Get rid of the unified inventory... STUPID STUPID STUPID IDEA!!!!!!!!
Want it back the way it was!!!!
Or give us the option to put SHIP HANGER and ITEMS HANGER windows in the side panel like it was.

Unified Inventory... what a joke.

OK, I will check with different Shader settings, then ...

EDIT/
LOL of the day: the ships look nicer on my PC with low shader settings. High = lower quality. Medium = start to be brighter, Low = higher quality, with brighter textures and ... reflexion of environment on the ship (which is absent on the 2 other settings).

Could someone test on his side and confirm, please ? This is really puzzling.

EDIT2/
Solar pannel look flat in "Low" setting, so it not so of an inversion of the settings, but still very strange fact ...

That said, give constructive criticism for gods sake, whats not working how you would expect it, give them bullet points so they can try to adapt the new system to fit the varied use cases.. why is this so f*Cking hard for people to understand...

omg so many folks just do not like change at all

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that CCP wants UI to be impossible, in order that it is difficult for the bot programmers.

What?

Patch notes have tons of unified inventory changes, both in the feature list and fixes list: http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp

Ok, first full session after the patch.


GG*and all I can say is that my view on the Unified Inventory took a sharp 360-& turn and remained on the same course.

This UI has been live for less than a month, and you've had roughly two months of feedback, and you're already adding huge kludges to fix problems that shouldn't have been there to begin with. This whole mess about GG#primaryGG% and GG#secondaryGG% inventory windows you've introduced only results in one thing: more windows, more duplication, more clicking, less intuitiveness.

Yes, you added back some rclick items to open special bays. Good job. Too bad they don't open in any kind of remotely sane location. They all go into the GG#primaryGG% window, which means the functionality is completely redundant. The reason to have them in a rclick menu is to gain quick access to the bays GGv what happens now is that they act as a mechanism to slow down your access to other stuff, because opening them that way means you reset a window that is (probably) already being used for something else. The same goes for the cargo hold button GGv it opens my cargo hold in the GG#primaryGG% window, completely overwriting what I had set it up to show.

None of these buttons are even remotely aware of the fact that I already have windows set up to show these locations, and they will happily open new instances/reset an existing window rather than focus on the window already showing what I'm after.

The old UI never had these problems because every inventory was its own window. Opening the inventory in question opened the associated window. Since the two are now disassociated, you will never really be sure of what will open where unless you do everything very deliberately and entirely manually (going through the whole shift-click-and-place-into-stack rigmarole), which is far more cumbersome under the new system than under the old one.

This amount of kludginess at this stage of the development phase GGv when you're still adding lost basic functionality back in GGv only points to one thing: the underlying design concept is fundamentally flawed. This is the kind of mess you'd see after years and years of quick-patching surprising edge cases (cf. CrimeWatch), not something you should see right out the gate, and definitely not something you should see as a result of just trying to make the core functionality work. You haven't even begun to touch on the edge cases, and we're already seeing end-of-life feeping creaturism and function confusion.

I've tried to stay away from the GG#roll backGG% line of thinking, but if the state of the code is this bad, maybe it's an option you should start to exploreGG* or if not that, then declare this code path dead, much like how you did with the GG#Old New NeoComGG% (the one that got shelved because CoreUI was around the corner) and try again, this time with the first-line goal of simply being able to do what the old UI could do.

Soundwave........, just hire Tippia.

Soundwave........, just hire Tippia.

From his videos, to his ideas and the way he explains the problems and the solutions to them, on his own time I might add, its clear to all of us that have telling you for 2 months now from the Sisi feedback to today, that he knows more about UI design than any of the guys CCP have got working on it at the moment.

Does the simple fact, that by your own admission on this very thread that there's been loads of UI fixes and it still isn't fixed tell you that maybe, just maybe it might be time to consider putting it out of our misery?

What?

Patch notes have tons of unified inventory changes, both in the feature list and fixes list: http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp

Largely, the old UI wasn't easier, you were just used to it. Change for many people is difficult to manage.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY

STOP ASKING FOR ROLLBACKS

THE OLD INVENTORY BACKEND WAS BROKEN! END OF STORY

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that CCP wants UI to be impossible, in order that it is difficult for the bot programmers. It's number one design goal was to be TOTALLY UNPREDICTABLE. It met this goal with flying colors.

The UI has always been a breeze for me, I dislike the green outline because it looks garish and gaudy when my UI is monotone, but I understand some people felt it needed. Largely, the old UI wasn't easier, you were just used to it. Change for many people is difficult to manage.

On what OS until you include information like that CCP cannot find the problem did you bug report it?

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY

STOP ASKING FOR ROLLBACKS

THE OLD INVENTORY BACKEND WAS BROKEN! END OF STORY

---

That said, give constructive criticism for gods sake, whats not working how you would expect it, give them bullet points so they can try to adapt the new system to fit the varied use cases.. why is this so f*Cking hard for people to understand...

Its gotten much better since it was first release, yes it should have been tested more on SISI first but honestly get over it at this point and comment.

As for the whole "I WANT MY VAGA SAILS BACK" they know, they've said already they will be doing more "custom models" soon since the v3ing is coming to an end for the ship models, i mean whats left? NPC assets / Stations and .. Capitals... no biggy really.... So the new t2 models will come eventually with the little wingys back lol This was said in a devblog recently.

I 100% agree about the matari ships WTF why are they cardboard? where is the red tone to the paint? its supposed to be rusty / grungy it always has been "IN RUST WE TRUST D*MN IT!"

I have an Windows 7 64bit on an i7, 3820 @ 4.6Ghz, 16Gb 2133Mhz DDR3 quad channel memory, 2 x AMD6970 Graphics cards and 2x 240Gb Force 3 SSD's.

I was reapproaching gate in my cane after being pointed by 4 drakes. My camera was fairly close to the ship and i could see the drakes missle spam hitting my ship which, while looking wonderful, slowed my machine down to less than 10fps.

This machine is about as fast as money can buy, and 4 drakes reduced it to a crawl. The game paused when i was in half structure and luckily, the next thing i knew i was 1au from gate warping away in my pod.

Also, i have my vsync set to 100fps ( on 120hz monitors). The game has always been able to run both clients at this speed in all but larger fleet battles and the odd mission where theres a lot of objects. Now i decloak on a grid with just myself and the game drops to 50fps if im so much as looking at a regional gate.

Constant incompetence is becoming a drag ccp.

If my computer cannot run this ****, nothing can.

Seems like I have a similar issue, but unlike you, I just reported it, not whine like a little ***** too.

Stop playing if it bothers you. Thanks for your feedback.