[crossfire] gtkv2 client vs gtk client gap list.

[Mark Wedel]

Yann Chachkoff wrote:
>> Briefly discussed on irc, but also related to other discussions, is perhaps
>> what client(s) to use going forward. To me, at some level, keeping the
>> gtk(v1) client about may not make a lot of sense.
> 
> I'm not sure about that, at least not on the short term. The gtkv2 is far
> from complete IMHO. On the longer term, it is probably correct that the gtkv1
> would get superceded at some point, though.

  But what at the main features that are missing?  IMO, there is a lot of stuff 
in gtkv1 client that I'm not sure people use.  One being the keybinding 
interface - do people use that very much, or do people just use command line. 
It doesn't make sense to add features that no one needs.

> 
>> Especially if we start going down the path of new character creation and
>> other widgets - I don't look forward to trying to write those for the gtkv1
>> client.
> 
>> I know a lot of people still use the gtkv1 client.
> 
> Well, I think it is actually more accurate to say that it is the most used
> one :).

  Yes, numbers back you up - from metalforge:
  GTK Unix Client                      6
  GTK Unix Client 1.5.0                3
  GTK Unix Client 1.7.0                1
  GTK Unix Client 1.7.1                7
  GTK Unix Client 1.8.0               22
  GTK Win32 Client 1.7.0               1
  GTK Win32 Client 1.7.1               2
  GTK Win32 Client 1.8.0               7
  GTK Win32 Client 1.8.0 snapshot     19
  GTK2 Unix Client 1.8.0               6
  Perl Bot                             1
  X11 Unix Client                      4
  X11 Unix Client 1.7.0                2
  X11 Unix Client 1.8.0               11

  These numbers are correlated with client and ip address - this likely isn't 
100% accurate (there is a delay between the client connecting and player logging 
in, thus getting IP address), but probably gives an OK estimate.  The number 
could also be skewed - people playing that connect via DHCP will be counted 
numerous times, compared to those on static IPs.



> My most important complain is already well known: gtkv2 requires a 1280x1024
> screen resolution, which is not available (or comfortable) on many screens.
> The resolution currently considered as standard is 1024x768 (a lot of laptops
> are limited to it, while a lot of 17''CRT monitors can only display 1280x1024
> at rather low frequencies). Although I understand that people that got bigger
> screens would want a client best suited for them, let's not forget all those
> who cannot properly display such a big client: they'll have no other choice
> but quit playing, or deal with ugly things like virtual scrolling.
> 
> I think that the problem comes down to the impossibility to reconfigure the
> client interface to suit your needs - not everybody needs/wants a 25x25 map
> display, for example; others may want to get bigger tiles instead of getting
> more. Before scrapping gtkv1, I think that the v2 must provide the same level
> of display configuration.

  I'll look into this.  Note it really comes down to the map display area - if 
the map area is made say ~550x550 pixels (instead of the 800x800 right now), 
that you could either get 17x17 display with full sized images, or 25x25 with 
images resized to be 22x22, or something in between.