Topic: Editor help

When you can choose in the editor which tree to place, the age of the tree should stay in the name. For some trees, it might be hard to see if they are old or only mature. For consistency, all trees should have such an attribute. This is why I wrote:

Renaming the immovable is bad because in the immovable menu, you still can see all of them.

The problem is that we do never have the tree name "Alder" without attributes; however, this is what should be used in the new help window. A simple truncating of the string is not possible because of the translations. I see in general two ways to achieve this:

• Seperate the trees from their attribute by using placeholders or something like this. As GunChleoc has pointed out, this might cause translation issues. I am however wondering whether this approach is not possible anyway because languages can put the adjective in a neutral form in parantheses. This would also reduce the amount of strings that have to be translated, and make keeping them consistent easier (e.g. "sapling" is translated to "Jeune arbre" and "jeune arbre" in French).
• Add a general name to the trees which can be used when their age is not important. This would mean even more strings to translate and is more unflexible to possible future changes.

kaputtnik wrote: Regarding the terrain affinity values: Those are also more confusing if they are in the editor help. In my opinion they belong to the info tool (shortcut "i"). The editor help should be a help for beginners, not for advanced players.

We should discuss who is the target group for this information window, and which information are appropriate. Furthermore, the information which terrains are good for trees (in general, no specification for different tree species needed) could be interesting during playing, too; whereas the other tab (which terrain is good for alders) is not important.

"Only few people know how much one has to know in order to know how little one knows." - Werner Heisenberg

Top

Quote

Final screenshots for this year. Please feel free to play with this branch while I'm gone, e.g. we still need to write tests and to sort the terrains/trees in Lua by percentage.

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote

.... which is exactly what I mean by " and to sort the terrains/trees in Lua by percentage."

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote

Great, wl_zocker

We must consider to omit terrains where tree have a minimal chance to grow. As a strange example here are dead terrains, f.e.:

• "Lava (Summer)" and "No trees will grow here".

Is there a need to have those terrains in the list? Same goes for all water terrains:

• "Water (Summer)" -> "Oak, probability to grow 1,9%"

Yes, i know each terrain has influence about the possibility to grow of neighboring terrains. But in my opinion the help couldn't show all information.

I would suggest to show only those terrains where trees have a probability to grow about >50%. All others are of no interest related to trees i think.

Top

Quote

wl-zocker wrote:

If not all terrains are shown in the left list, this would have to be done in C++, I think.

Yes, i meant the left list when terrain tab is open. I think if this should be a help for map designers, its better to have less terrains in the list by omitting terrains where trees do not grow well. For dead terrains it should already be clear by the skull icon in terrain menu. And for water or ice floes (probability to grow for spruce: 1,9%) it should be clear also. And: It is not possible to place trees on water, ice floes, swamp or dead terrains so why should those terrains be in the list?

Top

Quote