[Spoon]

Since there has been a start of a small discussion on the subject here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87500.msg1747414#msg1747414

I figured we should have an poll on this and let democracy run its course.
Opinions

Currently with the 3.7.2 RC, the mainhall does not scale by default like it used to and scaling has to be enabled manually in the launcher.

For those who are unaware on what is being voted on, here's screenies:

[yuezhi]

I prefer 4:3 for the sharpness.

So you finally joined the cult of Snuffy?

[chief1983]

Or a mod added it

[Luis Dias]

Be aware folks the poll is not about what it will always look like, it's about the DEFAULT and that you can modify in the launcher!

[Spoon]

I prefer 4:3 for the sharpness.

So you finally joined the cult of Snuffy?

No, but I added it to avoid a riot!

Be aware folks the poll is not about what it will always look like, it's about the DEFAULT and that you can modify in the launcher!

You're not adding anything that isn't already in the OP

[swashmebuckle]

1. I fear change.
2. Pillarboxing a lovely golden rectangle-ish screen down to 4:3 is a sin against nature.
3. Even Sesame Street has moved to widescreen so Snuffy votes should probably count as no pillarbox votes too.

[Mongoose]

You realize that the menu's native resolution is (currently) 4:3, and thus the stretching is actually the "change," right?

[niffiwan]

If there was some sort of auto-artwork that could be added (or defined by a modder) to fill the black pillar-boxes in 4:3 mode, would that change anyone's opinion?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87253.msg1743049#msg1743049

Also consider the patch that Yarn created which would allow modders to specify real 16:9 (etc) mainhalls, would that address any of the concerns here?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87253.msg1743626#msg1743626

[General Battuta]

If there was some sort of auto-artwork that could be added (or defined by a modder) to fill the black pillar-boxes in 4:3 mode, would that change anyone's opinion?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87253.msg1743049#msg1743049

It would change my opinion from 'this is bad' to 'AGH GOD NOOOO'

And yeah it'd be great to have mainhalls for every aspect.

[Shivan Hunter]

You realize that the menu's native resolution is (currently) 4:3, and thus the stretching is actually the "change," right?

to quote some guy who writes stuff:
<lurkttuta> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU&noredirect=1

(this was actually in response to "fs1 > fs2" but it's totes apropos)

The FS interface has never, ever included pillarboxing. It has always displayed the interface to fit the screen, whether that entailed stretching the interface itself or just running in 1024x768 (and thus stretching the interface for anything != 4:3). Stretching = retail

Yeah I know I can change it, I'm just whining because I'm a grumpy old codger.

Also I'm with battuta on the topic of sticking crap in the black boxes. That has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, looked anything but terrible.

[Yarn]

The FS interface has never, ever included pillarboxing. It has always displayed the interface to fit the screen, whether that entailed stretching the interface itself or just running in 1024x768 (and thus stretching the interface for anything != 4:3). Stretching = retail

Retail could run in only two resolutions: 640x480 and 1024x768. Both of those are 4:3. This means that the game was completely unable to run in non-4:3 resolutions. When running retail FS2, any stretching or pillarboxing that happens in non-4:3 resolutions is done by the scaler in the video card or the monitor, not the game. Thus, the statement "stretching = retail" is simply incorrect (as is "pillarboxing = retail").

[The E]

In my opinion, pillarboxing is the correct solution, since it displays the art as it was intended by the artist. In addition, as resolutions get higher, stretching the interface becomes ever more cumbersome, with it reaching ridiculous levels once you get to multiscreen setups.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Fun fact: It's actually doing a slight letterboxing on my screen

[Luis Dias]

While filling the pillarboxes with "stuff" is terrible (I agree), I think adding a few lines of information about the build, mod, some spec or other in the lower left corner with the right font style and size would do wonders to the "pillarboxed" version.

[Lykurgos88]

In my opinion, pillarboxing is the correct solution, since it displays the art as it was intended by the artist. In addition, as resolutions get higher, stretching the interface becomes ever more cumbersome, with it reaching ridiculous levels once you get to multiscreen setups.

100 % agreed.

Stretching is a way to distort the original content. This pillarboxing is an ESSENTIAL feature that IMHO should have been implemented 7 years ago when widescreen monitors started to get more common. The only thing that it does is that it MAINTAINS the original mainhall visuality of the FS2 retail game. Not only are the random people in the mainhall shown correctly, but the ALL the text is also easier to read and they look overall nicer than those horrible stretched bitmap -characters.

Besides, if I play FS2 retail, there ARE black pillars already on each side, because my GPU settings always maintain the correct aspect ratio. Of course, the downside of FS2 retail is that it doesn't allow 16:9 resolutions (at least not without hacks) in-missions.

The good thing about the current FSO build is of course that it allows to dynamically switch to a horizontally expanding in-game view, once the mission starts.

Besides, soon the gates are open for genuine 16:9 mainhalls and such.

[Luis Dias]

There's also another point that I think nullifies Battuta's take on this, you know, all the stuff about "omg these pillarboxes give me the horror sensation that I'm playing a 90s game" which is the simple fact that this *is* a 90s game, and everyone who is buying it in GOG and (eventually) on STEAM aren't exactly fooled into thinking they are buying a 2014 game or whatever.

My biggest concern isn't with the mediavps behavior of the main campaign and all the mods that use the main menu as is without changes. My main concern is with those mods that were built and designed with the stretching in mind from the start. I know the developing of the new system will eventually render this moot, but until then shouldn't the mods themselves be allowed to override this flag?

[karajorma]

While filling the pillarboxes with "stuff" is terrible (I agree), I think adding a few lines of information about the build, mod, some spec or other in the lower left corner with the right font style and size would do wonders to the "pillarboxed" version.

Now that's a good idea. My main objection is not to the actual pillarboxing, but to the impression that the game is somehow mis-installed. This would solve it. You could also include a "Use the -stretch command line to get rid of this" type message to make people aware of how these things work.

[The E]

Yeah, that's actually a pretty good idea.

[Lykurgos88]

My main concern is with those mods that were built and designed with the stretching in mind from the start.

But are there any, really? So far I haven't encountered even one custom interface that was designed to be anamorphic. Practically every fanmade mainhall around here is designed to be shown correctly as 1024x768 (4:3).

[mjn.mixael]

I was in the process of creating an anamorphic mainhall, but I ceased that project when this became a thing.