I was wandering if there is any way (maybe a console command) to keep the "external" size of the in game HUD unchanged when a hero acquires new abilities. e.g. when Tusk gets his Aghanim's scepter and gains Walrus Kick the abilities become 5 and the HUD resizes to accommodate 5 abilities instead of 4. Can I stop that? I have seen it happening in the HUD used for the TI broadcasted maps where the abilities' icons shrink, instead of the UI expanding.
I have gone through the list of console commands but the number is so vast and the documentation so poor that I couldn't find anything!
Thanks!
Related
I am developing an aframe project on my MacBook pro, late 2013. When running the project, the fan of my computer always spins fast, regardless which browser I use (firefox, safari, chrome) and the project size (also happens with a project just containing a simple a-box).
aframe-stats show me that my project (1028244 vertices, 342748 faces) still runs with 20 fps.
Is it somehow possible to limit the frame rate to 10fps in order to keep my computer quite? Or any other way to limit the flop-consumption of the aframe project? I already tried a native approach with sudo cputhrottle plugin-container 10 but that did not just throttle the aframe-renderer but the whole firefox browser. Can I pull the break somewhere in the JavaScript or the Browser settings?
It's difficult to say without your project code. Large data sets will simply crank out even a high spec macbook pro. I have found it helpful to pause any rendering whenever possible to quiet the users' machines.
I personally removed automated next animation frame rendering in favor of waiting for controls and objects to change.
For example:
this.controls.addEventListener( 'change', function(e){ addToRenderStack(); });
A simple function addtorenderstack puts in a new value in a list for a render, with the expectation that the render will occur at some point in the future and not right away. the list can also be used to log who requested the render in the call stack, and narrow down performance hogs.
addtorenderstack places a render request in a list. In the requestanimationframe loop, if the list has any length, a render is called on the scene. The stack is immediately cleared rather than processed one by one. If controls or animations continue to make render requests, the list will have a length again and request animationframe will process them in the same way with another render.
In this way, the code only renders when absolutely required. This saved me much grinding on framerate and the fans only come on during intensive operations and then shutdown when its complete, much like a typical 3d game experience.
Your mileage may vary depending on what's happening in your app. I work in engineering so often the view of the 3d world is stopped as an engineer examines or shows a model.
How to I create a load page?
Such as a progress bar or some sort of control that will display on how long will it take to load?
Progress bars are generally not a good idea unless you can with a high degree of certainty know exactly how long something is going to take.
Instead creating some sort of loading image is generally a better idea and I'm sure you've seen the switch in the industry to this style. (A spinning circle on the tab in Google Chrome for example when the page is loading, or the rotating circles in the bottom right of the screen for most Xbox 360 games).
As for how to do it, there isn't a lot of complexity to it. Your game runs in a loop and most long running things like loading happen in the background so all you have to do is keep checking in every Update call if that thing you're waiting on is still happening. If it is continue showing the "loading" graphic. Ideally you'd be handling that with some sort of game state indicator so that all your game has to do is switch to a "loading" or "waiting" state and the game would automatically drawing the standard waiting/loading screen for your game.
For more understanding of Game State I've got a fairly lengthy tutorial that you can read on the subject called "The State of Things"
I recently had a client contact me asking for an update to his project that I used to maintain/develop years ago.
It was done using Macromedia Director (now Adobe Director) and Lingo. Since I haven't developed anything using these technology in such a long time I need some assistance.
The majority of the changes are simple, but what has got me stumped is making the application be able to toggle between full-screen projector and windowed-mode.
This is how it is organised:
I have a stub projector, which is lightweight and ensures a quick start-time.
The stub projector loads the main movie. ("#::Content:Main")
This stub projector is published with in full-screen mode.
Now, I can create a projector that is windowed and one that is full-screen mode by publishing separate executables. However what the client wants is the ability to switch this at runtime - is this even possible?
I have found a few workarounds that kinda work (setting the display-rect and stage-rect to the desktop size) but introduce numerous compatibility issues.
Any advice? Solutions?
I am tempted to say that it isn't possible to switch at runtime and recommend that he publishes either a full-screen or a windowed version.
For future reference: http://www.directorforum.com/showthread.php?p=38795#post38795
Well there are different ways to
define "full screen", but all can be
done at runtime:
1) The projector automatically adjusts
the computer's display resolution to
match the dimensions of the movie and
hides the taskbar/dock. This is
generally what "full screen" means in
modern parlance. You can check out
various Xtras for switching the
resolution on the fly.
2) In Director terms, publishing a
projector 'full screen' just means
that the projector window has no
titlebar, takes up the full dimensions
of the display, hides the
taskbar/dock, and has the movie
content centered on screen framed by a
solid background color. This is a
pretty lame implementation of full
screen since it doesn't make the movie
appear any bigger onscreen. This can
be set at runtime by manipulating the
rects that you mention and using an
Xtra to hide the taskbar. Not sure
what "compatibility issues" you ran
into.
3) Graphically stretch the movie so
that its actual content takes up the
entire screen. The easiest way to do
this is by altering the drawRect. But
this can result in distorted graphics
depending on how much stretching is
occurring, since no antialiasing is
used to smooth the stretched pixels.
I noticed StackOverflow appears to be targeting screen resolution widths of 1024px or more. I also checked Amazon, NBC, MSN, & AOL which target more lay users, and they all appear to be targeting the same width.
Is 1024px the current recommended width for web apps targeting the largest cross-section of users who use default monitor resolution/browser size?
Use liquid layout. Then you can easily accommodate everyone from ~800 to ~1600 width, and with a bit more work and care even lower-resolution devices too. This also gives users #1024 some leeway to zoom the page if they find the text too small.
Remember there'll be things like netbooks which don't have the big screens we expect today. You can get away with a horizontal scrollbar, but if you have to scroll the page just to get the main body of text in, you're lost.
Before sounding so condescending, you may want to read up on the modern user base. Netbooks. PDAs. Smartphones. Smartbooks (you do know what those are, being very sophisticated, right?). Programmers who have their screen in portrait orientaton. People who stack their windows side by side. Kiosks.
UPDATE As per conversation with John, I edited the question to change the tenor a bit to reflect his original intent. However, the original paragraph that I wrote is still true- I haven't seen the latest statistics but the days of "90% of users have AxB resultion/window size on their browser" are probably forever gone, what with wide screen laptops and mobile devices. Makes life more exciting for UI designers :)
Having said that, to develop a really usable web site, you need to couple flowing layout with, ideally, ability to use portlets and portal framework (think My Yahoo), so people can choose the page layout most comfortable for them.
make a good use of 960.gs and you will set everything that you need to start a good web site :)
(source: balexandre.com)
The 960 Grid System is an effort to streamline web development workflow by providing commonly used dimensions, based on a width of 960 pixels. There are two variants: 12 and 16 columns, which can be used separately or in tandem.
960 GS it's a lovely start, doing web or images, they have a complete template for almost any good design program (Photoshop, Ilustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc) as well a CSS generator and a Grid Overlay to help you with the website.
I use it and it's fantastic! check out the demo
Nettuts has a tutorial and video. WooThemes wrote a post entitled “Why we love 960.gs” and use it as a starting point for their WordPress themes. Spanish speakers can also check out tutorials by Jepser Bernardino and Miguel Angel Alvarez.
Unsophisticated? I think that's a bit of a rude way to describe the unwashed masses. I suppose every one and their dog has a 1024px width monitor now thanks to the likes of dell and others...
The maximum I would consider targeting as my "base" is 1280x1024, but I would be much more likely to go 1024x768.
That said, in my current projects I try to do a liquid layout with a min-width of 800 to accomidate netbooks and usually a max-width of around 1000px (970 usually). Of course, I also have the luxury of designing for myself, so I have the privilege of telling IE6 users that they should upgrade, which makes the liquid layouts much easier to design.
Summary:
Design with your browser's inner dimensions set to 1250x668 to satisfy 92.7% of users.
I like being stats-driven. To this end, W3Schools has a nice Browser Display Statistics page, which they update periodically with new statistics on how common each screen resolution is.
As of January 2015, 92.7% of browsers visiting W3Schools pages were attached to displays larger than 1024x768, though 39.3% of all displays were limited to 768 pixels in height (or lower), mostly due to the 33% of them having 1366x768 displays.
Unfortunately, W3Schools measured screen resolution rather than the inner dimensions used for rendering web page content. It'd be real nice to get stats on users' window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight instead.
Because we don't have these, we have to reserve room for window decorations that may be larger than our own, as well as browser widgets that may further take away from the space dedicated to rendering a web site. Additionally, not all users browse the web in a maximized web browser, though I think we can ignore that if we assume lower-resolution displays will have maximized browsers.
Windows 7 seems the biggest offender at eating up screen real estate, with what I'm measuring as 30-40px for the task bar (I had to search for a screen shot, as I don't run Windows). Firefox with titlebar, menubar, bookmarks toolbar, and status bar eats another 159px while the slimmer modern FF only consumes 64px. Let's use the slim version and assume around 100px of vertical space will be lost. Maximized browsers don't appear to consume any extra horizontal space, so you really only need to account for the scroll bar, but I'd reserve a few pixels for window edges just in case, bringing us up to 30px.
A few years ago (when I did more web design than I do today), I'd size my own browser to an inner size of 800x550 and made sure that most pages would not have scroll bars. Nowadays, it looks like that can be expanded to around an inner size of 1250x668.
You can check your inner size by putting this in your location bar:
javascript:alert(window.innerWidth + "x" + window.innerHeight)
Those values are read-only; you used to be able to run something like this to resize your inner dimensions, but (thanks to abusive advertisers) it no longer works:
javascript:window.resizeTo(window.outerWidth-window.innerWidth+1250,window.outerHeight-window.innerHeight+668)
One parting note: Just because you're assuming a certain size doesn't mean you shouldn't ensure that your site still works at smaller resolutions. The page can be ugly, but it must be functional!
Many animation effects are simply gratuitous eye candy -- however, there are situations where animations effectively communicate to the user what's going on.
What are some of your favorite uses for animations, and what specific animation type would you use?
E.g.: Animate items downwards when a new item is inserted into a list
I really like Google Chrome's use when a file is being downloaded. It's hard to describe, but, it's a circle that fills like a pie chart as the download progresses, and the circle is overlaid with the icon for the file you're downloading. Very slick.
One example I can think of is the animation used by operating systems when you minimize a window.
Both Microsoft Windows and Apple OS X animate the window going down to the taskbar (or the Dock in OS X) to show the user where the window went. Otherwise novice users that hit minimize by accident might have trouble getting the window back.
I don't use linux, but I'm pretty sure it does the same. I'm not being discriminative =)
From enjoy3d.com
enjoy3d.com http://worldsware.com/images/mouse.gif
Press your mouse button
and move to look around.
There is a very nice paper by Ben Bederson and Angela Boltman in which they evaluate the impact of animation on user’s ability to build a mental map of the information in the space:
Does Animation Help Users Build Mental Maps
of Spatial Information?
I believe that all visual changes should not be swift. Be it status notification, window maximized/minimized, or data deleted/added. I cannot find a reference, but usually it is recommended that all animations should not be around 1-2 seconds, matching human's response time.
My favorite uses of animation is not in a commercial software (though Apple is good at this) but a research paper called Phosphor which I consider one of the great UI ideas that have not yet implemented into major operating systems.
AJAX loading gifs - you've got to have an indicator that you definitely registered an event and you're doing something about it
Progress bars are nice for things that take more than a moment or two, but only when they are accurate. An inaccurate progress bar is worse than none, in my opinion.