Author Topic: QuickMech (New mech design program) ## Updated to v0.8 (Read 51856 times)

Chuzzwozza · « **on:** 30 December 2011, 02:25:06 »

I thought it was high time someone built a mech design program with a slightly more modern interface, without the little window full of tabs.
No-one else was writing one, so I did it myself.

It loads MegaMek .mtf files, and saves .mtf, a .png record sheet, and a text summary.

Here's a screenshot (updated to v0.7)

It's a .jar file, so should run on any OS, just double click it.

Using it should be pretty self explanatory: just right-click on available items to mount them, and right-click on mounted items to move/remove them.

Download it here: http://quickmech.wordpress.com/
Post comments on the site above, or email me on dev.quickmech@gmail.com with any questions, suggestions, problems, etc...
Or post here, of course! ;)

EDIT: 15 Jan 2012 - updated to v0.8

v0.2 changes:
- the heat diagram now mixes colours for various levels, as per the damage diagram
- it is now possible to remove a heatsink by clicking on it (instead of using the central column control)
- consolidated some weapon categories
- TSM, ES, and FF crits are now automatically displaced when adding a (non-splittable)weapon to an otherwise full location, to save manually moving them beforehand

v0.3: alpha, released 4 Jan 2012
- integreated ammo tree into weapon tree
- moved heat and damage diagrams off record sheet
- left mouse button no longer opens context menus
- design can now be overweight (still cannot be saved while overweight)
- added quantity column to W&E list
- fixed bug: About window was not showing text
- fixed bug: MASC box was not being ticked on sheet

v0.4: alpha, released 5 Jan 2012
   - Fixed bug: context menus not opening in Windows (broken in 0.3)
   - Added ability to click record sheet fluff box to load image
   - Unused record sheet dots now fade instead of fill
   - Fixed bug: added tohit penalties for MRM, Heavy Lasers, Rocket Launchers

v0.5: beta, released 6 Jan 2012
- Fixed bug: Medium Laser ranges
- Support for other language versions of QM

v0.6: beta, released 8 Jan 2012
   - Bug fix: Artemis IV launchers not saving properly
   - Bug fix: BV calculation for rear facing weapons
   - Updated sword mass to errata rules
   - Updated jump heat to errata rules
   - Updated MASC cost to errata rules
   - Updated MASC mass to errata rules
   - Bug fixed: removed bug that caused save to fail, introduced on 0.5

v0.7: beta, released 12 Jan 2012
- Weapons & Equipment list has been ordered, and ammo now displays shots available
- Locations on the crit table now automatically reorder their crits depending on the type of item mounted there
- The resolution of the save record sheet image has been quadrupled, for better printing
- When loading a mech the fluff image will load automatically if present
- Added a Save dialogue box
- BV SpeedFactor has been updated to errata rules
- Targeting Computers can now temporarily go over-weight
- The HAG 40 is now splittable, as per errata
- Biped mechs must now remove the LAA to mount a Gauss in an arm, as per errata
- A mounted item can now be moved by bumping ES/TSM/FF crits even when there are no empty crits on the mech

v0.8: beta: released 15 Jan 2012
   - Added "critOrder.txt" to allow custom ordering on crits in a location
   - Reordered W&E list locations
   - Fixed some weapon/ammo data errors
   - Fixed a Windows specific error in the text summary save file
   - Fixed a bug that drew the diagram image over the weapons tree when repainting

acemarke · « **Reply #1 on:** 30 December 2011, 02:52:53 »

Very interesting. I'll be honest and say I definitely prefer SSW's interface. Was able to duplicate a couple of designs pretty quickly (OSR-5W and AS7-D-H2). BV calculations matched what was listed in SSW. Personally, I'd bump the labeling from "0.1 alpha" to more like a "0.5 beta" - seems pretty stable and the existing features work correctly (and as a fellow programmer, I KNOW what that difference feels like).

The main nitpick that comes to mind right away is the auto-placement of items like DHS, FF, and ES, which then have to be manually reorganized in order to make room for the pieces you actually want. If you really want to handle those automatically, allow other items to be added to a section that's already full of ES or FF, and automatically bump the ES/FF crits elsewhere.

Nice work - you've clearly put a lot of time and effort into this. Any thoughts on opening the source, or putting up an actual issues tracker? (For what it's worth, I'd also be interested in seeing your "rant" on the UIs of other mech designers, even if it's only on the blog - you obviously seems to have some opinions on the subject.)

VhenRa · « **Reply #2 on:** 30 December 2011, 02:55:19 »

How do you add ammo?

Ah right. Scroll Right. Damn Widescreen optimised interfaces. I hate them!

greywolf79 · « **Reply #3 on:** 30 December 2011, 03:23:24 »

Interesting... I will try to take a look at this tomorrow, but from the looks of it I think I will still prefer SSW - but I give kudos to you for making it (I have been fiddling with making my own editor myself).

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #4 on:** 30 December 2011, 03:30:48 »

Quote

The main nitpick that comes to mind right away is the auto-placement of items like DHS, FF, and ES, which then have to be manually reorganized in order to make room for the pieces you actually want. If you really want to handle those automatically, allow other items to be added to a section that's already full of ES or FF, and automatically bump the ES/FF crits elsewhere.

If those mounts are annoying you while placing weapons, you can do them last. Place weapons first, then select endo, FF, extra HS, and they'll automatically be placed where there's room.

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #5 on:** 30 December 2011, 06:52:16 »

Have been thinking about what you suggested, acemarke, and I think I could probably add menu options to force mount to locations that are too full only because of ES, FF, etc, without too much trouble. I will check tomorrow.

Before I make a change like that I'd love to hear from a few more people: how many other people are finding the same thing annoying?

Also, opinions on exactly *what* could be forced to move,
FF, ES and TSM are a given, but what about heat sinks and jump jets? I'm currently inclined not to allow them to be force moved, for two reasons: one, it will (probably - must check) be considerably easier for me to code (single crit FF/ES/TSM vs multiple crits DHS/IJJ), and two, the locations of JJ and HS are far more likely to matter to the user than FF, ES or TSM.
What do people think about that?

MadCapellan · « **Reply #6 on:** 30 December 2011, 07:10:47 »

Want to be my hero? Design a modern vehicle or aerospace design program. The internet has always had dozens of options for designing BattleMechs. Right now, I'm rather invested in terms of time and data in SSW, so I can't see myself switching over. Make me a vehicle or fighter design program which follows all the design rules and I'll have nothing but accolades. :)

martian · « **Reply #7 on:** 30 December 2011, 07:20:45 »

Honestly, SSW is perfectly working for me and my common needs. It has many functions I consider "handy". Plus, the user interface of SSW is much better thought-out than in your Quick-Mech.

It would be much better if you will direct your effort towards vehicle design tool.

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #8 on:** 30 December 2011, 07:35:06 »

Quote from: martian on 30 December 2011, 07:20:45

Honestly, SSW is perfectly working for me and my common needs. It has many functions I consider "handy". Plus, the user interface of SSW is much better thought-out than in your Quick-Mech.

It would be much better if you will direct your effort towards vehicle design tool.

I'm not here to rag on any other program. I don't consider QuickMech to be in opposition, or even competition, with other designers. It fills a slightly different role to other programs (the same is true for every program), and while I've no doubt there are plently of long time players who wouldn't dream of changing design programs, I'm sure QuickMech will slot in besides the others, and carve out a little niche for itself.

I'm not ever going to make a vehicle/aerospace tool, so people can forget that right now ;-)

I strongly disagree with you about the interfaces Martian, but I'd be very interested to hear about what specific aspects of QuickMechs GUI you feel are less well thought out than SSW's?

VhenRa · « **Reply #9 on:** 30 December 2011, 08:43:58 »

The fact it is wide-screen optimised for one.

martian · « **Reply #10 on:** 30 December 2011, 08:44:26 »

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 07:35:06

I strongly disagree with you about the interfaces Martian, but I'd be very interested to hear about what specific aspects of QuickMechs GUI you feel are less well thought out than SSW's?

First, if nothing else, I don't have wide-screen display. It means that a half of your UI is hidden for me. Of course I can move it with a slider, but it's definitely not comfortable.

Second, criticals placement. SSW gives me control where I will place DHS, JJs or other equipment with a drag and drop. Quickmech does not, at least not that complete. What I find ~~quite~~ very annoying (for me) is that Quickmech attempts to fill empty place and moves items to fill empty room left after removed item.
Another thing: When I wish to remove one DHS and I right-click on it, the context menu shows greyed-out option to remove it, but actually I can't do that. And if I change the number of heat sinks in the right (blue) column, just one random heat sink disappears.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 03:30:48

If those mounts are annoying you while placing weapons, you can do them last. Place weapons first, then select endo, FF, extra HS, and they'll automatically be placed where there's room.

SSW allows me to place them as "I" see fit and in the moment "I" see fit. Your program does not.

Third, Armour. SSW gives me option to auto-balance armour by location. QuickMech does not. What I appreciate on SSW is that it combines Armour and chassis in one diagram, so I can see at a glance how many armour points I can add. SSW has option to set armour tonnage and just split up those armour points. In combination with auto-balance feature it makes this task in SSW really simple and quick.

Fourth, context menu in the right half of the UI. I hate that every time I click on some item, context menu jumps in. I find it really annoying.

Fifth, adding equipment. In SSW I can choose between either ballistic or missile or energy etc. ... equipment. So if I am deciding what cannon to use, I am listing only through tab containing them. In QuickMech the UI looks much more cluttered.

Sixth, chassis diagram and armour diagram should be together, what's the purpose of wedging two colourful diagrams between them?

Those are just a few random thoughts.

I don't know why I should use something in development stage if I can use SSW, which is stable, for free, much more comfortable to use for me, has many useful features QuickMech will probably never have, is supported on this forum.

If you want other people to use your program, than this program should offer something other comparable programs do not have. Advantage or something ... I think I stay with SSW. Just my personal opinion.

God and Davion · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 December 2011, 09:18:35 »

You did a great work. It took me some effort to use the interface but it was good. It is nice to see new blood coming. The program is internationalized? I mean, if you just change the words in several tables you can have a Spanish (or French, or German) Edition? It would be beyond cool.

cavingjan · « **Reply #12 on:** 30 December 2011, 09:42:18 »

I agree with the posters above that the widescreen is more of a headache than a help. Tabs are preferable than scrolling. I'm not a fan of the two graphs in the middle. If you remove them, it will free up some space to spread things out and it won't feel as cramped.

I also don't care for the autoplacement of this.

Anything should be able to be replaced except a few items such as actuators, engine, gyro, stealth armor, and anything requires crits in certain locations.

Maniac Actual · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 December 2011, 10:01:45 »

Quote from: MadCapellan on 30 December 2011, 07:10:47

Want to be my hero? Design a modern vehicle or aerospace design program. The internet has always had dozens of options for designing BattleMechs. Right now, I'm rather invested in terms of time and data in SSW, so I can't see myself switching over. Make me a vehicle or fighter design program which follows all the design rules and I'll have nothing but accolades. :)

+1

Saint · « **Reply #14 on:** 30 December 2011, 10:25:19 »

Wow! Nice work [applause]

worktroll · « **Reply #15 on:** 30 December 2011, 14:36:24 »

Got to concur on the widescreen display; without emulating your display mode, it's kind of annoying.

One small, hopefully simple change: rather than making armour and IS dots that aren't used filled in grey, change it so they're unfilled but their outline is made clear instead - this will make the unused dots disappear, giving a slightly less cluttered look.

W.

MajorTom · « **Reply #16 on:** 30 December 2011, 14:45:26 »

First, as a member of the SSW team (not a programmer but tester/breaker from the "way back" early phases of development, before it was even called SSW), let me say that this is a fantastic first release. We're not here for competition but community and new blood is always more than welcome.

Keep at it. SSW was not released to it's immediate community (it began on solaris7.com, hence the name) until it went through numerous iterations and was not released to the greater community until well after that. Every phase of development is a baby step in a path that is long and some times difficult. Listen to the community but try not to let them spoil your vision, either. Soon you'll have a great program and the "OMG ITS NOT SSW/HMP/WHATEVER!!" statements will cease (or, at least drop to a dull roar, lol).

I look forward to seeing further improvements and refinements!

Jellico · « **Reply #17 on:** 30 December 2011, 15:01:45 »

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 07:35:06

I'm not ever going to make a vehicle/aerospace tool, so people can forget that right now ;-)

Any reason why? Seriously. There is MekLab and SSW right now and there are rumors HMP is being worked on again. We are not short of 'Mech design programs.

OTOH

Vehicles: HMV, MekLab
Support Vehicles: Nothing
Large Support Vehicles: Nothing
Aero: HMA is out of date and no longer matches the rules
Large Aero: HMA is out of date and no longer matches the rules
BA: HMBA is out of date and no longer matches the rules
Infantry: Nothing
Protos: HM is out of date and no longer matches the rules

There is a lot of scope out there. And items like Infantry are interesting as they allow you to work out your interface bugs while the actual construction rules are simple and easily fact checked.

Dmon · « **Reply #18 on:** 30 December 2011, 15:34:44 »

Looks promising. I will be keeping an eye on this.

As for the glut of design programes... I am not sure why Rick has never actually dipped into the community and recruited a team of programers.

There are enough out there who work on projects voluntarinly already or possibly opened up the HMP file format to open source for people like MegaMek etc if there is not going to be an update.

(I say about opening up the files because that is the main thing keeping me loyal to HMP at the moment... I have THOUSANDS of files I don't want to have to manually do again)

roosterboy · « **Reply #19 on:** 30 December 2011, 15:56:46 »

Quote from: Dmon on 30 December 2011, 15:34:44

(I say about opening up the files because that is the main thing keeping me loyal to HMP at the moment... I have THOUSANDS of files I don't want to have to manually do again)

Gee, I wonder why a developer hasn't taken steps to make it easier for people to stop using his application? :P

Dmon · « **Reply #20 on:** 30 December 2011, 16:46:17 »

Quote from: roosterboy on 30 December 2011, 15:56:46

Gee, I wonder why a developer hasn't taken steps to make it easier for people to stop using his application? :P

.. because he is making heaps of money from my unused files?

Rick Raisley · « **Reply #21 on:** 30 December 2011, 16:56:34 »

Quote from: Dmon on 30 December 2011, 16:46:17

.. because he is making heaps of money from my unused files?

We must have a VERY different definition of "heaps of money". :P

While I have been putting in lots and lots of time on HMPro6, with the intention to continue on to the other programs when it's done, I will say that my morale certainly goes down every time another free program is released. I'm not blaming anyone. But the incentive to make "heaps of money" just isn't there.

Dmon · « **Reply #22 on:** 30 December 2011, 17:23:14 »

Quote from: Rick Raisley on 30 December 2011, 16:56:34

We must have a VERY different definition of "heaps of money". :P

While I have been putting in lots and lots of time on HMPro6, with the intention to continue on to the other programs when it's done, I will say that my morale certainly goes down every time another free program is released. I'm not blaming anyone. But the incentive to make "heaps of money" just isn't there.

Possibly not... Right now £5 sounds like heaps of money to me until payday :P

I am glad to hear that you are working on HMP6 because was a bit worried you had possibly gotten fed up... Hence my statement about possibly opening up the files yo other systems.. But if you are actively working on it just ignore that... and take my bloody money (after payday)!! [drool]

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #23 on:** 30 December 2011, 17:39:23 »

Thank you, guys! :))

Re. an aerospace/vehicle program again: sorry, not going to happen. Please, ask some other random programmer! ;D

Nicely said MajorTom: community not competition...

I understand any frustration with the widescreen window (my other computer is a 10" netbook) but I think(?) that people without widescreens are really a very small minority. I think it's quite difficult to even buy desktop screens less than 1080p these days? Anyway, my apologies to those without them, but I will stick with the large window.

Fading the dots instead of filling them is not really an option (too much work - I just colour fill them at the moment), but I could change the colour if there is a general consensus that it would be better.

@cavingjan: everything can be moved. Click on an item mounted in a crit.

I must admit i selfishly didn't consider other languages. Perhaps I can load all text fro a text file next version, to allow other languages....

@martian ;)
1. see above.
2. QuickMech does in fact let you place *anything* anywhere (within the rules).
Could you please explain "moves items to fill empty room left after removed item."? If you remove a weapon nothing else will move, so I don't understand what you mean...
You are right about removing heatsinks: it *would* be nice to know which one will go - consider it a new feature of the next version!
3. Er, yes QuickMech does. It autobalances (I'm open to input on refining those balances) either as much armour as will fit, or by the half ton. Maximum armour points are listed next to each location, so you don't even need to multiply by 2! You can't type an armour tonnage in, but you can add by the half ton.
4. All I can say is: don't click?
5. I just used the categories from the TM, but if there are others who feel the same as you it would be trivial for me to change this.
6. Lack of space. I don't see any pressing need for internal structure and armour to be immediately adjacent.
I'm not trying to steal you away from SSW - just giving you and everyone else another option.

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #24 on:** 30 December 2011, 17:49:20 »

Can I get some feedback on the following for v0.2? The more opinions the better:

1. will be able to force an item into a location that is too full only because of FF/ES/TSM mounted there. Should I include heatsinks and jump jets as things that can be automatically moved? Personally I'm thinking "no"...

2. The colour of filled armour dots: should I change it? What to?

3. The autobalancing of armour. Are there locations where it's too light/heavy?

4. Should I reduce the weapon categories to Ballistic, Energy, etc?

greywolf79 · « **Reply #25 on:** 30 December 2011, 19:35:41 »

1. define automatically moved. If you mean a right click menu option that allows you to select an auto-allocate, then yes. if not then I am not sure.
2. Grey/Black is fine for filling in, but I would hope when it comes to printing that it does not print those circles. If it does print them, then black is best.
3. As far as I can recall every program I ever used tends to allocate primarily to CT/LT/RT/H and then to LA/RA/LL/RL and then a small bit to R-CT/LT/RT. So as long as it keeps focus in the main areas before spreading to the arms/legs then it should be fine (some canon mechs have as little as 1-3 points of armor per rear location).
4. Yes. Typically the main categories are Energy/Ballistic/Missile/Equipment/etc and then it would help keep it clean but make it more difficult to look at for sub categories (ie PPC/Laser/Flamer/etc) inside main categories.

Fear Factory · « **Reply #26 on:** 31 December 2011, 02:55:57 »

Great program! Although, designing a good "anything outside of BattleMech" program would be VERY useful (not that your current program isn't because I like it).

Quote from: Rick Raisley on 30 December 2011, 16:56:34

We must have a VERY different definition of "heaps of money". :P

While I have been putting in lots and lots of time on HMPro6, with the intention to continue on to the other programs when it's done, I will say that my morale certainly goes down every time another free program is released. I'm not blaming anyone. But the incentive to make "heaps of money" just isn't there.

Still enjoy and use HMP. SSW and MML, despite being updated with the current rules, still can't compete with HMP.

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #27 on:** 31 December 2011, 03:19:22 »

Thanks for the input guys. I have just posted v0.2, with the following changes:

- the heat diagram now mixes colours for various levels, as per the damage diagram
- it is now possible to remove a heatsink by clicking on it (instead of using the central column control)
- consolidated some weapon categories
- TSM, ES, and FF crits are now automatically displaced when adding a (non-splittable)weapon to an otherwise full location, to save manually moving them beforehand

Have left the armour auto-allocation and dots colour the same for now.

Thanks acemarke and martian for the suggestions!

God and Davion, after reading your post I was planning to move all text to a single file to be loaded, for easy language changes, but I realised it's just not possible without tearing the whole program apart and putting it backtogether again. I do checks on text all over the place (bad coding technique), assuming that certain words will be in certain variables.
So I'm very sorry about that, I really would have liked to make it multilingual, but I needed to think of that before I started... :(

quickmech.wordpress.com

martian · « **Reply #28 on:** 31 December 2011, 03:31:13 »

@martian ;)
1. see above.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

I understand any frustration with the widescreen window (my other computer is a 10" netbook) but I think(?) that people without widescreens are really a very small minority. I think it's quite difficult to even buy desktop screens less than 1080p these days? Anyway, my apologies to those without them, but I will stick with the large window.

So although many people in this thread have told you that there is a problem with that too wide window, you answer is that you won't change your program, but THEY should buy new display. It doesn't need further comment....

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

2. QuickMech does in fact let you place *anything* anywhere (within the rules).
Could you please explain "moves items to fill empty room left after removed item."? If you remove a weapon nothing else will move, so I don't understand what you mean...

If "I" remove a weapon, everything else moves up. Just an example with a left arm:

Before:	After:
1.Shoulder	1.Shoulder
2.Upper arm actuator	2.Upper arm actuator
3.ER PPC	3.ER Medium laser
4.ER PPC	4.PPC
5.ER PPC	5.PPC
6.ER Medium laser	6.PPC
1.PPC	1.Large Pulse laser
2.PPC	2.Large Pulse laser
3.PPC	3.Medium laser
4.Large Pulse laser	4.
5.Large Pulse laser	5.
6.Medium laser	6.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

You are right about removing heatsinks: it *would* be nice to know which one will go - consider it a new feature of the next version!

It's not about just heatsinks. I want every item freely movable with drag-and-drop style, so it pushes away other items. If I have item in slot "6." and want to move it into slot "1.", I can't. That's pretty serious flaw.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

3. Er, yes QuickMech does. It autobalances (I'm open to input on refining those balances) either as much armour as will fit, or by the half ton. Maximum armour points are listed next to each location, so you don't even need to multiply by 2! You can't type an armour tonnage in, but you can add by the half ton.

Other program has got this feature, your does not.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

4. All I can say is: don't click?

Context menu is usually called in many programs just as Windows or Firefox with right-click. Only you made it that it's called with both right and left click.

Quote from: Chuzzwozza on 30 December 2011, 17:39:23

6. Lack of space. I don't see any pressing need for internal structure and armour to be immediately adjacent.

Then move those two diagrams to the left, so the used space will stay the same. Or better yet, get rid of them altogether.

Chuzzwozza · « **Reply #29 on:** 31 December 2011, 03:51:26 »

Quote from: martian on 31 December 2011, 03:31:13

@martian ;)
1. see above.So although many people in this thread have told you that there is a problem with that too wide window, you answer is that you won't change your program, but THEY should buy new display. It doesn't need further comment....

I certainly didn't ask anyone to buy a new display.
Nothing I (or anyone else) makes is going to satisfy everyone. Sacrifices and compromises need to be made. The window is staying large.

Quote

If "I" remove a weapon, everything else moves up. Just an example with a left arm:

Ah, I understand. Yes, crits slide to the bottom. One crit in a location is just the same as any other....

Quote

It's not about just heatsinks. I want every item freely movable with drag-and-drop style, so it pushes away other items. If I have item in slot "6." and want to move it into slot "1.", I can't. That's pretty serious flaw.

Well sorry, you can't have that. Anyway, like I said: one crit is the same as any other.

Quote

Other program has got this feature, your does not.

Pardon?
Perhaps I'm not understanding you here. If you click "Auto-Fill" armour will be automatically allocated by location. Same when you add or subtract half a ton.
Please stop saying QuickMech doesn't have this feature, because it does. Either that or explain yourself more clearly.

Quote

Context menu is usually called in many programs just as Windows or Firefox with right-click. Only you made it that it's called with both right and left click.

I originally had only right clicks bringing up the menu, but the left mouse button was doing nothing so I let it do the same. There may be some people who prefer using the left, and I wanted to provide as may options as possible.

Quote

Then move those two diagrams to the left, so the used space will stay the same. Or better yet, get rid of them altogether.

;) I'm certainly not getting rid of them!
I have nothing against your arrangement (except that I've heard some people use a paperclip on the paper edge to track heat), but it while it doesn't seem worse than the current one, it also doesn't seem to be worth the trouble of moving it.
If you contribute the changed images and pixel locations of the moved pieces (see the Bug Reporting tab on the site or in the About window for more explanation) I will certainly consider changing it.