Drag out Overviews

Hi,

Please could you make it so that you can drag out the tabs on the overview?

It would be SUCH and easy little piece of coding and would mean that I can have multiple overviews open at the same time.

Kind Regards

No it wouldn’t.

1 Like

Did you really have to disagree?

Also, yes it would. They could copy paste it from the chat channels. The same as nearly every other window in game.

Proper place for this is the little things thread.

You -think- it is easy. Unfortunately, as EVE’s codebase is 17 years old, poorly notated, and very messily integrated, something that intellectually is simple may code-wise be exceedingly difficult. Just look at the Red Dot situation - it’s a brand new feature that doesn’t work quite as intended because the Cargo/Hangar code is ancient and complicated, and the devs haven’t even managed to add a ‘simple’ opt out checkbox to the UI settings.

Nothing in EVE is easy to code, not because the new idea is necessarily complicated, but because the existing environment it has to work within is a mess. That’s why EVE’s code is called ‘spaghetti code’ - it is a jumbled pile of lines that criss-cross all over the place and sometimes stick together unintentionally.

This doesn’t make your suggestion bad. It does make your statement about easy and little factually incorrect.

OK, well it is a seemingly easy fix and would be very beneficial :slight_smile:

I do have to disagree. A window is one class, a tab is a subclass. To make them separable you need to make each tab a window.

This is not trivial. It’s re-engineering. It’s not copying and pasting.

You’ve clearly never written a line of code in your life.

I remember once CCP posted a blog on the lines of “we’ve struggled to find this bug for years, we’re so damn proud of ourselves for finding it, we’re going to tell you the story of what it was and how we find it and show you the code for it all”

If I remember correctly (this was some years back, mind you), it was a horrifying listing of code :neutral_face:

How would this be beneficial over custom overview tabs? Can you justify the need? Can you present use cases and how this would be significantly better? EVE is so damn hungry for screen space that even those with 4k monitors struggle to have enough space just to see their capsule.

I have mate and the code is already in place with another set of windows. Even if the systems were different CCP’s experience with the type of coding needed is vast and already in place. My experience in coding to the side…

This would be a good change which would enable better game play. A COMPARABLY small fix.

Happy to explain how it would make the game better.

Let’s say you’re in a gate camp or a fleet fight, you can have more information readily available which would improve the game play. Having quick access to be able to lock different types of targets or to highlight different warp points. Instead of having to remember which tab has which.

Your answer doesn’t even make sense. Of course “the code” is there for other windows. We’re talking about object classes. The whole point is that they are reusable.

The functionality inside a specific tab inside a specific window cannot just be copy-pasted into a new instance of the window class and be expected to work.

But the point of having an instance of a class is that each instance deviates for it’s specific function. And the tabs again are not instances of the window class, probably not even a remotely similar interface for their object.

Therefore it’s an architectural change to the overview.

Copy and paste

:roll_eyes:

It exists for other windows

:roll_eyes:

Armchair programming: it’s valid to say it’s hard and stale and shitty and complicated, it’s not valid to say it’s simple and straight forward and easy.

Jesus Christ. Is this a programming forum or a place to suggest fixes/ideas?

I’m not a computer programmer but I know the context.

FML

Am I allowed to say that it’s nice idea and leave it at that?

1 Like

Everyone will jump on players claiming ‘it’s easy, so there isn’t a reason for this to not happen!’ It’s an argument that is patently false based on information CCP has published regarding the challenges of revising their code. It doesn’t mean you can’t make suggestions, but you will get a less irritated response from other posters if you don’t make unfounded (and in this case provably false) claims about the change you are requesting. Leave it to CCP to decide if it is easy or simple to implement and instead focus on the benefits your suggestion would have - including considering how this is or is not already achieved through existing elements of the UI.

2 Likes

False. This is what customized overview tabs + multiple tabs with clear names are for.

If you have problems remember which tabs hold which information… that’s not something CCP should code around.

They have made similar changes before with relative ease.

Clearly that is your opinion. I’ve been putting this idea around a few people who all really like it. Decided to take it to forums and immediately regret it lol

More information at your finger tips adds more dimensions.

The “thats not CCP’s problem” argument could be made for every fix ingame.

An example and the reference where they disclosed the effort required, please.

Justify your suggestion on it’s merits, and not some nebulous and untestable claim that it’s ‘easy’.

You cannot speak to that with authority - unless you are the CCP programmer who worked on it, or a CCP programmer with current access to compare code segments, you are guessing about the effort a prior change took, or how ‘similar’ it is code-wise to the subject you are discussing. If you are jot an authority on the subject (see above for what qualifies as an authority on EVE’s code) or have an authority to quote, leave it our of your argument for why this change should be made.

I never said I was against it, I’m just pointing out that you have failed to make a case for this. The most hardcore PVPers and FCs have been getting along fine for years with the ways things are now. Could there be room for improvement? Sure. is this an improvement? You have not justified how it would indeed an improvement. It is not obvious or self-evident that this is in fact an improvement. It sounds like a crutch for failure to best utilize Overview customization and familiarity.