Welcome to the ZDoom Forums!

No, all the 960x_ modes have disappeared. I rolled back the driver long enough to check, nothing 960-ish there either, except as vertical size (1280x960) :nope:

I can get 1280x800, which is too large for windowed use, and letterboxed so small in fullscreen I might as well run 640x400 in a window. On the plus side, windowed view transitions look awesome. :wink:

Would it be possible at any point to keep separate resolutions for windowed and fullscreen modes? I'd think a window would be more forgiving size-wise.

Slow wipe startup times should be fixed now (and hideously slow screenshots, too).

@NeuralStunner: Run the attached program and select your video card under "Direct3D9 Devices". Does it have your missing resolutions listed in Display Modes?

I updated my drivers some months ago. Maybe I haven't tried 960x600 since then. I should be able to remember these things... :stuppor:

It has nothing to do with the available resolutions. Did you do something with your video driver?

I have noticed also that I can't get most letterboxed modes - 960 x 600 is now seemingly nonexistent (and I know I've used it before). I get 960x1280 instead. That's a stretched 4x3 "pixel" size, and it looks very bad. :x

I generally run windowed (so I can still see the taskbar) and 640x400 is as large as it can go now (without overrunning my 1024x768 desktop) and still be a "vanilla" ratio.

I'm glad the windowed screenwipes work correctly now, I had no idea it would affect the resolutions adversely. :|

Er, yes, I just tried it out in fullscreen to check if letterboxed modes still work with the new code (they don't), and noticed that getting a copy of the front buffer is apparently extremely expensive, even more so than a normal video memory to system memory copy is. In windowed mode, I render to a texture and splat that onto the window in one single operation, since it's the only way to get a copy of the screen data without having to worry about some of it being clipped away. I could do the same thing for fullscreen mode so that wipes can get their image data quickly. That would simplify some of the code, too, since I could render to the texture unconditionally, but it does seem a shame I can't draw directly to the screen just because of the wipes.

I think you mean 2010/2012...

:woh: OH NO! The last revision of ZDoom is upon us!

[spoiler]Couldn't resist. :P[/spoiler]

Anyways, I haven't noticed any lag/wipe/snapping problems in either of these latest revisions.

With 1210 SVN
I think there is a delay between selecting difficulty and the start of the wipe for me, and the weapon also appears raised when the wipe is over istead of starting to raise once the wipe is over, so monsters get a bit of a head start if they can see you.

Now I'll go try 1212...

The wipe is now the correct speed. However, there is still a bit of a short delay between what triggers the wipe (say, choosing a difficulty) and the wipe itself. The player's weapon also still jumps up to the HUD instead of rising from the bottom.

Should be fixed now. If not, do reply here.

Hmmm, I can't say that any wipe style give me any problems. I just tried them all on my machine at my monitor's native 1920x1200. Melt seems to be the one causing people the most difficulty but it was just as smooth as previous versions of Zdoom have been.

Confirmed. I do not believe this is system specific, but rather related to resolution.

I usually play with the screen transitions off, so I haven't noticed this before. I went ahead and tried each of the different options (wipe, burn, cross-fade) with my normal playing resolution of 1024x768. Wipe was very choppy, akin to what is seen in that YouTube video. Burn and crossfade seemed better, but I didn't have a basis for comparison since I'd never used them before.

Next I tried changing the resolution all the way down to 320x200. Wipe at this resolution is quick and smooth -- the way I remember it being from vanilla. Crossfade and burn were equally snappy, taking a few seconds if that to transition to the new screen.

The final test, I set it up as high as ZDoom would let me go -- 2048x1536 -- and tried again. Oh man... The screen wipe is [i]extremely[/i] choppy, looking about like it's pulling a few frames a second. It takes several seconds to finish the wipe. Burn and crossfade are even worse, taking up to 10 seconds to transition all the way through.

Even at this resolution, ZDoom runs perfectly fine on my computer playing through the standard levels (Though I didn't have any burning desire to try any stress-testing levels :)), but as soon as you hit that exit switch or start a new level, I might as well be playing on a 286...

I'm having the same issue. Skulltag wipes at the normal rate and the gun rises up to the HUD like it should. On the current Zdoom, the wipe is a bit jumpy and the weapon just suddenly appears at the HUD instead of rising.

Geforce 8800 Ultra
1680x1050
Intel Core Duo E8400
32-bit color depth

I was just trying out 2.3.1 on my uncle's laptop, and while I don't know the exact specs it's in the ballpark of a 2.5GHz dual core processor with 2-3 GBs of ram and an integrated graphics card, and the screen wipe was still slow. At this point I think I might just have a more sensitive threshold as to what dictates sluggishness and it might be working as intended for all I know, so I made a comparison video to show you guys exactly what I mean and tell me if you agree or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAE8N9JPpY

i only get slow screenfades with both intel and geforce 6200 when changing the map using console