Locations dialog missing "Importance" setting?

[don]

Howdy Chris and other developers,

1) Is the Locations dialog missing a setting for "Importance"? It has one for Size, thus I would assume it should have one for Importance, so the user could control this also. Or, is it purely program-controlled via altitude?

2) I reported earlier that the Mark Features checkbox of this dialog does not stay checked, nor does it appear to do anything (ver 1.3.1 pre7). What is it supposed to do?

3) In this dialog box, would it be possible to make the Size and Importance values a "set" of From and To values? In other words, SizeFrom, SizeTo, ImportanceFrom and ImportanceTo. This would allow the user to define what labels to display in a more precise manner. --Just an idea , that might turn out to be a code nightmare.

Keep up the great work team

-Don

[chris]

Howdy Chris and other developers,

1) Is the Locations dialog missing a setting for "Importance"? It has one for Size, thus I would assume it should have one for Importance, so the user could control this also. Or, is it purely program-controlled via altitude?

Internally, importance overrides size when specified in a location definition. I suppose it's misleading to label the slider 'Size' . . . Instead, it should probably just be labeled show less and show more at either end. In any case, it's intentional that the user never sees importance mentioned explicitly. It's just a device for .ssc creators to make physically small but very significant locations that can seen from a good distance away.

2) I reported earlier that the Mark Features checkbox of this dialog does not stay checked, nor does it appear to do anything (ver 1.3.1 pre7). What is it supposed to do?

Not yet implemented . . . I want to put some marker other than labels on locations--a dot or crosshair perhaps. But this will have to wait, so I should remove the dialog item for now.

3) In this dialog box, would it be possible to make the Size and Importance values a "set" of From and To values? In other words, SizeFrom, SizeTo, ImportanceFrom and ImportanceTo. This would allow the user to define what labels to display in a more precise manner. --Just an idea , that might turn out to be a code nightmare.

It's not a code nightmare, but I think it complexifies the UI without adding much benefit. At least for me, the single slider controlling the number of locations visible is adequate.

--Chris

[don]

Thank you Chris. I now understand how the label feature is implemented with Size and Importance, and how the single slider should do the trick, as long as the info in the Location files is consistent (same use of Size and Importance values) from one file creator to another <smile>.

[chris]

Thank you Chris. I now understand how the label feature is implemented with Size and Importance, and how the single slider should do the trick, as long as the info in the Location files is consistent (same use of Size and Importance values) from one file creator to another <smile>.

Yes . . . some sort of guidelines need to be established. For planets other than Earth, importance can be omitted so that it defaults to the size. The only exceptions I can think of are spacecraft landing sites, which I think are worth giving high importance.

On Earth, there are more judgement calls involved . . . What importance should be assigned to a city of one million people? A capital city? The VLA radio telescopes?

--Chris