Feedback Needed From The Atf/rt Community!

[CPangracs]

Below are some of the icons I have created for an as of yet unannounced wargame. I would like to know if the icons are acceptable to this community, and if there are any recommendations. The icons are shown at normal size, which would be at 150% in ATF vernacular.

http://www.pangracs.com/Icons/iconset1.BMP


Here is a representation of how they might look on a map about 175% size...

http://www.pangracs.com/Icons/icontest1.BMP

Please let me know what you think, and please be constructive in your analysis with recommendations on how to improve them if needed.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

next time smaller pics Curt ;)

for the "Destroyed" icons, the grey makes them seem, "unknown" than gone. How about a big black "X" on the icon, simliar to Squad Battles destroyed icons.

also, are the icons for particular units or classes as a whole? The silohuettes would be more recognisable as friend/foe if it was nation specific silohuette wise. Ie for IFVs, Brad for "Blue", BMP for "Red" - having them both the same means that they tend to blend together in such a way that all you would see would be blue squares and red squares...

just some thoughts :)

[CPangracs]

The reason I went with "generic" icons for the types of "classes", was that many people complained about the icons in Raging Tiger being too specific and not quickly recognizable for their "type".

The colors easily and quickly identify friend and foe. The "X" idea was something I've already been toying with - maybe a colored "X" similar to the ones when playing the game with NATO icons?

Anyway, I won't go into why I'm using "classes" instead of specific vehicles too much, because you seem to be assuming that one of the combatants will be "American"! ;)

I'm still thinking on the "unknown" icons. Rest assured, they WILL be distinctive!

As for the size of the pics, I wanted to ensure you saw the icons as clear as possible.:cheeky:

Thanks for the input, Ivan!:D

[Ivan Rapkinov]

I wasn't assuming anything ;)

I just said Bradley as it's a distinctive image :)

you're still having a BLUFOR and REDFOR, so why not have seperate silohuettes for each side? as I said - similar silohuettes blend together too much when looking at it quickly.

[CPangracs]

I wasn't assuming anything ;)

I just said Bradley as it's a distinctive image :)

you're still having a BLUFOR and REDFOR, so why not have seperate silohuettes for each side? as I said - similar silohuettes blend together too much when looking at it quickly.
I will take it under advisement! ;)

[Pat Proctor]

How about making the pieces equipment specific and actually putting the nomenclature underneath (i.e. for a T-72, have a silouhette of a T-72 and actually put the words "T-72" at the bottom of the piece).

What would others think of this idea?

[Scully]

Hey Curt,

It's always nice to see developers trying new things and asking us what we think, so here's what I think...I prefer the NATO or Operational graphics. :D As long as they're still available, you can add whatever type of graphics you want as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for asking.

Take care,
Brian

[Cabron66]

Oh boy, this is why I come to these forums.

Well, number one, the gray icons are a bit ambiguous. I think that a destroyed unit (i.e. spotted wreckage and so on) should be easily distinguishable. The big red X of Raging Tiger is a bit overkill (sorry guys:OHNO: )but something more towards a black or gray image of a suitably beat up unit or, as previously suggested, something that blocks out the unit icon. I always thought a little fire and smoke left no confusion, but that's just me.

Second, the icons can be used to very effectively add to the fog of war element which is critical for any wargame. I have always thought that you should have a few levels.

Basically, you have icons for each basic type of unit (like you already have) but also leave yourself in control of all the elements. Color, for example, does not need to be added until the unit's allegiance is known.

But no matter what, once the unit is identified, it should be quickly and easily recognized for what it is. Not just NATO symbols but also letters and names that do not appear only when the mouse passes over them. Far too much time gets eaten up scrolling endlessly over units trying to remember which one was the T-90 and which the harmless old heap.

And one last idea which I would like to humbly offer up for public consumption. How about this? When a unit is no longer visible its icon does not disappear but rather remains immobile in its present location and changes to a different color to denote that it is no longer an active contact. The icon then begins to age until removed from the map or after the unit is spotted again.

Cheers

Paul

[Cabron66]

Oh, and before I forget. The UAV symbol is a little odd. Why not a jeep?

Anyways, I'll shut up now.

Cheers

Paul

[CPangracs]

Oh, and before I forget. The UAV symbol is a little odd. Why not a jeep?

Anyways, I'll shut up now.

Cheers

Paul
Not sure I understand this? What is odd about the UAV? It's a side view of a Predator. Are you implying that a top view would be better? As for the jeep, i did not show all of the vehicle icons, so you didn't see the jeep icon.

:confused:

[CPangracs]

Oh boy, this is why I come to these forums.

Well, number one, the gray icons are a bit ambiguous. I think that a destroyed unit (i.e. spotted wreckage and so on) should be easily distinguishable. The big red X of Raging Tiger is a bit overkill (sorry guys:OHNO: )but something more towards a black or gray image of a suitably beat up unit or, as previously suggested, something that blocks out the unit icon. I always thought a little fire and smoke left no confusion, but that's just me.

Second, the icons can be used to very effectively add to the fog of war element which is critical for any wargame. I have always thought that you should have a few levels.

Basically, you have icons for each basic type of unit (like you already have) but also leave yourself in control of all the elements. Color, for example, does not need to be added until the unit's allegiance is known.

But no matter what, once the unit is identified, it should be quickly and easily recognized for what it is. Not just NATO symbols but also letters and names that do not appear only when the mouse passes over them. Far too much time gets eaten up scrolling endlessly over units trying to remember which one was the T-90 and which the harmless old heap.

And one last idea which I would like to humbly offer up for public consumption. How about this? When a unit is no longer visible its icon does not disappear but rather remains immobile in its present location and changes to a different color to denote that it is no longer an active contact. The icon then begins to age until removed from the map or after the unit is spotted again.

Cheers

Paul
These are just identified and destroyed units - the unidentified unit icons are still the same as in Raging Tiger.

[tinjaw]

Just to keep things in perspective :p I'm gonna chime in and admit that I like the icons as a generic middle step. May I suggest adding simple text to make it more informative. This way you will have your cake and eat it too.

[Cabron66]

Not sure I understand this? What is odd about the UAV? It's a side view of a Predator. Are you implying that a top view would be better? As for the jeep, i did not show all of the vehicle icons, so you didn't see the jeep icon.

:confused:

:OHNO: Woops, I'm sorry brother. My mistake. I thought "UAV" meant something else. Nevermind. Just leave me to my shame.

[Cabron66]

These are just identified and destroyed units - the unidentified unit icons are still the same as in Raging Tiger.

Hey, that's cool, but I really think those unidentified icons could stand for a bit of an overhaul. Nothing major, but I found that the icons in RT were a little too "generic". I mean, there's a lot of space between spotting a few men and identifying a unit as an AT team armed with the AT-5 system. Maybe the transition could be smoothed out a bit. I don't know. Just a suggestion.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. I guess there's no chance you'll drop any hints as to what theatre this game will take place in?

[Pat Proctor]

Both the abruptness of the change from unidentified vehicle to T-90 MBT and Curt's reluctance to give up the theater for the new game are my fault :)

The unidentified issue would require an engine change, and I am already neck deep in those for The Falklands War and War in Afghanistan.

Keep your ear to the ground for the other question :)

[kbluck]

In general, I think they look fine. My only real concern, as before, is that smaller is better. And I still think the zoom slider where 100% is really 50% is a bug, not a feature.

I would resist the tempation to end up creating silhouettes for every distinct vehicle type. The whole point of the earlier suggestion to "genericize" was to prevent developers and modders from having to spend inordinate amounts of time developing pretty icons for every last vehicle type, instead just being able to reuse a generic "vehicle class" silhouette. I would do my best to make the silhouette not recognizably any vehicle in particular. That is, however, actually harder artistically speaking than just using some representative vehicle, especially given the human propensity to visualize patterns even where there are none. Perhaps pick a silhouette of a real-world developmental system that never actually saw the light of day; the M8 AGS for generic "tank", for example.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

In general, I think they look fine. My only real concern, as before, is that smaller is better. And I still think the zoom slider where 100% is really 50% is a bug, not a feature.

I would resist the tempation to end up creating silhouettes for every distinct vehicle type. The whole point of the earlier suggestion to "genericize" was to prevent developers and modders from having to spend inordinate amounts of time developing pretty icons for every last vehicle type, instead just being able to reuse a generic "vehicle class" silhouette. I would do my best to make the silhouette not recognizably any vehicle in particular. That is, however, actually harder artistically speaking than just using some representative vehicle, especially given the human propensity to visualize patterns even where there are none. Perhaps pick a silhouette of a real-world developmental system that never actually saw the light of day; the M8 AGS for generic "tank", for example.

--- Kevin
I agree that it IS very difficult to create an icon that is recognizable as a certain TYPE of vehicle without actually BEING a specific vehicle in that class. MAJ Holdridge has done an excellent job in this department! I think simple is still better for this game, as much of the same equipment used by both combatants ;). I'm also against adding any specific words to the icon, because I think it detracts from the overall look of the icon.

However, I AM looking at doing some 3D work on the pieces to add some depth.

I want to thank everyone for their input! And, for those who prefer the generic NATO symbology, they will still be there as well, however look for something new in the "hierarchy flag" arena!

Curt