Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - Radial Command Menu

[h - 169]

:D

That's one of the dumbest things I've seen.. ..this week.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Why is it dumb? And no, I'm fully serious. Colors and graphics can be whatever you choose naturally, just plug in the correct image.paa (Images, is supposed to be dynamic and context sensitive after all). The point is it gets the job done in half a second instead of going back and forth through menus. And your left hand stays on the normal controls, instead of searching through the number keys. Motoric memory memorizes much quicker than trying to memorize arbitrary number sequences (trust me on that). I've used such system professionally, and going to 3d studio max's "quad menu" after that was a nightmare - back to studying the lines.

Commanding AI is a big part of this game, why not make it easy? Don't use it if you don't like it, it was ment as an alternative to newcomers who can't stand the number system, or find the current quick command system lacking. Not to replace the number system.

Edited May 6, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Deadfast 43]

Please tell me that this looks more intuitive and easier to use than having to fiddle with the number menu system.

I'm sorry, but this is not even intuitive at all.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Can you give a reason? Without looking, where is left echelon on the number system, and how will a newcomer even know what it is? Here, it is placed at the top (being offensive formation) right (you're flanking right). Line being the most offensive one is full north (forward, the way you are moving). The not so often used I just placed somewhere on the inner circle. All the most "commonly" used formation is placed within an up or down movement of the mouse, with offensive ones being north and defensive ones (or, movement) being south. Since we don't have Box, Herringbone, and Coil (yet), they would simply be removed. But could be added later by addon makers.

Btw, why do you think "mouse gestures" are so widely popular amongst Firefox and Opera users? This is pretty much the same thing.

Edited May 6, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Dead3yez 0]

Radial commands WOULD work with the new dumb command system.

It WOULD be useful for issuing commands quickly.

It WOULD NOT be useful for the more complex command menu, in my opinion.

So, keep it tied to the simple stuff (move there, get in, get out, hold fire, hold, etc), no problem. :)

[h - 169]

I'm sorry, but this is not even intuitive at all.

+1

I don't see anything that would make such a huge blob blocking your view any better than the current system (which is fine IMO).

You do realise that the second you add such a radial that is mouse controlled you lose the control of your character thus having to go the fail ways of "the other game" because in combat you have to be able to command your team while you yourself are also moving and perhaps even engaging targets..

I can't think of one good reason why the current system should be replaced.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

How does blocking view and input for half a second make any difference compared to staring at the corner of the screen going back and forth through menus? Which newbies (and myself) do.

And, as far as I know, nobody is claiming that anything should be replaced, even the space command system could be upgraded separately. I think it has been well stressed that it would be an addition to see how it works out.

But, if we could at least have a "mouse gestures system" that connects to the concept of a "held key" (versus "pressed" key, remember for most number commands you have to let go of movement keys anyway), and we can experiment freely. Oh, scripted versions of all "low level commands" would also be a requirement. Some exist but not a lot.

[IronTrooper 0]

How does blocking view and input for half a second make any difference compared to staring at the corner of the screen going back and forth through menus? Which newbies (and myself) do.

With the current system I'm staring at the menu only when I'm choosing from multiple actions or targets - if these things were done context sensitive then it would be (as it is most of the time now) just pressing remembered key combinations.

[Zipper5 74]

How does blocking view and input for half a second make any difference compared to staring at the corner of the screen going back and forth through menus? Which newbies (and myself) do.

All it takes is memorizing the keystrokes and it'll take you no time at all to issue an order. Rarely do I have to even look at the menus. For example, ~ - 4 - 1 orders my squad to disembark. ~ - 3 - 5 orders them to engage at will. ~ - 7 - 2 orders them into danger mode. These are just pulled off the top of my head.

It doesn't take long to memorize the keystrokes. It came very intuitively for me. This radial menu will only complicate things further, in my opinion.

[h - 169]

How does blocking view and input for half a second make any difference compared to staring at the corner of the screen going back and forth through menus? Which newbies (and myself) do.

I can easily consider myself as a newbie in a sense that I haven't played either A1 or A2 extensively like I did OFP just merely because all my time goes into modding so the rare cases I play I need to kinda re-learn things but it doesn't take me too long to be able to "finger" the keyboard while commanding and I don't need to look at any menus.

Nor do I ever feel any need for any radial command disc..

One thing that could be useful would be to have macros so that you could bind certain number combinations under one button each but that doesn't really help because I don't think there are many keys left to bind. :p

remember for most number commands you have to let go of movement keys anyway

I do it with one hand so I can be either moving in some direction (like strafing sideways) or firing back at the enemy (as in using the mouse) while simultaneously ordering the team. I don't use WASD for moving btw..

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, the problem remains that new players have complained a lot about the gui and how you control your squad. So much that BIS themselves found the need to do videos on how to command. Since there is only listed 9 items (and how often not all are used) in the default number system versus 16 graphically oriented items in the proposed compass, there should be plenty of free space for "macro commands", which I highly support.

The problem with OFP DRs compass was the amount of clicking and navigating to find what you were looking for, and how it was accessed with one key. Other failed approaches has been "context sensitivity" where you end up with a "dynamic menu". You still have to "read" what you click on, if the items change depending on what you do. My version takes more place, but the benefit is that the same item will always be at the same place, and the only "dynamic" thing about it is how context sensitivity will "hide" the item or make it unselectable (marked with a red ring in my graphics, i.e. certain formation aren't used by infantry, green ring marks current "mode", yellow rings marks "orders" versus "modes", and grey rings mark selectable "modes"). And not a single "click", only a RMB drag and release while holding a key found near (or same as) the "regular" keys. Having a unit selected while pointing at a crate, opening the G-Gear and interact compass, will hide all the "get in commands" as they don't make sense.

It also far surpasses the number system in that you can use colors for grouping (or whatever purpose you can desire), would support the use of graphics (I assume everyone understand the shitty formation graphics?), and could have tooltips designed to the new player which describes what everything does (two different tooltip types shown). There still comes up the occasional thread where new to the game people ask what disengage and open fire is all about.

Maybe the skill level of new players would evolve quicker so that MP gaming could benefit experienced players, in that they don't have to explain so much.

Btw, if you manage to access all the number keys (pluss backspace when you get the wrong one) without while shooting and moving, I think you would make a great piano player :D Anyway, good for you that you can command using the number system while shooting. I just know I can't. Or do you move with your left while accessing number menu with right hand? Sounds kinda awkward, at least I would never get efficient with that.

@Zipper5: Yes, naturally even I have managed to memorize a few, and will use them from the number system. The problem are those I don't remember, they take forever to find, and you have to use the whole keyboard.

And the number of keys is part of the problem. With ACE, I have had to bind my "ACE interaction keys" to Home and End, simply because I'm out of keys, and those are "hard to reach", making it a bit extra time consuming. Some of the many keys today (or the dreaded action menu, for those with satchel problems :D), could be bound to free slots in default compasses, or you could put them in one of your own.

I.e. the "G - Gear and interaction compass", could be made vehicle specific when you're inside a vehicle. None of the items make sense when you're i.e. inside an airplane. So for the flyboys, some nice compass locations when inside a plane could be:

Takeoff, going up. N = Flaps Up, NN = Gear Up. Landing, going down. S = Flaps Down. SS = Gear Down. All these could free keys needed for other things that need a more promptly response, like chaffs and flares and radar mode changes etc. For flaps and gear, you typically have pretty good time, it's not a "rush thing" :)

So I'm even starting to see a potential for this system to even replace (or, at the start, complement) the stone old action menu. There are usually not that many actions associated with an item, and those actions could instead show up in the dynamic part of the G - Gear and interaction compass.

[Deadfast 43]

So I'm even starting to see a potential for this system to even replace (or, at the start, complement) the stone old action menu.

How would this system of yours handle custom actions added via addAction?

You are changing things just for the sake of doing so, nothing good has ever come out of that.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

By adding elements to the addAction array. If none are present (for backwards compatibility), will show up at next free slot in an action compass (16 for undefined actions not assigned to compass slots should be more than enough). If present, contains an additional array [compass id, direction] where direction is 1-16 (slot). The "fireplace" already uses "light fire" and "put out fire", so it would be a good idea to put a new action on a slot you know would be free.

Problem with actions are the everchanging ones. Maybe you've been lucky, but I experienced blowing myself up with satchels trying to "set timer", jumping out of helicopter when trying to obtain a "lift action", or switching guns when trying to "open doors". I just think it is time to try something new, and how also actions are far from streamlined.

You are changing things just for the sake of doing so, nothing good has ever come out of that.

That's how they make new cars. And guess what, ABS brakes are better. And for the nth time, I'm not changing anything, only adding an alternative to try out and streamline. It is such a dramatic thing that you'd need the old methods as backup, when things starts to have undesired and unexpected results.

But, custom actions was a valid concern.

Oh, for OA I'm really only interrested in the new tools to make this possible, particular the mouse and key input stuff. Just so we can start making experiments on our own. It's way to far into the development cycle to hope for any kind of compass menu built in if they haven't done it already.

Edited May 7, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Deadfast 43]

That's how they make new cars. And guess what, ABS brakes are better.

ABS is an improvement and has always been worked on as such. You're just suggesting to replace a complicated system with another (possibly even more) complicated one.

Going with your car analogy it would be like moving the gas pedal to the other side. It only bugs those used to it being on the right and in the end is no improvement.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Deadfast

[CarlGustaffa 4]

And for the nth time, I'm not changing anything, only adding an alternative to try out and streamline.

Immediately followed by:

ABS is an improvement and has always been worked on as such. You're just suggesting to replace a complicated system with another (possibly even more) complicated one.

Going with your car analogy it would be like moving the gas pedal to the other side. It only bugs those used to it being on the right and in the end is no improvement.

Sweet jezus! :banghead:

But, alas, I just did the same mistake in another thread of not being able to read, so... :)

My analogy with cars was supposed to be evolution. Things evolve over time. There has been almost no development to give an updated version of the (full) number menu and action menu system. We have new decent attempts on quick and squad commanding, but since they lack many important commands and would fail if the commands were simply added (would be too much to read), which makes us stuck to micromanagement using the good old fashioned number command system. Which is anything but intuitive.

With your way of thinking (the gas pedal), it would now be available on both sides, so the car could be used both by lefties (old school) and righties (new gamers). Nothing will change in OA for you, except if you make missions you have the ability to script "advance and flank rights" without comlex scripting. I.e. how they always return to formation after getting there when given a move order. That doesn't happen using commands ingame. That would be ALL the number commands except Targets and Actions (since they are dynamic, might be possible though to give scripters the string contained under each number though, not sure). Something like commandingMenu, except called doCommandingMenu, maybe in the shape of sendSimpleCommand, except to array of units (where applicable, such as individual commands), or to group (where applicable, such as formations).

Oh, just came up with a couple of new T-Team commands - Select Evens on the right side and Select Odds on the left side in the compass. Quick access to all the guys on your right or left without managing teams. Could be placed in a macro place, or like me who rarely uses more than two teams, replace two of the team commands already assigned there. For me, intuitive. But some obviously think pressing F2, F4, F6, and F8, then 9, then 1 - is more intuitive and quicker?

I tried some new singleplayer campaign today, and was trying to issue "gear up at..." commands to every individual of my squad (since action commands, 6, doesn't work with multiple units selected. With my idea, it would work). But the bloody menu item I was interrested in kept updating position. Nothing but frustration galore. With compass, that item would always be in the same location, hidden if not available.

There is nothing intuitive about the old system. You have to read or memorize, which is too many combinations to memorize all, as well as get really stretchy with your fingers to manage it all. Motoric memory is different, and if setup correctly, extremely intuitive. Assault right? Up and right. Flank right? Just right. While holding a qualifier key (forward would be my choice, but each to his own) that is among your regular keys and with key letters that "makes sense" compared to numbers. F for Formations, versus 8. What is more intuitive to learn for the new guy? And then, those formations are logically placed next to each other, with the most frequently used on the vertical (offensive formations up, defensive formations down), with the less frequently used put wherever. If you prefer vee as a defensive retreat formation, then just put that on inner south and stag column on outer south, using column as a less frequently used. Use vee in the offense, combined with flanking orders, for encirclement maneuvers (not easy with typical squad size, but...)? Put it on outer north (as most aggressive). It would be all up to you and your gaming/commanding style.

What I definitely don't want, is to have BIS create a "new revolutionary compass commanding menu to replace, err, supplement ;) the old school of commanding, and ending up with having it behave just as bad and clunky in operation as certain other competitors compass, because the community wasn't able to experiment to get the best out of it.

I have tried to give a concrete idea (not the full paper) on what is needed for future experiments, instead of the usual "needs to be made better, but haven't really given it much thought about how that can be done" wishes. Of which none typically addresses the point of making micromanagement more accessible, or deals with the problems of the action menu. ACE interaction menus has been fairly well received, but still requires too much key, mouse, and reading than needed (can not be based on motoric memory, which would also require a perfect circular compass). Means, it's not as quick as it could be.

For that attempt, I've been ridiculed and given really no valid arguments against (except the custom actions, which I know can be addressed) the idea, other than "the old system works" (for yourselves). Which I've also given good arguments on how "the old system doesn't work", but those are overruled with "works for me".

Consider me shut up, I realize this is futile, and I won't bring it up again. At least I gave it a shot. :)

[Zipper5 74]

I find that nowadays gamers have become very, very lazy, and this is coming from a 17 year old. The commands for BIS' games' interfaces are not at all hard to learn. If me, a kid at the age of 11, could memorize OFP's commanding keystrokes, then surely it's still possible for everyone else. The difference is that the modern gamer is so used to having his hand held in games.

While the idea may or may not work, CarlGustaffa, the method you were trying to implement was just ridiculous. I understand it's an example, but if you're wanting something like that in the game then I'd much rather stick with the current system. Don't break something even further when it wasn't broken in the first place; just improve upon the winning formula.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Yeah, I guess I'm "lazy" :D Look, it'll take you a while, but eventually you'll get to learn some funny stuff about memory - not all of us are teenagers you know :)

Not sure what part of the "method" you mean.

1) Being a graphical menu rather than a complex set of keys?

2) Being formed as a circular menu advocating muscle memory rather than a long list of items you would have to read?

3) The right mouse button drag sequence to activate it?

4) Or you just don't want BIS to give us the needed changes so that it at least would be possible (low level commands etc)?

I'm having a go at it anyway for my own amusement, just to see what i can come up with. With lack of "proper" activation system (right mousebutton drag, I've checked UIEH's, but can't figure out a good way to "trap it". Maybe it's just my lack of understanding, highly probable). Due to that, I'm forced to use regular keys for it, started by ordinary addAction system.

The problems:

1) When addAction is given blank name, it still shows up as something "selectable" when other actions are present. Means you can scroll past all the selectable actions. Naturally I don't want 5 unused actions, or clutter up the actions list.

2) I use the "user keys" to define my actions, i.e. ctrl+f for "Formations Compass" and ctrl+g for "Gear and Interaction Compass". G works ok, but when I use the ctrl+f key, it ALSO changes firemode (as if ctrl wasn't pressed). So it's already starting to force me to use nonintuitive keys. Ctrl+Q i.e. wouldn't be intuitive for this particular compass.

3) I have no idea how to draw a visible line from selected units or center of screen to whatever you are pointing at, similar to how "go to house position" is shown. That would further enhance intuitiveness.

4) And obviously, lack of low level commands means that stuff like "advance" or "flank right" is impossible. New custom commands like "assault right" (loved being able to do that in OFP DR in a quick fashion) would be easy though. And as you can see, others want access to these as well for whatever purpose.

5) It still requires you to "click" on an item in the list (instead of simply letting go to activate a button and close the menu), which could in some cases lead to accidental discharge of your weapon. We've had too much of that in my unit due to poor interface design and players thinking using the interface is too hard to understand. Letting go would be much safer, but requires the RMB drag functionality (I'm not able to come up with).

6) I'm not a scripting guru, so I make it to suit me with no easy customizeability in mind.

Edited May 8, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Richey79 10]

I absolutely say stick with the tried and tested system.

Look at the 'Nice...' game:

1)You stop moving.

2)You press the command button. This is complicated by having other command buttons for artillery etc.

3)You press a movement button (w-a-s-d) to select a sub-menu. I find this incredibly counter-intuitive and jarring, particularly when you have to use arrow-keys to select which kit to pick up and which ammo type to select.

4)You mess about with the mouse, trying to find a context-sensitive spot in the on-screen landscape to activate the type of command you wish to give (e.g. taking cover behind a wall, assaulting a building). This is made more difficult because you're simultaneously trying to peer round the side of a huge and cartoon-like circle now obscuring a third of the screen. There is no tactical view to allow you to easily pick a geographical location because a third-person view would reveal how poor the scale and texturing of the software's models are.

5)You stop and read the choices in the sub-menu before pressing another movement key.

6)You stop and read again, resisting the urge to use the arrow keys or mouse to select, which is the instinctive thing to do, all the while being shot at and unable to move whilst issuing commands.

The whole system is such a pain - it only works because of the magical 'force-field' your soldier is given in that game (the first enemy shot has a 1% chance of hitting you, the second 5%, the third 10% etc.). Anyway, most of the commands from Mr. Lentil's much-vaunted 'play-book' give the player as little control over their squad as 'flank left' or 'retreat'.

Of course, BF2/PR use a much better implemented commo-rose which has many fewer commands and is designed to communicate with human players, not AI. I suggest that if you actually counted commands, it would have perhaps 20% of the flexibility of Arma 2's system.

Arma 2's command system has four main advantages:

1) Once you get to know it, it's as simple as `-7-2 (all - danger), `-4-1 (all - disembark).

2) It's very adaptive to your level of knowledge. So, a starting player only needs to learn 'go there', 'follow me', 'get in/out of vehicle' and the AI will do the rest pretty competently. Plus the player can use the mouse scroll wheel as they're starting out and issue commands whilst running for cover or diving to prone.

3) No visual clutter to ruin immersion. I'm sorry, but that mock-up that was suggested a few pages back would be my idea of hell. Many players find it over-complicates things far less than a series of radial menus!

4) For players who don't like it, the system is easily adaptable to voice recognition software, unlike the command-rose system.

If someone wanted to map the key A2 commands to command rose, I shouldn't think it would be difficult to mod, since Bis' engine is fully moddable (unlike either of the other games mentioned). However, the modders tend to be more experienced players, so they know the system and its strengths well, so - for them - it's a less-desirable way to spend time coding.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Richey79

[PacX 10]

I absolutely say stick with the tried and tested system.

Look at the 'Nice...' game:

1)You stop moving.

2)You press the command button. This is complicated by having other command buttons for artillery etc.

3)You press a movement button (w-a-s-d) to select a sub-menu. I find this incredibly counter-intuitive and jarring, particularly when you have to use arrow-keys to select which kit to pick up and which ammo type to select.

4)You mess about with the mouse, trying to find a context-sensitive spot in the on-screen landscape to activate the type of command you wish to give (e.g. taking cover behind a wall, assaulting a building). This is made more difficult because you're simultaneously trying to peer round the side of a huge and cartoon-like circle now obscuring a third of the screen. There is no tactical view to allow you to easily pick a geographical location because a third-person view would reveal how poor the scale and texturing of the software's models are.

5)You stop and read the choices in the sub-menu before pressing another movement key.

6)You stop and read again, resisting the urge to use the arrow keys or mouse to select, which is the instinctive thing to do, all the while being shot at and unable to move whilst issuing commands.

The whole system is such a pain - it only works because of the magical 'force-field' your soldier is given in that game (the first enemy shot has a 1% chance of hitting you, the second 5%, the third 10% etc.). Anyway, most of the commands from Mr. Lentil's much-vaunted 'play-book' give the player as little control over their squad as 'flank left' or 'retreat'.

Of course, BF2/PR use a much better implemented commo-rose which has many fewer commands and is designed to communicate with human players, not AI. I suggest that if you actually counted commands, it would have perhaps 20% of the flexibility of Arma 2's system.

Arma 2's command system has four main advantages:

1) Once you get to know it, it's as simple as `-7-2 (all - danger), `-4-1 (all - disembark).

2) It's very adaptive to your level of knowledge. So, a starting player only needs to learn 'go there', 'follow me', 'get in/out of vehicle' and the AI will do the rest pretty competently. Plus the player can use the mouse scroll wheel as they're starting out and issue commands whilst running for cover or diving to prone.

3) No visual clutter to ruin immersion. I'm sorry, but that mock-up that was suggested a few pages back would be my idea of hell. Many players find it over-complicates things far less than a series of radial menus!

4) For players who don't like it, the system is easily adaptable to voice recognition software, unlike the command-rose system.

If someone wanted to map the key A2 commands to command rose, I shouldn't think it would be difficult to mod, since Bis' engine is fully moddable (unlike either of the other games mentioned). However, the modders tend to be more experienced players, so they know the system and its strengths well, so - for them - it's a less-desirable way to spend time coding.

You wouldn't have to stop, you wouldn't be unable to move at all and it wouldn't even need sub-menu's.

It'd go more like this:

1st scenario: You're walking with no enemies nearby with your squad behind you, you want them to go to "that" location.

1) Press and hold F (Let's say it's bound to that key).

2) Move your mouse very quickly to the "Move to" command.

3) Click.

2nd scenario: You're moving and suddenly ambushed and want your squad to follow you.

1) Press and hold F.

*BAM* You need to do something quick so you stop holding F and the menu disappears.

2) Open up the money again and move the mouse to "Follow me" command.

3) Click.

All while you can freely use WASD, crouch, prone and stand up.

Only your mouse is locked untill you release F or click on the command you want.

It's better than having to move your hand from, say one side of the keyboard making you have to stop (And stopping -> starting takes time due to some animation errors), press some key's twice, hurray...

I'd say either one of these:

(With just a few more commands, excuse the crappy BF2-Q menu edit :3)

Edited May 8, 2010 by PacX

[wamingo 1]

edit: doh, wish I'd checked the LAST post before mine first... screw it :)

for most number commands you have to let go of movement keys anyway

I enjoy being able to move and give commands at the same time. I do have to let go of the mouse to reach ctrl+w + 6,7,8,9,0 keys but that's far preferable to being forced to stand still.

However, I do think the numerical keys are being wasted away needlessly - especially if you're not leader. And the Response key is way over on the '0' key which is bothersome.

So I'm not against the idea of a radial/rose menu, although I'm not sure I would prefer it. Of course if it was optional everyone would be happy.

In fact, while we're at it, I quite like the idea of a fully customizable UI the likes of World of Warcraft.

But wetdreams aside...

Allow me to make a fool of myself by throwing in an arma/BF2 hybrid concept.

Open Radial Menu = Press Key (1,2,3,4...)

Select Option = LeftMB

Close Menu = RightMB or Press Key Again

example keys:

• '1' = Command Orders
  
• '2' = Reply & Status
  
• '3' = Spotting
  
• '4' = addActions
  
• '5' = ??
  
• '6' = profit. (joke)
  

Although with this system some actions may take slightly longer to do - like Command Orders, I suspect many people would prefer the radial style despite it.

Here's a concept layout of the Reply & Status -- I do NOT consider it complete or perfect.. but go ahead anyway, do your worst :)

Apologies for the obvious style-ripoff. The intent is simply to show what it COULD look like.

Edited May 8, 2010 by wamingo

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@PacX: Your compass have only 8 slots. To cover all the commands available, you'd have to have so many compasses that keeping track of them could even become a problem. Excluding the dynamic target and action menus, there are 63 items to cover (if I counted correctly). You might have to mix highly unrelated items. I.e there are already 9 formations. Where do you put the last one? In the attack menu? :) You could split them into offensive and defensive formations, sure, but now there is one extra compass to manage.

@wamingo: The problem with your compass is that it only has 10 slots, which may be worse than only 8, since 8 is a nice 45° angle. Starting to deal with "right and slightly up" and another on at "right and up", means that motoric memory starts getting into problems. And again you actually have to check what you select visually, something I've been trying hard to avoid. Combined with "hold to expand" and "expandable compasses", you're starting to go the quite ineffective route.

You'll do most frequent commands at 1/10 of a second (with RMB drag mode and no need to click to select, to cancel just release without being in a slot). With clicking and having to press the ctrl key, and not being able to use the keys I want the most, yeah, sure it takes longer than desired. But typically within a second.

Four slots only is actually optimal. If eight, then some prefer double rings, others 45° angle increments. If limited to four angles, what game do we get? Chrysis (iirc). If we let those four expand into subitems, what game do we get? OFP DR. If limited to eight angles, what game do we get? Not sure, but I think something in the line of BF2 (not familar with this one) based on the inputs in this thread. And two things has been said; it wouldn't be enough to cover Armas vast range of possibilities, and it mostly deals with reporting in MP. With 16 slots on just a few compass keys (we have nine keys now in the number key system, and still uses submenus), you get all the commands available, and even have room for custom or later expansion which now is deemed to fill up the action menu.

As action holder? 16 slots visible instantly. More than in action menu where you have to scroll up and down when it becomes cluttered with items. G-Gear and interaction. 5 scenarios:

1) Your personal actions replaces the six vehicle interaction slots at the top of the compass. Consistent, will always be there, and I have never seen more than six required, except those that comes under the categories shown below. Such actions tends to be mission specific or debugging related.

2) You have no units selected but is pointing at a satchel. You get the satchel actions.

3) You have units selected but isn't pointing at anything. You can order him to perform his own personal actions.

4) You have units selected and is pointing at another unit. You get unit to unit actions, such as heal at medic.

5) You have units selected and is pointing at a satchel. You get actions that the units can perform on that item.

@Richey79: I referenced "that other 'nice' game" for having some nice commands available that we are missing in Arma without going crazy on the number keys. Not how it is designed to "work", because it doesn't. It's just as bad as Armas number system (probably worse), and years behind the quick command and squad command systems.

I highly agree that my proposal doesn't "look good" and most certainly doesn't preserve immersion. But guess what, when I'm commanding AI I prefer being efficient about it and rather loose some immersion to be able to do so. Continue using the number system if you feel that is more efficient. My compass now even displays the number command for that given item, makes it even quicker to learn the alternative.

Does the number of slots scare you? Don't be. The point is to have it context sensitive so that inapplicable items are removed depending on the setting. No units selected? Then all "assign team" boxes are removed - less to look for. You're not pointing at a vehicle? Then all vehicle mounting slots will be removed. Vehicle already have a commander, but doesn't have side gunners positions? Then those slots will be removed. But the commanders slot will always remain on the same slot position. So a 16 slot mess to scan through? Highly unlikely. But you'll quickly learn where to look due to reduced clutter, color coding, and "smart and consistent layout", instead of having to read (not only look, but actually read) every single item in the numbers menu. Again, this is not for those efficient with the number system, but for those who leave the game because they can't find peace with it. And it even provides help to the number system. And a learning tool using tooltips to explain the contents of every slot.

No, I don't think too many quits the game because of singleplayer AI control difficulties. Most are multiplayer players anyway. But it doesn't help the impression if they already have other issues with the game.

Just found a problem: When cursorTarget isn't getting any targets, I use screenToWorld to get usable coordinates instead. If there was a getMousePosition or a cursorToWorld (crosshairPos) command (screen or world), I could get usable coordinates if in squad command mode and for TrackIR users. Another shortcoming which I don't expect to be able to get around.

[PacX 10]

@PacX: Your compass have only 8 slots. To cover all the commands available, you'd have to have so many compasses that keeping track of them could even become a problem. Excluding the dynamic target and action menus, there are 63 items to cover (if I counted correctly). You might have to mix highly unrelated items. I.e there are already 9 formations. Where do you put the last one? In the attack menu? :) You could split them into offensive and defensive formations, sure, but now there is one extra compass to manage.

Read the thread, we aren't aiming for a replacement to the current system (Because that will most likely not get done, I would prefer it though) nor do we want all the 63 commands (although it is very possible with submenus.)

@wamingo: The problem with your compass is that it only has 10 slots, which may be worse than only 8, since 8 is a nice 45° angle. Starting to deal with "right and slightly up" and another on at "right and up", means that motoric memory starts getting into problems. And again you actually have to check what you select visually, something I've been trying hard to avoid. Combined with "hold to expand" and "expandable compasses", you're starting to go the quite ineffective route.

Four slots only is actually optimal. If eight, then some prefer double rings, others 45° angle increments. If limited to four angles, what game do we get? Chrysis (iirc). If we let those four expand into subitems, what game do we get? OFP DR. If limited to eight angles, what game do we get? Not sure, but I think something in the line of BF2 (not familar with this one) based on the inputs in this thread. And two things has been said; it wouldn't be enough to cover Armas vast range of possibilities, and it mostly deals with reporting in MP. With 16 slots on just a few compass keys (we have nine keys now in the number key system, and still uses submenus), you get all the commands available, and even have room for custom or later expansion which now is deemed to fill up the action menu.

I seriously disagree, I've used radial menu's with up to 12 and 14 slots and could easily go higher.

My motoric "adapted" very well to that, and I've seen many others do it so I think that's a problem only you have.

Post.

Wamingo, that is a very good demonstration of the system we want, this is how it should be!

[Richey79 10]

Some interesting posts making suggestions about the Arma2:PR command interface, including quite a clean interface someone started making:

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f440-pr-arma2-general-discussion/77887-arma2-q-8.html

(The interesting stuff's on page 8 of the thread).

[wamingo 1]

Note first, I wrote '4' = addAction, but I didn't really intend for it to take over the action-menu as such, instead it would be an alternative place for mods.

Unfortunately I think your priority on efficiency is where we'll never be able to agree. The inability to move or go prone is what I'd call inefficient.

Intuitive functionality is my proposal, not speed of execution.

But I actually agree that a multiple ring system could be a good idea - even with first ring having 11 options or more. Especially in consideration for mods, but I'd also like to see even more commands like:

Thanks, Need Pickup, Wait for Me, Friendly Fire.

Enemies Behind/Left/Right/Front.

They all need a spot and so multiple rings may be a good idea where needed.

[PacX 10]

Unfortunately I think your priority on efficiency is where we'll never be able to agree. The inability to move or go prone is what I'd call inefficient..

Err, are you talking to me :P?

I'd rather be able to move, go prone, crouch, standup than turn my head.