Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: October 2000:
[Freeciv] Re: Arrow Key bindings
Home

[Freeciv] Re: Arrow Key bindings

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: RJ Marquette <rmarq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv] Re: Arrow Key bindings
From: Armeniwn <saxtouri@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:15:59 +0300
Reply-to: saxtouri@xxxxxxxxxx

RJ Marquette wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> First, I love the game.  Nice work.
>
> However, I discovered a "glitch" when I installed it and played it on my
> laptop (running Linux 2.2.17, Slackware 7.0, X 3.3.6):  I don't have
> diagonal arrow keys.  So, a move that should have taken 100 years
> (say) now takes 200 years.  While this sounds like a minor problem,
> believe me, it *really* affects game play...because the other players
> don't suffer that limitation.  :)

There is a "cheap" solution for this problem:

press g (go) and then press the moue pointer to the square you wath to move
the unit.

> It was really a problem when trying to attack a unit: If I was diagonal to
> them, I had to step back, move over one, then move forward two just to
> complete the attack, usually losing a turn in the process.
>
> What I suggest is a way to lock part of the keyboard (say, the u, i, o, j,
> k, l, m, comma, and period keys) such that I could use it for movement,
> but then 'unlock' it so that the commands are still available.  (Here's a
> problem with this option:  I use the Dvorak keyboard, so they keys are
> arranged differently for me.  I suggest making it a configuration option
> in the ~/.freecivrc file to work around alternate keyboard
> layouts.  Plus, someone else may want the q,w,e... keys instead.)
>
> Another option that might be easier:  bind the 'other' Home, PageUp,
> PageDown, and End keys to be the same as they are on the keypad.  While
> (on my laptop) they're actually arranged vertically, it's still better
> than nothing.  :)
>
> I'm pretty sure I can handle the second option, but the first one sounds
> more difficult and could potentially cause other problems.  (I'll look
> into the source code to try the second option.)  Thanks.  RJ  <G>  :)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: pgpenvelope 2.9.0 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
>
> iD8DBQE58wxe0DB5TMtFxVURAuWfAKDn5yyH0D/X5ami6+PmDS3kAuNQrACdGoZr
> zrzze7OC5zOkLEohfGfRGuE=
> =kiEw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/L/P/O d- s+:+ a-- C++(+++)
UL+(++) P+ L+++(++) E---
W+++(++) N++ o+ K(+++++) w-- O?
M? V- PS++ PE- Y PGP-- t-- 5? X
R>+ !tv b++ DI+(++) D- G e++
h+(++) r y+>+++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------






[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]