"Project to use the object on:"

[joo]

A minor adjustment to the interface:

Would it be too much trouble to only list projects that actually use the selected object - it isn't a big problem, but it is annoying having to scroll through all of them looking for the project you want.[/b][/u]

[Surly]

That would be quite useful actually...

Maybe a project for the aspirant programmers?

[Agar]

But I like scrolling through mud huts and harvestingrice projects from the 800's to find my bone knife project!

<<<The above was sarcasam>>>

This idea would be a matter of convienence, but really, it's a pain in the butt to find the project you're working on. You can't even have it list only your own projects, because then you'll never be able to finish those abandoned projects. But when you're trying to add small bones to something, it would be great if the projects list was only for projects that needed small bones.

[Chris Johnson]

It is quite an overhead for the server to analyse each project in a location to see if a particular resource or object is required. But not to check if a project requires any resource or object.

It would be reasonably simple to just present this list which would exclude all projects which never require a resource or object such as repairing, harvesting, collecting, digging, fishing projects etc

It wouldn't get rid of Agar's irrelevant mud huts but would drop his harvesting projects

What do people think of this compromise ?

[Sho]

Every little bit helps. Most of the clutter is from resource projects, so this should be good enough.

[Surly]

Sounds good to me, CJ...

[Agar]

It's a start. Go for it. Be sure to toot your own horn when you get it done. That way we know when to start looking for bugs

[Nick]

Doesn't include dead bodies, so I'm sure the Polish will like.
It's a shame their player base is almost as big as the English, yet they have to channell most of their complaining through KeVeS and PRUT.

[Chris Johnson]

OK I have moved this to accepted suggestions

[marol]

It is quite an overhead for the server to analyse each project in a location to see if a particular resource or object is required. But not to check if a project requires any resource or object.

False. It could be done by apropriate single SQL.

[Octavio]

It is quite an overhead for the server to analyse each project in a location to see if a particular resource or object is required. But not to check if a project requires any resource or object.

False. It could be done by apropriate single SQL.

I agree. What's the table's structure? Do you have something like a table with projects and a sub-table with required items for each project? In that case, I assume this last one has both the required quantity and already added quantity. All you have to do is an SQL over the required items table filtering the item we're using and doing a simple join to the project table to get the project description. If that's not the table structure, could you tell how are the projects structured?

[Jos Elkink]

Why do you need to know this?

This part is a bit oddly done, and not in a very relational database kind of way - there is one field in the projects table which lists all resources and their amounts.

[EchoMan]

This has been implemented now. Please move to implemented.