If you test it, please comment on the alternative interface generally below. A few areas I specifically would like comments on:

• Which of passengers, heavy cargo, and precious metal cargo do you normally transport? (If "none", would you transport parcels if they were available?)
• How many contracts do you tend to have active at once?
• Do you find it more or less usable for you than the current system, and why?
• Is the lack of an "available contracts" summary a problem for you? EDIT: now added
• Is the map and text provided with the contract request generally sufficient to plan your routes with? If not, is the inconvenience of not having quick switching with '?' too much for you?
• Some minor changes have been made to the layout of the long range chart screen. Are these an improvement?
• If you're strongly opposed to this idea, but also want parcel contracts, do you have a better suggestion for the interface?

Thank you.

[1] The final form would probably have a screen that listed the available contract types, and the number of contracts available, and then you'd select "Passenger Contracts: 4 available" to get to this interface. But it's not worth worrying about the details of that if the basic idea doesn't work out.

[Rese249er]

I'll give it a whirl, seeing as the stock contract situation is NOT satisfactory to me at all. Normally I just don't bother, but this does mean I'm perfectly willing to try a new arrangement.

[Eric Walch]

Looks interesting. I do miss the overview for quick comparing revenues.

Another option would be to leave the F8F8 as it is, and when the player presses the key go to this layout. Than the player can navigate through the passenger destinations when coming from a selected passenger contract and though the cargo destinations when coming from a selected cargo contract. The exit option than brings him back to the F8F8 screen.

And it won't be a culture shock that way.

(off topic: I like the added option to add routes to the missionscreen backdrop)

[cim]

Looks interesting. I do miss the overview for quick comparing revenues.

Even more so for cargo contracts, thinking about it. Turns out it's harder than it looks to get columns to line up properly in mission screens, though, so it'll be tomorrow before I put the version with an overview up.

[Rese249er]

Um, I can't see diddly-squat.

[cim]

Um, I can't see diddly-squat.

Could you put your Latest.log somewhere, please?

EDIT: Actually, the way I've written it, if you're compiling your own, it won't work in r5283-r5286. r5287 should be fine.

[Kaks]

He probably fell victim to rev5283... (hi!) it's all visible again as of rev5287 though!

EDIT: jinx !

[Rese249er]

I BELIEVE this is the relevant block...
Erm... Nevermind that, that block is gigantic...
Here, Latest.log.

EDIT: D'oh! Need to schedule nightly update.

[cim]

An updated test OXP with a summary screen is now available. The trunk requirement has been increased accordingly.

[Rese249er]

With r5289, there's a gap in one of the shortest-route charts. Dunno if this has been fixed by another revision.

[cim]

A gap? I've not seen anything like that in my own tests. Do you have a screenshot of it? (If not, can you remember which system you were in and what the contract destination was?)

[Rese249er]

Crap. G2, dest in the far southwest corner.

[cim]

Strange. I can't get it to do anything odd here. Do you mean a gap in the route, where the yellow path had a break in it, or some other sort of gap.

It's using exactly the same drawing routines as holding down '^' on the long range chart does, so it should just work... (which may mean you can duplicate it by manually drawing routes to that area, perhaps, or it may be a consequence of using it as a mission screen backdrop)

[JazHaz]

If you test it, please comment on the alternative interface generally below. A few areas I specifically would like comments on:

• Which of passengers, heavy cargo, and precious metal cargo do you normally transport? (If "none", would you transport parcels if they were available?)
• How many contracts do you tend to have active at once?
• Do you find it more or less usable for you than the current system, and why?
• Is the map and text provided with the contract request generally sufficient to plan your routes with? If not, is the inconvenience of not having quick switching with '?' too much for you?
• Some minor changes have been made to the layout of the long range chart screen. Are these an improvement?
• If you're strongly opposed to this idea, but also want parcel contracts, do you have a better suggestion for the interface?

Here are my answers to the questions above, in order.:

1) It really depends on what ship I have, and how much cargo space I have. I usually don't have passengers but if I see one wanting passage to a system along the route I'm planning to go then I often buy a cabin for that one passenger and sell it again when I reach their destination. I usually have heavy cargo and precious metals on board.

2) Usually only one is active at a time, however if I have the cargo space and I see other contracts along the same route then I will go for multiple contracts.

3) Yes I think the new interface would be more usable. The first screen could have a breakdown of how many contracts of each type (passengers, cargo, and parcels) are available, which when selected opens into a list of the contracts, and pressing ? against a contract would show the details including the route.

4) The map and text provided would be sufficient, but only if BGS was supported. In the test the BGS background that shows the routes doesn't work. See this screengrab.

5) I'm not sure what the changes are.

6) See my answer to 3)

[Disembodied]

See this screengrab.

A purely cosmetic request this one: would it be possible to convert long travel times (say, more than 48 hours) into "days + hours"? It would give a better feeling for the time involved. "425 hours" is obviously a long time but it doesn't sound as good as "17 standard days and 17 hours".