[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8632) Easy way to set map size with auto ratios (seteables if desired)

["rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8632 >


Ratio is a bad concept that leads users to expect things they cannot get
and the idea that this is a good way to give a map shape is misguided.

The exact numbers of rows and columns in a map are dependent on a number
of wrapping constraints and other low level details the end user also should
not be aware of other than in ways in which they might change parameter
input by adjusting an x or y value up or down a few counts. Fixups like
this to user input need a simple informative message under non-verbose
or information message category.

The map view is a standard X x Y grid. Thus this is the simplest set of
parameters to define it, has been considered just hunky dorey as the
definition of ROWS and COLUMNS in TERM definitions for a dog's age, and
means that complex math for computing rations to get back to this level
of simplicity for grade schoolers is not required.

Using simple parameter selections/defaults (e.g. 80x50) for standard maps in
the non-advanced section of user input is fine and having a "bigger/smaller"
button that allows one to choose a number of sizes with similar but adjusted
shapes is also fine, but having the user say they want a map of 100 tiles with
a ratio of 1.6 is just not a usable concept, and was never from its earliest
inception, as has been stated before.

This should be considered a showstopper fixup.

Cheers,
RossW
=====

Marcelo Burda wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8632 >
> 
> Le mer 02/06/2004 à 22:41, Jason Short a écrit :
> 
>><URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8632 >
>>
>>Marcelo Burda wrote:
>>
>>><URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8632 >
>>>
>>>LAST CHANGE
>>>drop changes in aigoto and citytools
>>
>>OK, but...
>>
>>If the ratio is not a user (server) option, then we don't need a global 
>>map.ratio value.  We don't need the "100" default value.  We don't need 
>>the X + 10Y ratio system.  We don't need the gcf() function.  We can 
>>just use the ratio values straight out of the "default ratio" array. 
>>And this array should (probably) be an int[4][2] rather than an int[4].
>>
>>In short, none of the error handling code for building the ratio is needed.
>>
>>jason
> 
> !
> Not, i disagree, i hidden to users this option (not retire) to avoid
> long discutions, not to broke all work and concept. that was probably a
> error. I thin ratio is a simple concept, childrens 10y can understand
> it, your apear to me a little  septic, thats, ok. And Roos a little
> confused,hi speak about singularities( :-S )in this patch!. Then i was
> think to speak about it latter. but if the choice is to broke all, we
> need to speak now. 
> personally (as scenario autor) i need to create map of different sizes
> and ratio is the more natural way to choice it in a variety of
> topologies. instead to speak of x/y sizes. (i will speak )
> but normal user only need a general way to define a size of the map.
> this is the point of the uncontested size option, really wanted for the
> end user.
> 
> if ratio is the best way to define x / y size  that is  
> -one-
> if we use size to define the general size of the map we need a
> complementary way to define the shape of the map and not a complete
> alternate way. ask the autors to set directly xsize and ysize is
> basically bad.
> -2-
> if we set directlly xsize and ysize, autor need to understand and make
> the good correction for iso maps; that is ugly for the autor
> -2bis-
> we can ask the autor the natural_xsize and the natural_ysize intead to
> natieve. but this way the map autor need to understand that: in iso_map
> the numbers of tiles is half than natural_xsize*natural_ysize
> 
> that is very ugly way to fine set a sizes of the map. that was easy
> befor iso map but not today.
> 
> there are my points.
> 
> About your proposal. Default value can defined as you ask in separatly
> way. that is ok, but if ratio option kip, that is a inconsitent way,
> there are more nice to coders than users! 
> 
> i think the user option in internals are the best compromis to a no so
> exposed to end user and a feature to autors. (or coders of civworld)
> 
> Marcelo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>