Welcome to ZDF!

run, %comspec% /c start gzdoom.exe -file test.pk3 -height %A_ScreenHeight% -width %A_ScreenWidth% +fullscreen 1

Here is the same but for AutoHotkey:

[code]run, %comspec% /c start gzdoom.exe -file test.pk3 -height %A_ScreenHeight% -width %A_ScreenWidth% +fullscreen 1[/code]

Edit: added fullscreen

@echo off
setlocal
for /f "tokens=1* delims==" %%A in ('wmic desktopmonitor get screenheight^, screenwidth ^/format^:list') do @if not "%%~B"=="" set %%A=%%B
start zdoom -height %screenheight% -width %screenwidth%

Sorry for bumping this topic, but I figured I could make a batch script to somewhat match your needs. It may work as a temporary work-around until the feature is actually implemented.

Please note that this does seem to work, to me, but further testing may be required.
[code]@echo off
setlocal
for /f "tokens=1* delims==" %%A in ('wmic desktopmonitor get screenheight^, screenwidth ^/format^:list') do @if not "%%~B"=="" set %%A=%%B
start zdoom -height %screenheight% -width %screenwidth%[/code]

This may work for many other games as well, if you modify the command line to whatever it is they need.

Then you should have been more clear about what you were talking about, because this thread has changed topics a few times now and there was zero context behind it. You might be interested in the Rules revision from a few days ago.

I'll move the post back here.

[quote="wildweasel"]The emulation discussion [url=http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=53226]is now here[/url]. This thread can remain dedicated to the feature suggestion.[/quote]
Wait why was my post moved there? I was referring to the op when I said "That would be useful".

The emulation discussion [url=http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=53226]is now here[/url]. This thread can remain dedicated to the feature suggestion.

Actually, that sounds useful.

[quote="WilliamMacau"][quote="Graf Zahl"]Normal people replace any technical device once they realize that it no longer serves their needs.
It's just the losers which whine and complain about the evil world that is against them.[/quote]

Yeah, right, you are quite normal. You are the type of people that would replace the Mona Lisa with a more "cool one" if you could.

It's that I'm not here to please the "God-Almighty Developer", it's just that.[/quote]

Are these attacks really needed? All you're doing is proving Graf's point. And I agree with Graf on this one point: You are one of those 10 holding back the other 1000.

I can understand it's a real issue when you don't have money. I know first hand the frustrations of dealing with not having money. But eventually, you DO have to move on. Even a cheap $50 laptop can handle GZDoom just fine these days. The newer versions, at that. Go out, offer to cut some of your neighbor's grass, and save your money. I promise you, you won't regret it. It's really not so horrible to have to do a little bit of work to play games.

I was clinging to Windows 8.1 like a pest up until the very last day that I could upgrade to Windows 10 for free. And I am still kicking and screaming about that upgrade. But eventually, I did it. I did it because I knew that while I might not need Windows 10 today, there will come a day when I will. Because having a free upgrade will help a lot more than it will hurt. Because IT IS TIME TO MOVE THE BLOODY HELL ON. That is why DRD Team isn't stuck on phpBB 3.0.x. Because despite the issues, you just have to move on, someday. ZDoom itself is a testament to that - you just simply can not run any modern version of ZDoom on DOS, nor on an 80386 machine that DOOM was originally designed for. Those systems are long in the past, and even if you somehow managed to get ZDoom to run, it would run horribly on such a system. Because support for it had to be dropped at some point.

Graf is not being the "God-Almighty Developer." He knows, just as any other developer of any other open source project, that his work can be forked. And - [url=http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48994&hilit=gloome]lo and[/url] [url=http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=49451&hilit=gzdoom+gpl]bloody behold![/url] [url=http://zandronum.com/]Wait, there's more, too![/url]

This isn't 1998 anymore. You aren't paying the developers here for their work, and holy hell have they done more than enough of it to justify a $60 price tag that usually comes with a triple-A title. If you won't show some appreciation for their work, the least you could do is show a little restraint, no matter how frustrating things get.

Also - another little anecdote to add to this: Graf spent two weeks tinkering with my computer that had an ATI HD 4850. Eventually, he had to drop support for it, as well, at least as far as new features go, because the driver is in such a hopeless state that it is beyond fixing. It's fine - I run a laptop that has a much newer GPU anyway. GZDoom will only run on it now in OpenGL 2.x mode. Oh well. Life goes on. At least it still runs GZDoom. But I saw, first hand, how horrible and painful that was for him. I was there. And believe me, it IS a lot of work.

EDIT: Also - per your comment about a "more cool" Mona Lisa:

[spoiler][img]http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsgbpkvWIO1qi17k7o1_500.gif[/img][/spoiler]

Have a nice day!

[quote="WilliamMacau"]No, no. Not make me cry actually, but very angry, mister.


IT'S ABSURD TO NEED TONS OF RAM AND CPU POWER TO RUN A EMULATOR OF SUCH SIMPLE GAMES.[/quote]

No, it really is not. Because sometimes you need a better system to emulate the older systems. This is not a 1 to 1 CPU emulation we're talking about here - this is an entire hardware system being emualted BY YOUR CPU. An entire system with its own quirks, nuances, and manufacturer defects that developers took advantage of for years to gain some sort of edge. There's more at work than just presenting some fake CPU that allows the game to run. And increasing the system requirements DOES make sense, because back in the past some things were not possible with that emulator that are now.

You know what's going to happen in 20 years when virtual machines start emulating what we use today? The same thing. Those machines will be expected to fully emulate our GPU's *AND* our CPU's, plus numerous other components. That's going to take a lot of resources that we just simply cannot imagine, today.

SDL on Windows is a no-go. It's causing far too many problems. Right now G/ZDoom is the only major port that runs on my system without screwing anything up. One thing about SDL that annoys me endlessly is that it seems to force an English keyboard layout for the application which then persists until the computer is rebooted. As a result I rather avoid using PrBoom and Eternity.

SDL also cannot coexist with Direct3D, so it would have to use OpenGL as a backend. Too bad that this would cut off some legacy support due to shitty shader implementation.

Also, macOS has REPLACED SDL with a native backend because that simply works a lot better. ZDoom can still be compiled with the SDL backend but it's not recommended.
So, SDL is clearly not a solution, it's a rather slopyy abstraction layer that works ok on Linux but provides a sub-par experience on both Windows and Mac. SDL 1 was even worse, though.

I'm not that familiar with SDL, but all cross platform solutions suffer the law of leaky abstractions. Does that mean SDL could cover all the needs of zdoom and gzdoom? Perhaps, or perhaps not. ZDoom already has a SDL target (active in Linux) and what I saw there still had a number of crucial features missing that the D3D9 target has. If it is to replace the other platform targets it has to match the complete features supported there. Can it? I don't know. But without someone adding those features to the SDL target it will never be able to replace what's running on Windows and macOS.

I think that anything replacing what is there today definitely should also take gzdoom into account. This means that SDL not only needs to be able to initialize OpenGL, it also needs to support the compatibility profile and other such things required by the macOS version.

SDL_Renderer *renderer; 
SDL_Window   *window; 
SDL_Texture   *texture;
uint32_t		*framebuffer;

renderer = SDL_CreateRenderer(window, -1, 0);
texture = SDL_CreateTexture( renderer, SDL_PIXELFORMAT_ARGB8888, SDL_TEXTUREACCESS_STREAMING, width, heigth);
framebuffer = (uint32_t*)malloc(framebuffersize) // a framebuffer to do RAM based pixel color setting.

// and later down the road
SDL_UpdateTexture(texture, NULL, framebuffer,windowsizex * sizeof(uint32_t));

// and in some screen update routine
SDL_RenderClear(renderer);
SDL_RenderCopy(renderer,texture, NULL, NULL);
SDL_RenderPresent(renderer);

SDL can get and set itself to the desktop resolution : [url]http://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL_SetWindowFullscreen[/url]

Why should one need a lot of tricks and hacks to do old-school framebuffer rendering when Blitting a software rendered canvas as an opengl-, or whatever SDL2 finds on your machine texture should not be that hard to do in SDL2 trough streaming textures.

Pseudo / general example code:
[code]
SDL_Renderer *renderer;
SDL_Window *window;
SDL_Texture *texture;
uint32_t *framebuffer;

renderer = SDL_CreateRenderer(window, -1, 0);
texture = SDL_CreateTexture( renderer, SDL_PIXELFORMAT_ARGB8888, SDL_TEXTUREACCESS_STREAMING, width, heigth);
framebuffer = (uint32_t*)malloc(framebuffersize) // a framebuffer to do RAM based pixel color setting.

// and later down the road
SDL_UpdateTexture(texture, NULL, framebuffer,windowsizex * sizeof(uint32_t));

// and in some screen update routine
SDL_RenderClear(renderer);
SDL_RenderCopy(renderer,texture, NULL, NULL);
SDL_RenderPresent(renderer);
[/code]

What that does trough SDL2 is: SDL2 choses an apropriate backend for rendering the graphics (ex. opengl) and then the programmer can devise some old-school rendering system which blits pixel data to the framebuffer, to then tell SDL that it needs to update the content of a hardware texture with the content of the old-school framebuffer. This also works on Linux.

It's times like these that I completely understand why professional programmers and technicians are so short-tempered.

A Short Guide on How to Improve the Mona Lisa (according to modern game development studios):
[list][*][b]Valve[/b]: Give her a hat.
[*][b]Infinity Ward[/b]: Paint a new replica every year and hang it in place of the previous one.
[*][b]Bethesda[/b]: Increase physical dimensions of painting a hundred-fold. Upon closer inspection, paint is largely comprised of sawdust and dyed phlegm.
[*][b]Gearbox[/b]: Replace with quirky cel-shaded painting. Sue all independent artists who have ever used cel-shading techniques.
[*][b]Ubisoft[/b]: Carve out 1/4 of the painting and charge visitors an extra fee to see the remaining piece.[/list]

A Short Guide on How to Improve the Quality of a Thread (according to Xaser):
[list][*]Make tired old game industry jokes.
[*]Immediately regret decision.[/list]

[quote="WilliamMacau"]Yeah, right, you are quite normal. You are the type of people that would replace the Mona Lisa with a more "cool one" if you could.[/quote]
Personally I'd add a hint of bloom to Mona Lisa if I could. :D

[quote="Graf Zahl"]Normal people replace any technical device once they realize that it no longer serves their needs.
It's just the losers which whine and complain about the evil world that is against them.[/quote]

Yeah, right, you are quite normal. You are the type of people that would replace the Mona Lisa with a more "cool one" if you could.

It's that I'm not here to please the "God-Almighty Developer", it's just that.

[quote="WilliamMacau"]Well, ban my account then, after I get all my feature suggestions to a defined state.[/quote]
I don't do that either unless there's a pretty good reason behind it. (Please do not try to find that reason.)