(09-11-2020, 10:04 PM)berto Wrote: In theory, that might work, yes.  In practice, I am not sure how you would bring that about.

(09-12-2020, 12:17 AM)berto Wrote: So it should be possible to prepare a _huge version of the PzB EXEs that blocks program load of the pictorial unit counter graphics, that only loads Unit Card and NATO unit counter graphics, and confines the display (with suitable menu gray-outs) to on-map, on-counter NATO symbols only.

(09-12-2020, 12:36 AM)berto Wrote:

(09-12-2020, 12:17 AM)berto Wrote: So it should be possible to prepare a _huge version of the PzB EXEs that blocks program load of the pictorial unit counter graphics, that only loads Unit Card and NATO unit counter graphics, and confines the display (with suitable menu gray-outs) to on-map, on-counter NATO symbols only.

Lookie dis:


No lock-up!  It works!  Where "it" is a special test pbedit.exe I have just built that discards the pictorial unit counter graphics, that deals in the pictorial Unit Card and on-counter NATO symbols only.

So, if players of these huge scenarios are willing to play them with NATO symbol unit counters only, problem solved!  No data changes necessary!

The game would then have

* pbedit.exe, pbedit_huge.exe
* bon.exe, bon_huge.exe

and whatever other _huge variants might be necessary (can't think of any).

So???

(09-12-2020, 01:19 AM)Strela Wrote: Is this easy to have as a flag in the game/editor exe?

That way we wouldn't need to have separate exes overall.

If we have it as a Settings menu option, the risk is that the player might toggle things such that

* Settings > NATO Symbols Only -- toggled ON
* Settings > Use NATO Symbols -- toggled OFF

which, when the engine/editor attempts to display pictorial unit counter graphics, would cause it to choke, since the pictorial BMPs would not be loaded.  Although if the player toggles ON the former, the code could force toggle ON the latter.

More importantly, how do we signal to the engine/editor not to load the pictorial BMPs in the first place?  The problem is not in displaying them; it's in loading them.

We might add a command-line parameter, -N say, to force NATO-only operation.  Problem is, how can we get the players to launch in that way?  Easy at the Cygwin (or Command Prompt?) terminal, which is how I usually launch the game anyway.  It would also be possible to create Windows shortcuts, with the '-N' appended in the Properties > Target field.

Question?  How well does it work to include Windows shortcuts in the standard install?  Didn't we try that, with mixed results, for BoNA41?  (To force the smaller, classic scenario selection box.)

All in all, I would prefer the alternate EXEs.  Simpler for the player that way.

(Instead of _huge, I would suggest _nato or _NATO).

Better still, the scenario would have a flag that would automatically lock out the other graphics modes when playing the scenario.

Maybe.  But what if it is not easy to determine at what "size" we set a scenario to NATO only mode?  What if there are older systems out there with older Windows (Linux even) where the threshold is set appropriately for Windows 10 on modern systems, but where the threshold is lower on older (and even Linux) systems?  We leave the players with no recourse except to maybe hand edit the .scn file to toggle ON/OFF whatever setting we use for this.

What if some future Windows version raises the graphics system resources limit(s) such that, on modern systems into the future, this is no longer an issue?  But we will have shackled them to the NATO-only huge scenario game play.

All in all, we KISS this by offering separate, alternative engine and pbedit EXEs named and built in _NATO[only] mode.  At the expense of a somewhat larger game install.

(Note that, in the past [and even now?], TOAW has taken this approach, offering different EXEs for ordinary vs. huge situations.  Or something like that.  I seem to recall other games doing this also.)

Whether command line parameter, or separate alternative EXEs, I think either would work.  But having it as an in-game/editor Settings toggle, or having it as a scenario flag -- I foresee problems either way.  (Another potential problem:  A player/modder deals in several different scenario, and graphics file, loads in succession; then without exiting/relaunching the engine/editor, attempts to load a "huge" [NATO only] scenario.  Problem is, how can we be sure that in "clearing" the previous scenario, the engine/editor EXE perfectly flushes out all earlier unit counter graphics and begins anew with a fresh, clean slate?)

Last question, is this an editor issue or an editor AND game exe issue? i assume it is the latter.

No, this would apply to both editor and engine.

...

PS We are now having a dev forum discussion publicly!  :

Yeah, but we want to involve Ocito80 in the discussion, right?

(09-12-2020, 02:19 AM)berto Wrote: TBH, all in all, I actually prefer the -N command-line parameter solution.  Assuming we can implement the appropriate Windows shortcut in a sure-fire way.

(09-12-2020, 04:17 AM)Strela Wrote:

(09-12-2020, 02:19 AM)berto Wrote: TBH, all in all, I actually prefer the -N command-line parameter solution.  Assuming we can implement the appropriate Windows shortcut in a sure-fire way.

Let me do a test with the -N shortcut.

David

(09-12-2020, 04:38 AM)berto Wrote: From this point onward, let's carry on the discussion at the Dev Forum.