Ruleset filter broke usability of Savage Worlds Deluxe/Adventure Edition content

[Valyar]

The new ruleset filter is extremely aggressive in the SWD/SWADE ruleset, it basically hides almost everything I own when I create campaign with SWADE.
Is this something that has to be fixed on each module or on the filter level? I need the old resources available in swade on demand...

[Valyar]

OK, false alarm, I didn't notice that there are now pages... Can the content be populated as per the windows size?

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43823&stc=1&d=1613550475

[Moon Wizard]

Doug raised this to me from another thread. Of course, he was also the one that was constantly hounding me about how slow the module screen was too. You just can't win...

Anyway, the issue is that there is no easy way to determine how many modules "fit" in the window dynamically, because the individual windows can actually grow bigger/smaller vertically depending on the text inside. It becomes a bit of a circular layout issue. I'll have to review if I can add something more dynamic in a way that doesn't cause performance issues.

Regards,
JPG

[The High Druid]

Would there be anything stopping it being a user-determined fixed value in the options (Rather than dynamic)? That way everyone can set it to the value that works best for them.

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah; but Doug is not a proponent of mixed navigation, and I'm not a proponent of random minimal impact options like that. So, it will need to wait until I see if I can code something dynamic.

Regards,
JPG

[Jiminimonka]

Yeah; but Doug is not a proponent of mixed navigation, and I'm not a proponent of random minimal impact options like that. So, it will need to wait until I see if I can code something dynamic.

Regards,
JPG

You could limit the module name and author name to 2 lines of text only under the tokens. That would make the "real estate" of each module the same size. Might allow dynamic resizing if they are not all random sized like they are currently.

[spoonhead]

Not sure what to do with all that empty space. You need to come up with a better solution.

There appears to be no reason no why you can resize the activation window, if you can't view more than 10 modules at a time.

43879

[Moon Wizard]

The default window size only needs to show ten. Of course, it's going to look empty if you expand to fill your screen. It will be looked at eventually.

Regards,
JPG

[spoonhead]

The default window size only needs to show ten. Of course, it's going to look empty if you expand to fill your screen. It will be looked at eventually.

Regards,
JPG

But why choose 10? Would speed really be compromised if it was set 20/30/40?

[Moon Wizard]

Because in the default window size, you can only see 10. If we had more in the window, then you would have to scroll and page. (see the comment on multiple navigation modes above)

Regards,
JPG

[Valyar]

Another approach is to have fixed window size for this specific window and increase from 10 to something more meaningful.
I can live with that for now, knowing that MW is looking into dynamic approach and solution to the problem.

[Weissrolf]

I do not concur that restricting the modules window to 10 entries per page qualifies as a "solution". Offer a list view to get rid of the icons or whatever slows down processing instead, or generally improve on the performance of displaying simple lists. Up to now I used an extension to fit even more modules per page, because flipping pages via minuscule buttons is inconvenient.

Current solution:
https://i.imgur.com/rbzE10r.png

Former solution:
https://i.imgur.com/Hm31erC.png

[Ludd_G]

Another vote for this solution actually not working for me at all. Personally I'd be looking for at least 30, probably more like 40 per page for comfortable navigation. With 10 a page I'm presently looking at 33 pages... But having choice would be best for all.

[Jiminimonka]

It works fine - I have pages of modules, and I don't need to see all of them on one page. I worked for a Yugoslavian guy once, had the office PC all set up with folders so it was organised, but he insisted the desktop be covered in icons instead of tidy in folders...

Those filters at the bottom now help a LOT.

[Weissrolf]

And now create sub-folders sorted by months, but only use 10 of them. Good luck.

[Amerisun]

My vote is feeling sorry for the developers being between a rock and a hard place. :-) Needing all windows and data in the application to be fast and responsive for new and old users, without killing too much functionality is always the juggling that a developer has to do. I have to do the same in my applications. I remember all the posts about how slow this window was and reason why users like Weissrolf (and myself) used the modules to show more in one page without graphics.

Since Unity is a game engine (which makes for amazing lighting / fog / graphics in the map itself) is not great at User Interfaces (or should we say less good). So it will always be a juggling act here of trying to have enough functionality and visuals for us on the UI side, and what functionality they actually have access to manipulate in combination with speed.

I also don't like it, but understand it. As a normal application you want to interact with (weather it's Web / Mac / PC / Unix) it's unintuitive. Some of us older users know you could see them all, if a mod was available that showed all of them again, and we all know it will slow the UI down then it's a choice on our end. But from a product point of view understandable why SmiteWorks is trying to make their product work well across all role playing systems and computer types, and is stuck because of the platforms limitations.

One option would be to make a max height / width of each of the modules. Then it would be a little bit of math to figure out how many maximum boxes could fill the windows currently open amount of space (x / y size), you would always be smaller than the window that is shown because some of the modules would use the minimum height / width, but it would never have more than half of the windows blank.

[Jiminimonka]

I feel the devs have more important things to work on, and this was a step in the right direction, even if a few people don't like it; have you seen how many people complain about the UI needing changes and then when the UI gets changes people moan they liked the old UI?!?! If I was a moderator on this forum I would be fired, and I hold my tongue because I like this forum and don't want to get banned for speaking my mind.

The recent patches are all about making FGU better, even if you can't see the big picture (and Smiteworks don't have to provide you with a roadmap, because when something gets missed they will have days of people whining about how this or that thing didn't happen on time and why why why blah blah blah) - that was self censored as I typed. :)

[Ludd_G]

Sorry, but I think most people commenting realise the situation and have no problem with change but we've just jumped from one extreme (show everything, stall the program whilst loading) to the other (show next to nothing and have it be really quick), and I think most people would like to see some kind of middle ground. I'm one of those people who would love many aspects of FGU to be overhauled and brought up to date (I realise this is a subjective statement) with less regard for backward compatibility and honouring of the previous design paradigm, but that doesn't mean I think change will always be done the best way, especially in the first iteration, and not expressing our opinion, as you seem to be suggesting, means that finding a happy medium would be a distant prospect for both users and the SW developers, and I don't think you want that?

[Jiminimonka]

Sorry, but I think most people commenting realise the situation and have no problem with change but we've just jumped from one extreme (show everything, stall the program whilst loading) to the other (show next to nothing and have it be really quick), and I think most people would like to see some kind of middle ground. I'm one of those people who would love many aspects of FGU to be overhauled and brought up to date (I realise this is a subjective statement) with less regard for backward compatibility and honouring of the previous design paradigm, but that doesn't mean I think change will always be done the best way, especially in the first iteration, and not expressing our opinion, as you seem to be suggesting, means that finding a happy medium would be a distant prospect for both users and the SW developers, and I don't think you want that?

Express away Ludd_G - I was just venting.

[LordEntrails]

Moon has made it clear they will re-look at it. But not now as they have more important things to do.

This thread could be really valuable to him if the discussion continues and in the end someone summarizes the suggestions with thoughts/pro/cons/etc. And then maybe even putting a suggestion or two on the Wish List if appropriate.

Then when it comes times for them to re-address the issue their will be a concise capture/documentation they can refer to from a user perspective. Hopefully no one will expect more input from the Devs until that time comes.