Python Performance and Interface Overhaul (PPIO)

definitely not, read below
but at first
IT IS FINE ! (nearby)
Details, comments, minor issues:
image 01 = original your PPIO v0.6.4.5 w/o made any changes. SVN 10680
image 02 = full screenshot with my change of theme to Arial font and line "GColor .BG = GColor(160,154, 90,255)" only.
comments to image 02 :
(1) this encircled area is bold and hIghlighted, what is different to C2C. It is not so good to see in this screenshot as it is in reality for me, but it is very intrusive and it should not be bold, that is too fat on my screen. It may be highlighted, but not bold.
(2) this is much to wide, should be smaller, 2/3 of it or better 1/2, and then with line break, what is not working here. It can be higher, if it is smaller and more transparent background.
Also, kill the blue background, that always is a annoying stain in left canthus, the more, as it is too wide.
(3) this also is bigger than in C2C, set back to C2C size, currently it looks terrible. Also, how I set that font also to Arial and w/o bold? Currently, it is hard to read.
image 03 = BUG Autmatics.
fine now, except these two. All other in BUG is OK

Edit
image 04 to compare with original C2C as I see it (highlighting not shown correctly in screenshot, but you see sizes and if bold or not)

Edit 2
image 05 in city screen
why you changed that? It was good, this is terribe, Left missing the lists for buildings and wonders as before, down and top the symbols are unnecessary big, the BUG option to set their size should work for all. So it is absolute sh*** (sorry). (Wonderung what is is with your eyes or what monitor you have.) I want back the C2C in city screen)
(and again, all in bold where no bold is needed. Remove that bold. You shoud go to the doctor and let check your exes)

Edit 3
now I had a complete look inside, and I'm shocked because the design, in map and city screen. I be VERY unhappe, all intrusive candy-colored and buttons like smartphone or win10

you're a good programmer, but a terrible designer. Stick to your skills, graphic design is not one of them.
The whole interface is "fine, click me", maybe nice for a game for 6-year-olds who like funny clicking around, but not for a strategy game like Civ4.

Sorry, but with such a design I don't care how great the technical improvement is. I don't look at something like that, I don't play it. Use your skill genes for C2C, without a new design.
Or: add a C2C look identical version if you love such a design.

 

My City-Screen looks different than yours !! ->Pic 1
I like the blue background , as for me it is easier to read.
My BUG-Options Screen looks also different.Why? Pic 2
Overall i think you are a little to harsh in your Comment, he try to help and you ( wirst persönlich und greifst Ihn an) critizise him personell !!

I now play in german language and it is teribble - Pic 3+4 .
Also i don`t like how some things are translated; it is missunderstoodable and not a good grammar.
I think i switch back to english....

 

Ah, I thought you meant the content of the text which is defined in an xml not modified by neither C2C nor PPIO.
Yes I may have made that text bold in the python code that place it there as a courtesy to our 60+ aged players and modders on the team, as well as for any younger ones with troubled eyesight.

The text in the city bar is handled by the dll or possibly even the exe. So I can't help you with that.

Pretty sure that's unrelated to PPIO, that it is like that without PPIO too.

The size of the icons can be changed within the city screen when you open the middle window.
See upper right corner of middle window.

I don't think any lists are missing. Someone would have reported it before you if that's the case.
The tabs for the left and right side lists were changed to icons to accommodate more possible future tabs and fix overlapping text on the lower resolutions where there is less space for the side panels.

My eyes are fine, my "shortcoming" is apparently to care about those who are not so lucky.

Bold text does look better with the sylfaen font than the Arial font, I can give you that, but sylfaen is the original BtS font, and I'm not gonna change that or accommodate any other fonts by limiting what can be done with the original sylfaen font.
If you don't like bold text why don't you just make bold text non-bold in the C2CTheme_Common.thm file that you've already modified.

I have never owned a smart phone, and have adjusted my windows 10 to appear as close as my old XP system did as is possible. ^^
If you haven't already, check out "classic shell" or even its successor "open shell" which were originally meant to make win 7 look and work like older OS's like 98, 2000, and XP.
Classic shell really got popular when win vista and 8 came along. ^^

You are right that I'm not a graphic designer (not a programmer either to be honest), although I did revamp the loading background, most of the leaderhead pictures, most of the terrain textures, made the giraffe/llama/mapinguari/bison/tiger/etc models and animations as well as other stuff in C2C.

If you think this is a brilliant design:
The constricted two line build list in cities that jump to the top of its scrolling every time you select something to build, having to scroll through loads of lines looking for what you want over and over again.

Fixed with a big relaxing and non-nerfig build list in PPIO.​

Or tooltips that too often to be funny disappear off the screen due to their height.

Fixed in PPIO due to a dynamically adjusted tooltip width.
Any text line menat for the tooltip that should have linebreaks should also define those linebreaks in the text and not rely on it happening only due to a constricted width.​

Not sure what you are talking about or how PPIO reduce the strategy element of Civ4.

Use your troll genes to troll threads that deserve trolling, like some political extremist forum or something.
Your tone is not appreciated, and no one is forcing you to use this modmod.

What do you even mean by that?
The design in this modmod is very close to original BtS, while your font and panel coloration is a fixation on a specific design that is far from the original.
If you have a problem with this modmod not changing something (like the blue panel coloration) then that's not my problem.
A modmodmod will have to be responsible for creating non-original design for PPIO.

 

Strongly agree.

We're the hardest on ourselves are we not? I think you're a damned good programmer within the bounds of what you know and are comfortable working with and pretty impressive at expanding those boundaries when you care to.

 

Thanks, I was in the mindset that being an amateur doesn't count when I wrote that.
I have no education or professional work experience within either graphics design nor programming. ^^

 

Appropriate response.

 

A long time ago zappara once told me that you make a Mod (or modmod) to please your self 1st. Then if others Like it and Use it, that is the Bonus prize.

 

interface stuff is just opinions. Players will never agree, so maybe offering some options might be good. It would also make it easier to merge with the core if you decide to do that. I think you should allow players to enjoy your pedia without forcing a bunch of interface changes as a package deal.
Really this interface stuff is only 5% of what you've done and it's the other 95% that I like.
Have you thought about putting this on a branch on svn? It would be easier for me to update and to see what your up to. I wanted to check out what you did for feature growth but it would be too much searching.

 

So much of it is so intertwined that I can see why he wouldn't want to unravel it just for that. So please, let's PLEASE make this core soon. Next version soon. Work out what needs to be sorted out and let's please just do it because I'm going nuts not having access.

 

Haven't really thought about it.

I don't think PPIO does anything with feature growth...

Modularizing my own work would restrict my modding freedom and eat up time I could otherwise use to just work on anything I want at any level at any time and see how everything works together without any hassle.
Do you understand what I mean?

I'll move the pedia to core when motivation to do so hits me. I need motivation for that as it is not entirely trivial to do and because it is not about doing something new but more like doing the paperwork on something old.

 

You know there's not much the team would balk at you doing right? I mean, you're a team member like the rest of us with as much seniority as a team member really can have. I know you like to test things on a modmod level first, but for the stuff you get crazy on, you've always got the as you see it modmod.

 

if you mean learning is more important then the players and C2C and what happens to ur stuff, then I understand.

 

That would have been a point if I had been working on this in the SVN, but starting what I foresaw to be at least a year long experiment (messing with stuff that involves the exe which I had no underlying knowledge about) on the SVN was out of the question which is why I released my work as a modmod full of all its initial bugs/glitches and shortcomings in the hopes that wider play-testing and feedback would speed up the development progress (which I believe it did).
The alternative to releasing this modmod would have been to keep all of PPIO's content secret on my own local computer even to this day.

The pedia was stuff I got crazy on, and by the time one could conclude about the stability of the stuff I did with the pedia in this modmod, well, by that time this modmod had become far more than just the pedia.
If I had restricted myself by following a development mentality about compartmentalizing each aspect of my work as a module by splitting this modmod up from the start as MattCA suggested, I would have needed to restrain myself and constantly think about what needs to be in which modmod and how to deal with the obvious third synergy modmod that would have to be maintained every time I updated one of the other modmods, and I already have the MToS modmod, which may need a patch with both splits of PPIO and then a third patch for having both parts of PPIO at the same time.... etc.
It all complicates life with what I would call "paperwork" which restrict my freedom to get things done in respect to actual modding.
Having more than two modmods which needs patches with each other and then other patches for each of the patch combinations would seriously have reduced the progress that I've achieved today in the two modmods as well as reducing my motivation to mod C2C in general.

This is hard for me to adequately explain non-verbally in a non-native language, but do you catch my drift?

 

Oh, I don't blame you a bit for keeping it in a modmod, the equivalent of a kind of branch that we're probably all more familiar with. But WHY is it STILL a modmod when more players use it than not, and for good reason? This is making debugging hell to have it not core at this point. And I can't imagine it's been fair on you to have it not be something that is just part of the whole. I realize you've overgrown it but is there really anything in the pedia/UI interface, what we call PPIO, that is not something we'd want in the main mod??? I can't think of anything myself. And I think you've even worked out the differences with SO, right? I know you're going to keep working on peripherals on the project, that's how these things go, like my combat mods, there's always more on the frontier to work on. But at this point, what do you feel would be stepping on other modders here? If anything, I feel it's stepping on us more and wasting a lot more time in diagnosis efforts and whatnot that it's not officially core material.

 

@Toffer90 Now you can sort units and buildings by many things in city build screen.
Can you add ability to sort by tech level for units and buildings?

Tech level is Xgrid where tech is located.
While tech X grid means certain construction cost, units are more or less expensive depending on their combat classes.
Buildings may or not may follow similar route in future.

 

Maybe this opinion of yours is true. But then maybe not. Perhaps a Poll up for a month or so would give a better sample size to base opinion on?

I still do not use it. If I were only playing to play then yes I would give it a go. To see what it can do. But since I run multiple games for testing xml variable changes I feel now is not the time for me to dive into something new. This is my personal take on including it now.

 

I just haven't gotten around to doing the merge is all, haven't been ready for it (until quite recently), and I still feel the team should come more together in auditing and having proper discussion before I actually start doing such a merge.

The domestic advisor changes would have to be omitted as there are too many who don't like that cities can no longer be multi-selected with it.
I'm not sure if I've addressed all of SO's concerns, and some of the python changes to e.g. tech conquest and other minor features like that should be considered in more detail by the team.
I could of course start the merge after the freeze and then address any grievances that may arise in retrospect.

I'll consider it for sure.

 

Can the multi-select be somehow brought back and does this interrupt the normal shift or ctrl, city bar select for multi-city selection? (If it does interrupt that I'd have trouble with it but I don't usually use the domestic advisor at all - was crash buggy for a long time and I got used to going without it.)

I would greatly appreciate that and I think many would.

I can understand your concern though having used it, briefly, was like stepping into a kind of heaven - adding things to the city build queue is lightning fast (like as fast as you click fast), entering the pedia is immediate, and there's just a thousand little improvements everywhere you look. I think what he's suggesting, to do it one step at a time and give some time for evaluation and feedback at each step is fair enough to all.

 

It is unrelated to multi-selecting cities by clicking the city bars, there's only a problem with the city list in the domestic advisor.

I made the domestic advisor fullscreen as I had trouble getting the new build selection list for cities to show up above the domestic advisor, it got hidden behind the domestic advisor and I just figured that there was no point in having the main bottom bar visible in this advisor if one could not actually change what the cities are building from it.
At the same time I went for a list solutions that did not support multi-select of the cities in the list in exchange for better performance.
The screen does have a pretty poor performance to begin with as it is meant to be able to display pretty much any aspects of any objects in the game on the screen at any given time, meaning it needs to do some heavy caching to open it and it often have to loop through almost all objects that exist in the game to access values in them.

On further thought, using the old domestic advisor with PPIO may not be ideal either as one still can't change what cities build due to the new build selection list design will still hide behind the advisor screen....

 

Got this when trying to place a Young Forest through World Builder, latest version. PPIO 0.6.4.5 + SVN 10689.

Code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "BugEventManager", line 308, in _handleDefaultEvent
  File "CvEventManager", line 1072, in onImprovementBuilt
AttributeError: 'CyPlot' object has no attribute 'getHasFeature'