New Additions to RTMT

[Fatsuhono]

Any pictures? 

[cogeo]

... and a screenshot of the actual lot, with those symbols used as an overlay could do the trick.

Andreas, the screenshot would be partially obscured by the icons, and I believe it would be still hard to distinguish (esp between roads, oneway roads and avenues). That's why I suggested using the networks' textures (displayed vertically) as the buttons' background (diagonal stations could display the diagonal terxures), I think it will be much easier to distinguish - the player must be able to tell easily two things: the transit types invloved AND the network type.

Just my opinion, but I really think it would be better.

[0rion79]

Good idea, I agree too!

[z]

Good idea, I agree too!

Although I said this would be much less of an issue with DAMN, and therefore not as high a priority, clearer buttons would still be an advantage.  So if you and cogeo agree on this proposed design, which I also think looks quite reasonable, and if you'd be willing to make the buttons, Orion, I'd be willing to include them for both the regular icons and DAMN.  Let me know what you think.

As for the subway stations, I'm afraid my use of the pronoun "he" was ambiguous; I was quoting cogeo, not DarkMatter.  You can see the entire quote here.  You're right in that it's a simple change in the Reader; it's the OccupantGroups property in the exemplar in the Stations files.  As for what the drawbacks might be, like cogeo, other than what he stated, I don't know, not having tested this.  But if you want to experiment, you may be able to get something that suits you fairly easily.  I'd certainly be interested in hearing what you find out.

@Fatsuhono:  What pictures were you referring to?

[Diggis]

Z, just so you know, I did get your files.  I have had a pretty hectic month, and next month isn't likely to be much more fun, but I will look at these when I get the chance.  I will need icon files though as they dictate the IIDs of the L-Text files.

[0rion79]

Oh, yes: now I see. Basically, Coego prefers to keep the subway vews to prevent hypotetical unexpected bugs that, in DM version, I have never experimented. Anyway, I think I will do that change and will report any eventual bug.

About icons, I would glady help but you need to give me some time because I have a very important schedule at the end of this month and don't have time to make a good work (I'm not even playing the game!). And, anyway, I belive that there should be somebody better than me with computer graphic   But, if you trust me, I'll do my best. C u soon!

[z]

Z, just so you know, I did get your files.  I have had a pretty hectic month, and next month isn't likely to be much more fun, but I will look at these when I get the chance.  I will need icon files though as they dictate the IIDs of the L-Text files.

OK, we'll look forward to seeing these when you have the time.  Sorry I missed the icon files - they were in a different folder from everything else.  I'll email them to you now.

[0rion79]

@Coego, as you asked, here are some incons for RTMT.
I think that they can be recognized very quickly, since they are just representative images with only the most essential details and no frills.

As I've already written, I'm not very good with computer graphic.

I have also tried to add some things as trees, lights, post boxes, stairs or stops, but drawing them on larger icons and then resizeing them for SC4 format makes impossible for a newbee as me to obtaining a decent result. All what I've been able to obtain adding such details has been a greater visual confusion.

I was even thinking of changing the pedestrian tiles area with different colors, just to mark even more the difference between each icon set.

I have also tried to include a rail for ground light rail.

Let me know... I feel a bit idiot in doing so, because I know that I'm just no good at it, but as long as I can help, there is no problem.

[RippleJet]

Just to give an idea how those would look in game, I added the standard frame around the tightest one:

[z]

@Coego, as you asked, here are some icons for RTMT.

Actually, I think I was the one who requested them, so I'll respond to your post.  I think that the basic form of the icons is quite good and easy to understand.  And they do fulfill cogeo's basic requirements, which were "the player must be able to tell easily two things: the transit types invloved AND the network type."  The only modification I would suggest would be to have the appropriate main stop prop next to the stop name (except for avenues, where there's no room).  Not only would it look a bit nicer, but some of our foreign-language friends might find it helpful as well.  Also, the 1x2 stops would be easier to see at a glance, as they would have the extra props.  I gather you've tried to do similar things without success; do you think this is beyond you right now?  And if so, is there someone else who would be willing to undertake such a task?

[0rion79]

You see, the problem is the "bird-flight" visual. From a perdpendicular view from above, everything would look "flat" and difficult to recognize, and the only solution would be to "bend" buildings a little bit, but this would result in a fake prospective.
I have tried, but I don't like the result. Maybe somebody more skilled than me...

[FrankU]

I think the idea of your icons is really good.
They are very understandable.
The icons for Road, OWR, Avenue and GLR in Avenue are evident. The last icons are for street, and if an icon says x2 I guess the lot is 2 tiles long. Am I correct?

Sure, everything can be made better than it is, and also everything could be done in a different way, but I think you are on the right track.

Good work!

[b22rian]

i agree with frank U...

Orion I think you did great with the icons, and there fine the way they are...
You did a very nice job, Thanks !

Brian

[z]

You see, the problem is the "bird-flight" visual. From a perdpendicular view from above, everything would look "flat" and difficult to recognize, and the only solution would be to "bend" buildings a little bit, but this would result in a fake prospective.

Hmm...  I see what you mean.  Well, these icons seem to be quite popular as they are, so what makes sense to me is to use them like this, and if someone comes along later and knows how to enhance them in a realistic way, we can do that then.  But that may not happen for a long time, or even at all.  So let's go with your current design, which I think is quite good, and they can be included in the next version of RTMT that goes out after they're ready.  How's that?

[RippleJet]

So let's go with your current design, which I think is quite good, and they can be included in the next version of RTMT that goes out after they're ready.  How's that?

Like this then?

[zakuten]

A nitpick; oughtn't that last Road-Sub at the bottom be a street edition?

[RippleJet]

A nitpick; oughtn't that last Road-Sub at the bottom be a street edition?

Of course it should, and now it is!
Picked the wrong one from Photobucket... thanks, Zakuten!

[z]

Like this then?

Umm...  Yeah!  Like that!  Thanks, Tage!      And thanks, of course, to Orion, for creating these icons in the first place! 


Tage:  It looks like it was your intention to create versions for all the buttons.  If so, there are a few missing.  They  are:

Road Bus 2x
Avenue Bus 2x
Ave/GLR Bus
Ave/GLR Bus 2x
Ave/GLR Sub
Ave/GLR GLR
Ave/GLR GLR/Bus
Ave/GLR GLR/Sub
Ave/GLR GLR/Bus/Sub

For the stations with GLR in the second part of their name, I think the easiest thing to do would be some sort of stylized GLR station covering part of the track, or maybe even just the letters "GLR" in black overlaying it.  I'll leave it to you and Orion to figure out what works best.  And thanks again, both of you!

[0rion79]

Hi, sorry if I stop the excitement for my icons but... I have made some more experiment to see if something better could come out.

I have tried some other way to "fill" the icons with some more details.
As you can see..

in n° 1, I have added a miniature of a true autobus seen frontally. It is ok only when it is alone, but the space is too few to add even a subway icon, when there are 2 mass transit lines in the same stop (N° 2 & 3)
Also, I have tried to hand-draw some stops on my icons, but the space is so few that my sofwtare can't apply textures in a satisfying way. (n°4). Also, all buildings will look flat due to the visual, that is not "artistic" and elements as signs or lights will partially cover the writings.

So, the best solution that I have found to improve non-avenue icons is simply to reduce the pedestrian tiles and to add, on the left, modified snapshots from the game (n° 5).
I think that this one is the "optimal" solution, since the image can be recognized very quickly and, at the same time, there is the visual boon of the stops on the left, made in a way that don't interefere with the visual, making the icons even more a representation of an idea, instead than a "photographic" reproduction.

Do you agree with solution n° 5? Also, Tage, please don't apply the mask to those icons, yet, because I want to send you the original ones in BMP, instead than in JPG - which have a lower quality.

[z]

Hi, sorry if I stop the excitement for my icons but... I have made some more experiment to see if something better could come out.

No need to apologize - I don't think you've stopped the excitement at all!  I agree with you that Number 5 is the best.  I was originally thinking of something like Number 4, but I think you've shown that there's just not enough space to do that properly.  Number 5 has just enough space for easy recognition of the icons.  It also eliminates the need for the small "2x" legend, as you can just show two bus stops on the left.  So to me this looks like the ideal solution, especially given the small space we have to work with.  Good job! 

For the avenues, there's just no room; it looks like we'll just have to skip the icons (unless you have a better idea), but I think that's OK because people will see them everywhere else.  (BTW, I really like your little rail for the GLR.)  So I think we just need to get a little more feedback from people who are following this, and also figure out how to represent GLR stations, as I mentioned earlier.  But this is very encouraging, and the more I look at Number 5, the more I like it.