Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: RandomTiger on October 26, 2003, 09:55:50 am
-
Today I made a bit more progress with the non standard resolution code. My work could easy be implemented in OGL as well.
Its the 800x600 modes that seems to interest a lot of people.
Currently non-standard modes make use of the standard graphics, modes above 1024 768 obviously use the hi-res graphics.
But 800x600 could use either, which should it be
1. 800x600 is a cutdown of 1024x768, using the hi res data, not saving any memory but simply rendering at a lower res. Will look nearly as good as 1024x768
2. 800x600, an improvment on 640x480, uses low res data, should be faster but the stretched images wont look neary as good. However the 3D stuff will of course be a lot less blocky
3. Both, allow a choice, this will take more time to code
-
Cutdown - since high resolution stuff reduced is always better than lower resolution stuff increased. Most people have computers capable of managing 1024x768 - even if their graphics cards/monitors cant :eek2:
That said, I'm inpartial - bring on 1280x1024 and I'll show a whole world of interest :)
-
yeah 1280x1024 is much better then 800x600 ;)
-
1280x1024, is there, its buggy but there.
All modes your graphic cards supports will work.
I did however cap ones lower than 640x480.
-
It is? How?! Where?!
-
Erm, go the 1024 art - things that are compressed always look better than things that are blown up.
BTW - I hope you've considered Thunder - 1280 will quite possibly look crapper than 1024 in the end, as everything (including HUD) will have to be scaled up from the 1024 art. Would be nice for HUDless screenies though...
-
Unless of course someone talented re-did the files. I'm fairly sure some fine tuning in Photoshop and you'd have some impressive interface and HUD art from the existing files.
Textures are another matter... not to sure about that.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
It is? How?! Where?!
There's a box in the latest launcher that allows you to chose non standard resolutions.
-
in my opinion you should go for the scaling down the high-res artwork
and scratch the third options..it has no sense to give you more to do with useless result
about redrawing the interface... blackwolf already started something for the SW conversion, with good results and a pretty simple layout (we were looking for obvious reasons at a very simple thing): (http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=290491)
Actually I'm stuck with texturing and real life, and If the SW conversion will not be able to get some other artists, things will not change soon, otherwise I always had the idea of completely redesign the interface and, without modesty, I know I (and not only me) can make some pretty nice things:), but it isn't something that can be done by only one, I'd need help at least on all the non artistic things (extracting and maybe modifying all the needed b/w images, slicing the new screens, batch conversions etc), and personally I would love if it could be possible to modify the interface code, maybe managing it somehow like a webpage, hell it would be a true dream:)
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
There's a box in the latest launcher that allows you to chose non standard resolutions.
Hmm, just tried that and I didn't get anything past "failed to initialize D3D" when putting the resolution past anything but 1024x768 :blah:
-
Odd. Works for me, though everything is not perfect...
Edit: Are you using the latest fs_open build too? Try the one in Phreak's sig...
-
dosnt matter to me. whatever is the easiets to code cuz i will always use 1024x768.
-
for me, i think it would be better to use the 640*480 texes, since you'd only use this build because your comp can;t run 1024*768, right? then you'd want to save every little bit of resource possible.
an alternative off course is to scale down the 1024*768 art and put that into the media vp, best of both worlds
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Unless of course someone talented re-did the files. I'm fairly sure some fine tuning in Photoshop and you'd have some impressive interface and HUD art from the existing files.
Textures are another matter... not to sure about that.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to do that with the number of interface files FS2 uses?:shaking:
-
Yes :devil:
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Do you have any idea how long it would take to do that with the number of interface files FS2 uses?:shaking:
less than what you can expect, but still a lot of time
you don't need to redraw all the images in the vp archive individually, if I'm right you just have to do one single new image (at top resolution) for each game screen (and this means that once you draw the first one, you just have to modify it to make all the others).
Then, using for example imageready (photoshop), you can slice the images in pieces fitting the famous B/W images (or, viceversa, modify those B/W images, but I'm not sure it would work), assign to each slice a name, and when you will save the overall screen image, the program will save all the pieces individually with the right names. And you can also create macros (wich are very simple to be created in photoshop) to automatically scale down all the opened images (all the screens) and save them.
This means that, when you have drawn all the images, defined the slices (and maybe the names..photoshop assign by default to each slice the name imagenamexx ) and create the needed macros, everything will go automatically.
Now, if I'm not wrong there are around 45 -M screens (the B/W ones), so there should be the same number of ingame screens, and most of them are very similar to each other...it's a lot but I don't think it is impossible
Probably it would be a good idea to redesign the interface first in order to halve the amount the screens...
obviously there still are all the various icons missing (and they are a lot).
-
My disk 2 is hosed, so I am partial to using lower res and scaling up, but I know that takes time, but that's because i don;t have the big art :)
the sensible solution sounds like use big art and scale down, someone would have to redo it all for a 1280 screen though. But that solution will scale, and I think that's important :)
-
Lets not get too bogged down in the idea of new interface art.
Its not nessercary, whatever mode you want to use.
And if you have the time and talent to do a new interface thats great too.
I think I will keep it the way it is for now, 800x600 uses 1024x768 but I will put making the other way an option on the bottom of the todo list. Getting it all working properly closer to the top of my list.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Unless of course someone talented re-did the files. I'm fairly sure some fine tuning in Photoshop and you'd have some impressive interface and HUD art from the existing files.
Textures are another matter... not to sure about that.
my only interest in having a very high screen res would be to have smaller HUD icons, actually.
-
the whole hud system needs to be overhauled anyway, I recomend a table that has the relitive (0.0 to 1.0) x and y locations for the upper left and lower right corner of each guage, then it's just a mater of telling the table to use a higher resolution graphic, I say we stop trying to use diferent graphics based on resolution, if you have the high resolution art that'll get used if not, then the low res stuff gets used (with what I'm thinking two seperate hud tables would be likely needed)
-
The current system is annoying but Im not sure it needs to be re-writen for thar reason. What you are talking about is possible (I think) given the way my TGA, JPG code can scale and the fact that the mode code stretchs whatever it is given to fill the screen.
THe need for a re-write would be to allow custom positioning of interface art.
-
I would like to take this oppertunity to once again bring up my wish to allow the escort list to display more than 3 ships. With the extra space afforded by using higher screen settings you could expand many of the things like the directives listing, weapons display, possibly including a later HUD icon for tertiary systems (now there's something I haven't heard about in a while), extra space for the ETS if cloaking ever becomes fully functional... I think that's all I can come up with on that front.
Later!
-
No. :p
-
RT, with a whole new interface you could have some mods -mostly babylon project and SW conversion (eventual (C) problems will come from the reference universe, and not from the support)- released as standalone games...
-
Cutdown, no question.
-
I vote cutdown.
Thats the standard fare when using bitmap based images. You always go from a larger size and scale downwards although I do understand there would be similar memory requirements from 800x600 to 1024.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the whole hud system needs to be overhauled anyway, I recomend a table that has the relitive (0.0 to 1.0) x and y locations for the upper left and lower right corner of each guage, then it's just a mater of telling the table to use a higher resolution graphic, I say we stop trying to use diferent graphics based on resolution, if you have the high resolution art that'll get used if not, then the low res stuff gets used (with what I'm thinking two seperate hud tables would be likely needed)
:nod:
-
/me likes Bob's thing
-
Ah... no one listens, anyway...
Just to let you know the res stuff has taken a few steps forward, its almost usable.
Heres a list of things still wrong, add to it if you spot anything else:
Version string in player select and main hall
Help text in main hall not centered horizontally
Buttons at offset of one pixel
Dot sliders work two to the left of what they should do in option screen
Credit text offset
Briefing tactical display icons offset
Font texture wrapping in some characters
Main hall ani's and background dont match by a pixel or two.
Exe up
-
I got up to 1600x1200:D All I can say is no more jagged edges.
About the interface... If you got a group of people you could divide up the images among them taking less time in my opinion.
1278 interface images in sparky_hi for example divided up between 10 people would mean 127.8 images for each person. You can fight over the .2 yourselves.
* starts searching for his cloning machine*
-
1278 divided by 10 is 127.8... :wtf: :lol:
-
I think he got that two in the thing and got it al no right
-
As for the in-mission HUD itself, would it not be best to specify for each element its location in pixels relative to the corner of choice? That way you would not need any modifications on the graphics files no matter what resolution you used; the targeting box would always be at 0,0 from the bottom left corner, the targeting reticle would always be at 0.5,0.5 from any corner, etc. Sure, as the resolution increased the HUD elements would get smaller, but it also would block less of the ever-increasingly-good-looking rendering engine itself. :D
-
Would be nice to allow HUd or even interface to be specified in an XML or even HTML-esque manner. I'd imagine it;d be enormously painful to implement, though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Would be nice to allow HUd or even interface to be specified in an XML or even HTML-esque manner. I'd imagine it;d be enormously painful to implement, though.
A .tbl file, perhaps? ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Would be nice to allow HUd or even interface to be specified in an XML or even HTML-esque manner. I'd imagine it;d be enormously painful to implement, though.
You could HTML code your HUD. :) We could even insert a frame so you can keep an eye on the HLP Forums while you're hanging out with Snipes on an SOC mission. :D
-
that would be somewhat fun, and perhaps even usefull for things like scores and stuff for FW, but really, it sounds a tad OTT.
-
Hey, where'd all my OT posts go??
-
They were treated to their very own thread. ;)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
No. :p
LOL
Is there an order to list Escorts by Hull strength and alignment, so the most damaged friendly Escort is shown first?
Flipside :D
-
Its in the special tab listed damaged-escort-priority-all.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
that would be somewhat fun, and perhaps even usefull for things like scores and stuff for FW, but really, it sounds a tad OTT.
Yeah, but do I smell a lot more new HUDs, and potentially far better ones? In the past, we've never really touched HUDs much except for large projects, because they're such a pain to do. Make them accessible to mod, and you'll have a whole slew of new possibilities before you. Worth trying for, IMHO. :)