Resolution Questions

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by Kinsie »

PlayerLin wrote:But DooM 2016 is OpenGL too(before Vulkan renderer happens), or idtech5 just do hacky way too since Windows doesn't like that?
I believe (I don't have it installed at this exact moment) that OpenGL Doom 2016 has a choice between exclusive or borderless-window fullscreen, and the latter is hard-locked to desktop resolution and refresh rate. I don't remember how the Vulkan version works off the top of my head, but given that a Vulkan-based Quake sourceport by an Id developer has exclusive fullscreen support of some kind, I suspect it works much the same.
User avatar
PlayerLin
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:20 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: XinZhuang, XinBei/New Taipei City(Former Taipei County), Taiwan.
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by PlayerLin »

Graf Zahl wrote:Does it actually physically change the resolution? I cannot say because I do not own the game. But be it as it may, being able to do this stuff is merely still there because Windows itself needs to do it and for compatibility with old stuff. The OS doesn't play nicely with it at all.
As I remembered, it was(not have the game installed now), so it just they did some workarounds. At least it's working fine and I don't have problems with that, it never messed up my desktop icons(or just not happened yet, don't know). :|

*trolling mode* Can I blame those OS devs for not fix the shit but just throw away. :P
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13531
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by Rachael »

Graf Zahl wrote:
Rachael wrote:I did a thing.

Well, the backend part is done. Just need someone to present a UI way of doing this. I honest to god have no idea the best way to present a UI for this option.

(I managed to do this with only one pair of hacks! :mrgreen: )
I'm not really sure this is a good start to build upon. I mean, having a custom option in there is certainly not bad, but wouldn't it be better to have the most common resolutions explicitly listed?
If you really want to do that, the system was designed in such a way that it can handle it, and in the short term there will be no issues. I intentionally made the system as easy as possible for any coder besides myself to manipulate to their will. The table handles dynamic values by defining widths and heights as anonymous functions and putting them into an array, and the scalar functions will do function calls rather than handling explicit values directly.

But the reason why I didn't bloat the resolution selector table for this is quite simple: If you add anything to it, you will have to account for, and possibly take away from it in the future. It can also get messy real fast, if you simply assign a single numeric to a list of common modes, as it already has. (0 - Neighbor vid_scalefactor, 1 - Linear vid_scalefactor, 2 - 320x200, 3 - 640x400, 4 - 1280x800, 5 - Custom... want 960x600? Oh it looks a little nasty because now it's not in logical sequential order - either that, or mess up people's config files... ugh!)

So therefore, I think it might be better if the menu defines the resolution geometry explicitly, rather than a simple array of values to throw at it.

In fact, we could probably even take it a step further, since the custom option is in there now, and remove modes 1, 2, 3, and 4, make the custom option mode 1, and let the menu define the rest. Or they can stay for compatibility's sake since they've been there a while now (since 3.2.x if I recall? if not longer).
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by Graf Zahl »

PlayerLin wrote: *trolling mode* Can I blame those OS devs for not fix the shit but just throw away. :P
You have to accept that things that made sense 10+ years ago don't anymore. Modern flat screen displays have a fixed grid of pixels - it makes no sense to use any different display mode on them.
Most current displays are still capable of internally upscaling from know common screen sizes but it's still an upscale.

Why should the OS even bother with this anymore? It's code that has to be maintained while providing little to no benefit whatsoever.
And as time progresses, even Windows may just replace the real mode change with some internal scaling, effectively rendering to a surface that matches the screen. So where are you then? It doesn't really matter whether the OS or the game is doing the scaling, you end up with the same content on screen. But that begs the question: If there is no benefit, and code to do this thing ends up a mess due to how Windows works, why even do it? I'm just in the same place as the OS developers here: There's no benefit but a lot of work and a lot of mess. I do not want to deal with mess and I do not want to have code that requires excess work. And behold the result!
User avatar
PlayerLin
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:20 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: XinZhuang, XinBei/New Taipei City(Former Taipei County), Taiwan.
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by PlayerLin »

While I always agreed and accepted such situations(if it's messed up then better let them alone/throwing away), it just needed times to get used to.

But it doesn't means every one of users will happily agreed/accepted such things, although it's not avoidable because devs don't want mess with those messes, and I think it's not really fixable too(for both sides). :(
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by Graf Zahl »

PlayerLin wrote: it just needed times to get used to.
... don't we all know that some people REALLY have issues to cope with change, often completely disregarding why things NEED to change?
User avatar
PlayerLin
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:20 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: XinZhuang, XinBei/New Taipei City(Former Taipei County), Taiwan.
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by PlayerLin »

Graf Zahl wrote: ... don't we all know that some people REALLY have issues to cope with change, often completely disregarding why things NEED to change?
And that's what I said on next sentence on my post, you can explain reasons about "things need to change" but not everybody will happily(or without bad attitudes) to accept them, some of them just want what they already have(without extra shit to workaround, bad habits maybe) and refuse to change.

But you(or we?) can't do everything for them if they just refuse to change. :|
(Yes, it actually say to myself too...)

(I feel off-topic now...)
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17434
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by Nash »

Now that there's no more exclusive fullscreen mode, is there any reason why GZDoom cannot default to fullscreen? Most commercial games start you in fullscreen.

I tried GZDoom for the first time since this whole business and was greeted with a tiny window. On 1920x1200, the game's menu looked super tiny and it took quite a bit of squinting for me to navigate to the Video menu to toggle fullscreen.

Alternatively, have GZDoom start at a more reasonable window size, like 640x480.

OR! If you don't like arbitrary dimensions; have GZDoom calculate the window size based on the user's desktop, say 80%.
dpJudas
 
 
Posts: 3037
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 1:01 pm

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by dpJudas »

I'm in favor of doing both at the same time. Let it start full screen, with the windowed default size to be 80% of the desktop. I.e. if you toggle full screen off it should not show a tiny 320x200 or 640x480 window - those sizes aren't reasonable. Especially not on a hi-dpi monitor like mine.
User avatar
gwHero
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 3:23 am
Graphics Processor: Intel with Vulkan/Metal Support
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Resolution Questions

Post by gwHero »

dpJudas wrote:I'm in favor of doing both at the same time. Let it start full screen, with the windowed default size to be 80% of the desktop. I.e. if you toggle full screen off it should not show a tiny 320x200 or 640x480 window - those sizes aren't reasonable. Especially not on a hi-dpi monitor like mine.
I totally agree with this.
Post Reply

Return to “General”