HUD Feedback thread

Battlescape
64

I had heard many things about the infamous F-35 helmet, but wow this thing looks silly. No wonder pilots complain they can’t properly turn their head around in the canopy…

Slight deformation to make it look more like a HMD is not a bad idea, but @JB47394 is right, it shouldn’t be at the cost of HUD space. For example, decorative lines are to avoid at all costs.
Again, Shattered Horizon is a good starting point, even if it necessarily had a way simpler helmet: some deformation helped immersion (that you were in a EVA suit) without harming visibility or deforming elements too much.
Though the rule of “more important is closer to centre” becomes even more important.

2 Likes
66

Was thinking the same thing, was wondering when someone would pick it up. The HUD is just a flat layer on the screen instead of it being somehow integrated either into the cockpit window or the helmet. My assumption is that what is being shown is an early Photoshop version and so doesn’t have this feature. As it is now, it looks akin to good old space games that didn’t have cockpits in them, just a flat HUD.

1 Like
67

I don’t think the hud will be integrated into the 3d world at all. It will be a layer ontop of everything else, like it is currently in the prototype. Integrating it is probaly out of the scope with a sad 300k in funds. Hopefully we can hype more people to pledge once more advanced gameplay can be shown.

2 Likes
68

It’s pretty trivial to add integrated UI in Unity. :confused:

1 Like
69

Then again, you’re speaking about a game engine that’s been developped for years while INovae is making their own game engine.

70

I understand your point, but really you could have rephrased that, INE has been in development for over a decade.

71

I think the invested man-hours in the Inovae Engine and the invested hours in Unity really do not compare. I think its pretty amazing what the Inovae Engine is already able to do. I also do not think that making it easy for developers that use the Unity SDK to add integrated UI in Unity was that trivial for the engine developers. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
72

It’s trivial for millions of indie developers that are using Unity though, so it’s becoming a norm for gamers to expect those kind of features.

1 Like
73

This tread makes me wish we still had the old forums to link to stuff. HUD and Radar, endless discussions…

As far as Radar is concerned, i am still 100% certain that any radar concept based on Kartesian coordinates, no matter what projection is used, is highly inferior to a radar concept based on Polar coordinates, projected onto the fixed visual plane you have anyways: Your screen center / forward view. At least for anything you want to do in a fighter like spacecraft. Might have to draw a mockup again once we get closer to actually testing radar concepts.

As to the HUD in general: Minimalist line style is great but can be hard to read. Contrast enhancing additons, like black outlines, will be needed. Monochromatic is ok, but colour choice by players should be a standard feature.

Condensing information is extremely needed, a great example is that small picture/icon for the energy distribution: Clear, intuitive, easy to read.

Placement, relative size and GROUPING of HUD elements needs careful evaluation for each information displayed: E.g. if you are close enough to a planet to need Altitude information, you do NOT want it to be hidden in the top left corner like that. And making it that tiny compared to huge cardinal directions / compass that you most probably do not even need is also no good. It probably needs to be grouped with your speed information.

Another aspect is how easy it is to extract information from graphics. If e.g. you have a simple linear shield and simple linear health model, it makes sense to have 2 percentage bars, straight or curved, near the screen center. But the more you work with shield regions / local armour / ship subsystem damage, the more it makes sense to have a dedicated simplified ship model near the screen edge that gives a direct visual indication of where shield/hull/system damage is located.

Features that can take up much screen space, like chat or squad info, should have quick expansion / minimization options. But also, they should be “out of the way” as much as possible - e.g. the squad info as shown could easily be a single row at the bottom of the screen instead of the column it is now, taking up the same area but less “valueable” area.

Then there are minor nitpicks, e.g. chat is often found in the top left corner, because of the western convention to read from the top left first. Conventions can be helpful, as long as not followed blindly, because they allow players to quickly learn a new HUD.

Some aspects of Infinity will clearly require deviations from conventions - everything scale related for example. With dozens of planets, potentially dozens of capital ships and hundreds of fighters, every system that lacks robust grouping / prioritizing of contacts to display will fail. I think there will HAVE to be an extra HUD element / window / status monitor to show detailed information on a locked - on target - especially if that target is actually a group of contacts created by the necessary information compression system. Simply not showing things beyond a cutoff range will not always cut it i think.

1 Like
74

That’s strange. I’ve never played a game with a text chat box anywhere but the lower left corner. Unreal Tournament, World of Warcraft, ARMA 3 and many others place it lower left. I think it goes there because text chat is considered much lower priority information than many other tidbits of game information.

2 Likes
75

Same here… Don’t remember the last time I saw a multiplayer game that had chat at the top of the screen.

*Oh wait; didn’t Elite Dangerous do it that way because they crowded the bottom of the screen full of hud info and had no room for it down there and weren’t focusing all that much on multiplayer at the design stage?

1 Like
76

I’ll take ED defense for once and let you notice that text tchat is far from being crowded like in some other games. People use in-game vocal tchat when in squads, or Discord or any other tool.

Most of the time, it’s supposed to be important-ish NPC dialogues. For instance, you won’t react the same way if the NPC warping behind you (no luck, happens) will ask you to obey scanning process (cops) or threaten you to drop cargo (pirates). If memory serves, it also displays general environment like leaving warp / interdiction / etc., but there are enough visual / audio cues to ignore those parts.

77

Would just like to add that ED is the only game that I actually like my voice in, they are using voice filters of some sort, beautiful stuff. You actually sound like a spacecraft pilot.

2 Likes
78

I really like the look of the HUD.

If i had to give some feedback… hmm:

Energy and fuel bar

seems in the strange place i need to move my eyes to see it.
Perhaps move them down or on the cockpit itself.

Weapon indicators

those icons are pretty, good for loadout screen, but not so much for HUD.
I would shrink them perhaps grow only selected one.
And again moving them out of most useful space in view.
For some reason corner feels like best place - perhaps i am brainwashed by fps games or perhaps its a freespace memory :slight_smile: , or that i would hold it in my right hand…
I dont know… :slight_smile:
When i look for weapons i look down right, dont ask why ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Radar

Hmm, interesting. I am more fan of x-wing / freespace kind, but it seems ok too.
And i really like the idea what JB says of dedicated bubble that could be brought up in your face for 3D representation of surroundings and more info.

Just please for the love of whatever deity you prefer. PLEASE dont force people to use some kind of overly complex 3d radar like ED does. In the heat of battle those lines are uninformative.
You need to glance and know immediately which way is your target.
For that pop out 3d Radar idea, sure why not. But not for simple dogfight info.
Or at the very least please give players a choice which one they want to use.

Shield indicator

If it will be as great as i imagine in motion then its perfect.

1 Like
79

It’s intended to be a non-combatant system. Fighters should not get an integrated radar.

Why handicap a fighter pilot like that? Because it’s not a single player game where the player needs to be able to manage everything himself. Multiplayer games are about getting players to interact. In a team game like Battlescape, teammates should be doing more than focus firing on a particular target. Deficiencies in one player’s gear should be made up by another player. That’s where we get wingmen and such.

Imagine if fighters couldn’t even lock their own targets. Instead, locks were established by fighter directors. Fighters can shoot at anything they like, but lock-on systems only work with targets designated by fighter directors. This would be like the fighter command of the Battle of Britain. Multiple targets could be designated for a group of friendly fighters, leaving them to tackle the group as they see fit. Whatever. The point here is not to worry about whether or not fighter directors are a good thing, but to point out how multiple groups of players can interact to tackle a problem.

Giving every fighter a radar means that they not only can, but are expected to track the situation and figure things out for themselves. Removing it means that that responsibility must lie elsewhere.

And that also means that if you can find and destroy the fighter directors for the other team, you have an edge against their fighters. Their fighters are just as lethal as ever, but their situational awareness has been eroded. To me, that’s good gameplay, and that’s why I put the radar into a form that’s not suitable for combat use.

80

That sounds like a really interesting idea.
Something like commander in natural selection or combined arms commander in DCS world.

81

I’m not imagining that because it’s simply not happening in modern times, and no one with a grain of good sense would imagine that.
Fighters should at the very least be aware of their immediate surroundings and lock their own targets.

The fact that they don’t see beyond X or Y km, sure, great idea. It’s the carrier that has the best structural capacity for long-range radars anyway.
Implement a bonus damage when firing on a target that the commander designated? Ok, that’s nice, it pushes to follow the lead without imposing it.

However, removing any form of surroundings awarness to small fighters would actually handicap the pilot. It would cut the ability for the fighter to deal with his immediate and lethal threat, or disregard the commander’s stupid decision (which can happen more often that imagined).
Also, this means you can hardly do any guerilla mission with a small squad, as intended and expected on such big fields of operation.

Let the fighter’s radar be limited in range and give him extra info only when close enough to be linked with a carrier / commander, but please keep the radar.

5 Likes
82

Found this thread interesting to dig up. Ain’t like I necroed it though. If there’s somethin’ in this world I got plenty of, it’s opinions.

Regarding the functionality of all those HUD systems, I’d say there’ll be time to talk about later on, as they have to be implemented, tested, adapted and/or reshaped, etc.

For now, I’d like to point out one thing: immersion. It is my understanding that my illustrious arse shall be tightly glued to the pilot chair. So, immersion starts inside the cockpit. (I know capital ships will be controlled in 3rd person view, but we’ll talk about that another time.)

The first thing that bugs me with this HUD is the fact that I don’t know where it’s coming from. Is it on my helmet’s visor? Is it a holographic projection? Is it a screen in front of my eyes? (Ok, that’d be a tad strange.) As it is now, it’s obviously just on my computer screen, which kinda’ takes me out of the ship. So, I’d either have it curved to make it look like a helmet projection, or link it to the dashboard somehow (as in - make it seem to be projected from somewhere inside the cockpit).

I’m assuming the helmet option is the most versatile, as it allows for the same HUD to be used in all ships, with minor alterations. I like diversity, but I get it that you guys need to dose your efforts.

One thing that I like about this HUD is that it’s all 2D. I love the industrial retro design of the ships, and this goes well with them. 3D projections wouldn’t feel right.

The next important issue I’m having with this is that…the information is displayed with no specific priority. Also…it doesn’t help my brain to read it easy. Here’s what I’d do:

  1. I would choose some systems to prioritize in the view. For example, the radar is quite important in a fight, yet it’s positioned far away in the corner. I would also make this prioritized info more visible, by drawing it with thicker lines, or adding some glow.
  2. I would put more accent on the graphical representations. Numbers are good to have, but I ain’t reading them when my arse is on fire.
  3. I wouldn’t put so much info on the top of the screen. Psychologically speaking…it’s heavy. It makes me duck my head. Also…for some reason, that’s a place on the screen I always look last. I’d structure the info on the sides of the screen. It’s also easier to build muscle memory for reading it fast.

I’d stop here with this post. It’s long already. However, there’s one more thing: since we got these old style pac man monitors, I’d put some redundant info on them. Maybe when I take heavy damage and I’m about to go down, my HUD can get disabled and I got a couple of monitors showing me how ugly my imminent death’s goin’ to be.

5 Likes