Make the minimum resolution for the game 800x600?

[Zarel]

A few things:

- 640x480 support is useful even if you don't have a 640x480 screen - if you want to play in Windowed mode.
- 640x480 is easier to port to smartphones, PDAs, etc.
- 3.27% is a ton. For reference, the global marketshare of Linux is 1.02%, and dropping support for Linux is one of the last things we'd ever do. People often look at single-digit percentages, but they don't realize that these percentages are out of a huge number.

[Zarax]

Well Zarel, I must say that I agree on some points and disagree on others.

2.3 beta can run ok on a slightly tweaked (as in with XP lightened up as much as possible) intel atom 270 in intel gma 945 integrated card and that's quite a nice thing.
However, as you said in another thread it's very likely that compatibility for it will be broken in the future.
That imho makes most of this debate relatively outdated.

- 640x480 is easier to port to smartphones, PDAs, etc.

While it's true that it would be nice to keep the game easier to port to lighter platforms I would like to point out that at the same time higher prerequisites will make future versions less likely candidates and will probably mark somewhere around 2.3 as a threshold between larger compatibility and improved visuals (for this topic's sake of course).

This is not meant to be criticism at all but rather is an educated guess based on the fact that supporting two engine models on the same platform would mean adding a not so small layer of complexity.

In any case, given the open source nature of the game if anybody wanted to do such a thing it would "just" be a matter of getting the correct code snapshot (assuming you're using anything similar to SVN tags) and starting from there.

- 640x480 support is useful even if you don't have a 640x480 screen - if you want to play in Windowed mode.

This could start a nice discussion about the usefulness of a "partial screen" windowed mode with a game but my gut feeling tells me that the most likely behavior is "pause - alt+tab - back in game" in which window size is of relatively small importance.

As I said elsewhere, as long as you keep installers with older versions around it will be fine.

After all, we're talking about a game so in any case a netbook or smaller platform wouldn't really do justice to much more than casual sessions.

[Pangaea]

- 3.27% is a ton. For reference, the global marketshare of Linux is 1.02%, and dropping support for Linux is one of the last things we'd ever do. People often look at single-digit percentages, but they don't realize that these percentages are out of a huge number.

3.27% wasn't 640x480 - it was 800x600. 640 wasn't in the list. But based on other stats sites I saw yesterday, it's probably (well) under 1%.

[cybersphinx]

With the raising requirements for 3.0 I see no problem with raising the screen resolution even to 1024x800. People who run WZ with a lower resolution (for hardware reasons) will probably have no chance to run it at all then.

How about two game instances plus debugging output? 2 x 1024x768 won't fit on many screens comfortably. Hardware limitations are not the only reason to use a lower resolution (see also Kreuvf's comment on videos).

After all, we're talking about a game so in any case a netbook or smaller platform wouldn't really do justice to much more than casual sessions.

So you're saying casual users shouldn't expect to be able to play Warzone?

3.27% wasn't 640x480 - it was 800x600. 640 wasn't in the list. But based on other stats sites I saw yesterday, it's probably (well) under 1%.

The poll here says 20% want to keep 640x480 - people might use a smaller resolution to play than to read websites (as long as we keep SDL, at least...).

[Rman Virgil]

.

A few things:
......

- 3.27% is a ton. For reference, the global marketshare of Linux is 1.02%, and dropping support for Linux is one of the last things we'd ever do. People often look at single-digit percentages, but they don't realize that these percentages are out of a huge number.

Indeed...

Mark Twain had this to say in his Autobiography:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

(He attributed the phrase incorrectly to the British statesman Disraeli - the actual source being an article by Leonard H. Courtney that appeared in 1895.)

Something to keep in mind with any polling or the assumed "gospel" value of so called scientific statistical analysis inferences.

- RV
.

[Zarax]

*semi-ot starts*

So you're saying casual users shouldn't expect to be able to play Warzone?

That's taking my quote out of context, especially after I posted a topic congratulating the team for having releases able to play on casual gaming platforms like netbooks.

I'll try to clarify a bit more what I said (had my english worsened so much that my concepts are becoming sybilline?)...

What I meant is that upgrades can justify heightened system requirements.

In detail:

1) There is no such thing as a PDA version of warzone (please correct me if I'm wrong) today

2) Zarel stated in another thread that the next major releases will break compatibility with video cards commonly used on ultralight platforms such as netbooks

3) I'm assuming that a) you'll have a "2.3 tag" in your trunk and b) it would be quite complicated to have the engine upgrades coexisting with the older version in the same release

4) Hence my conclusion was that those wanting to play on netbooks and other platform usually unsuitable for gaming can keep playing version 2.3ish with the original Pumpkin gfx (or use that code as base for porting to PDA and the like) while more gaming oriented platforms can benefit from upgrades

*semi-ot ends*

That's at least my reason for dropping 640x480 support in favour of 800x600 and greater.
It's not like that I don't appreciate the potential benefits of keeping the lower resolution but basically my point was a more elaborate version of Kamakaze's.

That said, your last point about multiple game instances plus debugging output definitely merits further discussion as I assumed most people using windowed mode (including myself) did that for quick access to other apps.

[Zarel]

2) Zarel stated in another thread that the next major releases will break compatibility with video cards commonly used on ultralight platforms such as netbooks

We still have fairly low prerequisites. The only prerequisite worth worrying about is OpenGL, and requiring OpenGL 2.0 isn't much of an issue unless you're running one of the older intel video cards.

"Commonly used on ultralight platforms", yes. But there are many ultralight platforms that do support OpenGL 2.0.

In other words: iPhone, most netbooks = probably not a problem, even with newer versions of Warzone.
But a computer with an Intel GMA X3100 or older Intel graphics card: Problem.

Currently, it appears the video card usually used on netbooks is the GMA 500, which does support OpenGL 2.0 and therefore presumably supports Warzone.

This could start a nice discussion about the usefulness of a "partial screen" windowed mode with a game but my gut feeling tells me that the most likely behavior is "pause - alt+tab - back in game" in which window size is of relatively small importance.

I nearly always play windowed - faster and easier than alt+tab, especially to maintain IM conversations, or glance at Guide data.

[Zarax]

We still have fairly low prerequisites. The only prerequisite worth worrying about is OpenGL, and requiring OpenGL 2.0 isn't much of an issue unless you're running one of the older intel video cards.

"Commonly used on ultralight platforms", yes. But there are many ultralight platforms that do support OpenGL 2.0.

In other words: iPhone, most netbooks = probably not a problem, even with newer versions of Warzone.
But a computer with an Intel GMA X3100 or older Intel graphics card: Problem.

Currently, it appears the video card usually used on netbooks is the GMA 500, which does support OpenGL 2.0 and therefore presumably supports Warzone.

Well, that dissolves my argument then.
The question may as well become "how tricky would be to optimize the interface to fit more items on a 640x480 resolution?"

I nearly always play windowed - faster and easier than alt+tab, especially to maintain IM conversations, or glance at Guide data.

So do I, although my windowed mode resolution = system resolution.
I was wondering more about windowed mode smaller than desktop resolution and what uses people would have for that.

[Zarel]

Well, that dissolves my argument then.
The question may as well become "how tricky would be to optimize the interface to fit more items on a 640x480 resolution?"

I'm looking into it.

If it happens that the new interface cannot possibly fit in 640x480, I might raise the requirements to 800x600. But definitely no higher. I can't think of a single game that has trouble in 800x600...

So do I, although my windowed mode resolution = system resolution.
I was wondering more about windowed mode smaller than desktop resolution and what uses people would have for that.

I play windowed a few resolution stages lower (often something like 800x600 on my laptop). In Mac OS X, I can't see power or half my map if I use same resolution as desktop.

[Zarax]

I do sometimes have the same issue with Vista but it's inconsistent.
With a few alt+tab switches it usually works but sometimes it gets stuck.

Since I read somewhere scrolling would be relatively tricky to implement, what about "fake tabs"?
Kinda like in the design screen, imho they would fit the whole interface style and give more menu flexibility albeit at the expense of a few more clicks...

[Zarel]

Since I read somewhere scrolling would be relatively tricky to implement, what about "fake tabs"?
Kinda like in the design screen, imho they would fit the whole interface style and give more menu flexibility albeit at the expense of a few more clicks...

Implementing "fake tabs" for 640x480 only falls under the "too much work" category.

[DuKe2112]

Why do you want to size up the menu anyway? with typical pixel size of today's LCD, it is about 5 inches (12cm) or bigger. And to me the font is already pretty big.

But there is another problem with choosing the resolution.
Well I have nvidia twinview on ubuntu and in WZ I have the same problem I have in several games. When I start in Windowed mode it only displays the whole desktop (3800 x 1080) and the current resolution as available resolutions. But it wouldn't matter, because its a window after all.

Would it be possible to change the options menu so that when you pick windowed, it displays all and maybe custom resolutions and only when you pick fullscreen it would display the available resolutions?

[123vtemp]

More screen space solution:
The Mini Map can be Greatly improved for space in a number of useful ways.

The Mini Map: can be set to snap to the corner of the screen when it has not been rotated.
When it does get rotated because the user has rotated the map, it could then pop out, functioning as it currently does.
If it can be crunched to take up even less space that would also help the issue.
Note: it already can get too small for units to be shown. Giving units a minimum 1 pixel block size would ensure that a player would be aware of key intel. To permit even smaller functioning mini map sizes 1 pixel could represent groups of units moving in accordance. This would reduce clutter from a small cluttered screen.


640 x 480 has significant advantages. I love to play with 640 x480 on a 1920x1080 screen for comfort.
Perhaps I am ignorant, but I do not yet know if I can increase the interface in another way.
640x480 Brings simplicity. There is Much value in simplicity.

If I was not clear or could have done some thing differently, I'd be glad to know.

[DuKe2112]

you can also zoom the minimap, scrollwheel and probably also shortcuts I don't know right now (;

[Ai_Tak]

2) Zarel stated in another thread that the next major releases will break compatibility with video cards commonly used on ultralight platforms such as netbooks

We still have fairly low prerequisites. The only prerequisite worth worrying about is OpenGL, and requiring OpenGL 2.0 isn't much of an issue unless you're running one of the older intel video cards.

Is the next major release (with OpenGL 2.0) you refer to 2.4, or something slightly higher? I was hoping to continue testing/playing warzone without a complete system replacement (at least for a while). What specific feature/function needs the OpenGL 2.0?