In the forthcoming Simutrans-Experimental 10.0, there is a new method for displaying the current time in the lower left hand corner, showing how many hours and minutes are in each month using the journey time scale for times, rather than dividing the month into days, etc..
Conventionally, Pak128.Britain-Ex has used the display of the date/day/time based on a division of months. Do people think that it would be clearer to use the new system by default, or is the existing system clearer? (Note that users can easily switch between the two by changing simuconf.tab settings, and this particular setting is not saved with the saved game or transmitted accross the network).
Examples of the two different methods are below: first the old, then the new.
I think the old way looks better, though I imagine the other one might also be more useful.
Which, then, do you think is more important: form or function?
I'm a bit confused at the time stamp in the new method.
Is that (total time elapsed)/(real time needed for 1month)?
so in the picture, it's: 1hr elapsed/3h12m = 1 month?
Also, instead of displaying month name, I'm a bit more used to just the month number when displaying in yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss format
Hmm, I find the month name much more user friendly than a number that could represent many things other than a month.
The new method is indeed as you surmise: the time in question is the time used to measure journey time as divided by the in-game length of a month.
well, I'm not that adamant about the month being represented by a number, but I think a minor tweak in the punctuations will make it easier to read.
something like this, perhaps?
Winter, 1911-February | 1:01:42 / 3:12:00
The default should be what would be most intuitive to a new player.
On the one hand, the old method is familiar from Simutrans-Standard.
On the other hand, the new method immediately emphasises that Experimental cares about time in a way that Standard doesn't.
Hmmm....
Carl,
you sum up the pros and cons very well! Does anyone have any thoughts of which outweighs the other?
As to this suggested display:
Quote
Winter, 1911-February | 1:01:42 / 3:12:00
I must confess, I'm not a fan: it might be a national specific thing, but, in the UK, at least, the convention is to go from the smallest unit of date to the largest, so "February, 1911 | 1:01:42 / 3:12:00" is probably better (I don't think that the season needs to be spelt out when people have the graphics, and people will probably know what season that February is in in any event).
Of course, I realise that the original notation is also in that order, although I don't think that the dash makes it clearer. Perhaps the new time notation should be separate from and in addition to the existing month notations as opposed to being instead of it? That would allow for all of the existing month notation options to be preserved, as I know that there are national variations.
I agree that the season is redundant here.
Keeping both notations in place is an interesting idea. One worry is that having two separate (and conflicting) hh:mm displays might be overly confusing.
Yes, that's true, but if the default is set to use a date notation that doesn't display the time, that should be ameliorated, I think.
Yes, I agree -- I think I completely misunderstood your proposal in the previous post, so ignore my last point! :)
on the southern hemisphere, the seasons are reversed, so IMO, the seasonal display is not necessary.
@james
I think this time format: "February, 1911 | 1:01:42 / 3:12:00" is good too and it is more consistent with standard, so it'll be less confusing for those coming over from standard.
The only other thought that occurred is adding some explanatory words and giving units for the time.
the first clock is not obvious on the forum, but in game, it'll be moving, so it should become obvious that it is a counter.
So something like...
February, 1911 | 1:01:42 / 3h 12m 00s per month
Interesting. I'm not sure that "per month" there is strictly accurate, though, as the "/" in the preceding block is syntactically equivalent to "per", so the syntax of the first part of the "sentence", such as it is, is inconsistent with the second part.
February, 1911 | 1:01:42 / 3h 12m 00s / month
should work too.
How about mix it all together:
14 February 1911 8:25 (1:01:42 / 3:12:00)
or shorter version:
14/02/1911 8:25 (1:01:42 / 3:12:00)
or a bit explanation:
Sim time: 14/02/1911 8:25 | Real time: 1:01:42 of 3:12:00 per month
or change every few second:
14 February 1911 8:25
February 1911, 1:01:42 of 3:12:00 per month
Won't the '8:25' just be confusing, here?
Quote from: carlbaker on August 28, 2011, 10:14:22 AM
Won't the '8:25' just be confusing, here?
I think so.
Just thinking about making the best of both world. :)