[Kolgena]

Whoa there, chill. I wouldn't be saying that there is distortion unless there actually was. I'll give you screenshots between your 1440x900 config and my 1440x810 config to prove that yours draws to 16:10 first before stretching it to fit 16:9 and that mine doesn't. I'm using the regular build though, not the debug.

On another note, I've made an excel calculator that will calculate positions for any screen resolution. It looks at HUD elements as either Left, Center, or Right, and puts Left/Right elements against the edges, and (attempts to) center the Center elements. As of now, the default 1024x768 table The_E posted on page 2 has wrong coords for Throttle and Threat gauge, so my calculator similarly makes mistakes there.

Um:
An Error Has Occurred!
The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.

That happened, so I went back and made the file sizes smaller. The table files are as-is from the previous few posts, with the head ani moved over 50 pixels just to show that the tables are actually kicking in. The second one is 16:10. Notice that there is definite stretching happening, most noticeable from the shape of the radar.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Zacam]

And aside from the Messages/Talking Head, the crucial bits, the center reticle and the alignment of the displayed elements to it, is still pretty well spot on.

Though, interestingly enough....well, I'll post my own screen shots.

[Kolgena]

My point is only that stretching will exist, so that it may be useful to have a calculator to help you figure out a 0-stretch HUD_guages.tbl for any resolution out there.

Said calculator is already done. I just need the *actual* (x,y) for Throttle and Threat Indicator, since the ones I have are wrong. I'd make up values that look right, but I wish to stay as true as possible to vanilla (and I'm OCD). (Assuming the table The_E posted a long time back is the real vanilla table. If he got as close as possible by eyeballing, then I might as well do the same).

[sigtau]

No one's going to make a 1600x900, amirite?

[Kolgena]

No one's going to make a 1600x900, amirite?

I will give you one as soon as I get the coords I need (mentioned above).

(Also, do you really want interface elements that small? You'll have trouble reading in-game dialogue)

Another option I have is to screw 1024x768 as a base, and instead use my adapted 1440x810 version as the base. I'll instead use a 4-corners + center shuffling system so that you won't get such vertically spread out/scattered elements when using taller aspect ratios. I won't be doing both though, since I'm lazy and stuff like that. Thoughts?

[Zacam]

Same (approximate) timing, same elements displayed, same tbm, different resolutions.


16:9 Aspect



16:10 Aspect

What's the issue again??

Granted, both of those are taken at LESS than the "$Base: (1440, 900)" but here's the neat part....the same holds true at the aspects at resolutions higher than the specified base as well.
I screen capped 1920x1080 and 1680x1050 and resized them down to match, and they matched.

[Kolgena]

I've got a pretty good (artist's) eye, and I can tell you straight up that your 16:9 one is stretched. Compare the two Ulysses, or the angles in the center reticle, or your orb radar, or Command's head, or anything else on the HUD that's shown.

It's incredibly minor, but it's there.

Also, when you resized them, you should have noticed that the HUD elements didn't overlap. (If they did, it means while resizing, you also changed the aspect ratio of one of your two comparison images, which, obviously, would mean that the HUD elements would definitely overlap.)


In other news, the 1440x810 calculator is done, and I'd like people to do some testing with it. Unfortunately, I am illiterate in coding, so it doesn't spit out a ready-to-use tbl. You'll need to find a template earlier in this thread and copy in the values the calculator gives you, making sure to set $base to the same resolution you entered into the calc. The only thing you need to do in the calculator is to enter your desired HUD overlay render resolution. I made it in Excel 2007, btw, so if you can't open that, I guess you're out of luck

[attachment deleted by admin]

[rscaper1070]

Open Office can open that calculator.

[Zacam]

That should come in handy for anyone looking to make HUD layouts.

The E's 1024x768 is actually really damn accurate to Retail with the exception of the center reticle being down a few pixels.

In an effort to prevent the moderate to mild amount of skewing that seems to exist for some, I've resolved to making a series of TBM's for the MediaVPs where every HUD resolution is specifically laid out. This comprises of 6 *-hdg.tbm files and does not count the 1024x768 or 640x480 that will be in mv_core-hdg.tbm.

So far, I have: 3-2_Aspect, 4-3_Aspect, 5-3_Aspect, 5-4_Aspect, 8-5_Aspect and 16-9_Aspect comprising of 25 resolutions. I hope this will be sufficient and that there won't be any missed resolutions. (List was derived from: Available launcher resolutions and this Wiki image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg plus a few extras)

That being said, as the single monitor resolutions get larger, should elements be anchored to their respective corners, or to a respective position to the center reticle?

And would people like the layout _slightly_ modified in order to be also usable with Debug Builds so that the mem_usage and VRAM elements don't obscure anything?

[Kolgena]

Nice one. That's a lot of work to make all those tables.

I'd say that they should be anchored to their respective corners, but that would be completely up to user preference. The things are pretty easily customizable after all.

(forgot to mention, the calculator is designed to anchor things to the corners, so if that's not quite what you're looking for, then you'll need to do some modifications after the fact)

[The E]

Thread locked. Further discussion in the Antipodes 7 thread, please.

[chief1983]

Since this is locked, can someone make sure that calculator makes it to the other thread?  I'm in a hurry and on my way out the door for the day.

[The E]

Will do.