I'm looking at refactoring the graphics backend as part of my effort at fixing fullscreen issues and was wondering if there were objections to just getting rid of "small" mode. Does anybody still prefer 320x240 over 640x480 or larger?
Printable View
I'm looking at refactoring the graphics backend as part of my effort at fixing fullscreen issues and was wondering if there were objections to just getting rid of "small" mode. Does anybody still prefer 320x240 over 640x480 or larger?
I'm pretty sure that some people still use it. I certainly do, when I use my netbooks. Also, people recording for streams, or Youtube occasionally use the lower resolution, to lower the recording size, or the stream bitrate, without over-compressing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDragon
You netbook's screen is 320x240?
I shudder at the thought of 320x240.
I squinted when I read it just thinking about it.
IMO that has no place on modern pcs.
We were even at least at 640x480 on Windows 95.
I still use it. :P
Maybe set the scale = 2 by default instead of spending time removing it? We did the same thing with ZC for 2.5: You can still manually set 320x240 if you want, along with any other arbitrary size, but it defaults to 640x480.
The window gadgets overflow the screen at 640x480, as the screen vertical resolution is 480. Also, 'Big Mode' in ZQuest can't run on the netbook at all because half of the controls are off-screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDragon
If you want to do mobile ports in the future, you will sill need small sizes, too.
Ok. I'll be sure that 320x240 is still supported.
I can't think of a mobile device with less than 640x480. Low end devices now ship with 1080p, 800, 768 or so and mid to high toward qHD. The ones that don't aren't going to run ZC, ever. Notebooks bottom out at 768.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoriaRPG
Also I couldn't get a performance boost when I was testing out streaming ZC on a 2009 notebook by going lower than 480.
I cant think of a reason to support it that doesn't seem thin, if not supporting it has any positive benefit.
Might be true, but I question dropping support for devices that we support now, if there is no benefit gained out of doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR
I agree with you 100% if there is no benefit. Buy if not supporting it makes refactoring simpler and maintaining the code easier, so when Windows 15 launches next year its easier to refix full screen mode for it, then I'm all for it.
Obviously, so would I; but until we move away from Allegro 4 entirely, I don't think that supporting it is a practical issue. At present, the plan is to move to ag4.4.x--which still supports this resolution--and to go from there towards something else--and what this might be is as yet, undecided, at which point supporting some of these old features may need to be rethought.Quote:
Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR
obviously supporting it is being rethought right now. I don't take DD for a person who asks a question that's answer is irrelevant. Unless someone rewrites ZQ from scratch I think allegro 4.4 is what is going to stay. (God knows zq should be rewritten from scratch.)
Is it worth supporting a feature if @Gleeok is the only person that is ever going to use it? Sorry, Gleeok, you don't get a vote. JK.
Honestly I don't care unless the benefit of nixing it is really worthwhile, but I can keep arguing about it for as long as you like. I find it enjoyable.
Well if it ever comes down to more work being put into ZQuest and more work having to support small mode as well then I would just get rid of it. I was just saying that having it default to scale=2 is easier (and less error prone) than ripping out the small mode code, but I guess just disabling small mode would work as well.
I figured if removing it to refactor would help then doing it would be a good idea and putting it back in wouldn't be much of an ordeal (could it?) if it turned out to be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gleeok