Warzone 2100 Forums

As far as I know, this game has had a minimum resolution of 640x480 since the beginning. Even cheap smartphones today ship with 720p (1280x720) resolution displays or better. According to StatCounter, 1366×768 became the most commonly used monitor resolution worldwide two years ago (and they are no longer tracking less than 1024x768).

We are struggling with making good GUIs setups that can scale down to the lowest resolutions. So I'm suggesting we change the minimum resolution in the next major release to 1024x768.

If you have reasons why this shouldn't be done, post them here.

I got 1680 * 1050 and 1920 * 1080 (of which neither is in the poll alternatives). The lowest resolution computer screens I've encountered anywhere in the last 5 years is probably 1024*600 on some netbooks. These should be able to run warzone (at least without shaders) so it might be worth supporting them.

Also: 720p is 1280*720, not 1024*720, unless you're talking about some exotic implementation of the standard.

My bad. Poll updated. Please use it again

My monitor is 1600x1200, no love for useful 4:3 resolutions

Didn't we agree on requiring 800x600 a while ago already? The main argument for lower resolutions I remember from that was for making videos because of the bandwidth/processing power needed for higher resolutions.

I think x768 is a bit too restrictive, but x720 is fine; it should be still usable for low-res youtube, and covers most monitors.

On the other hand, 1024x600 feels very common to me on the small netbooks. We don't look at them as closely as we do at our phones, so they don't need any huge dpi, and also m$-windows fonts would look too small on high-dpi monitors. There's no alternative to a netbook for an extremely mobile but full-featured pc, and even though i'd prefer an 11.6" 1366x768 for that purpose (due to normal keyboard), i'm not in the majority, in fact such models are very rare compared to many different 1024x600 models.

NoQ wrote:There's no alternative to a netbook for an extremely mobile but full-featured pc

win 8.1 tablets?

My notebook have 1600x900. But I voted for 1366x768 I believe its standard notebook res.But I think any 1024 resolution will be fine however IMHO 16:9 aspect should be taken into consideration as wide-screens popular nowadays.

Hello.
I believe WZ UI should be remade for minimal 1366×768 screen resolution. Lower resolutions should not be supported.
New UI would make easier WZ development in total.
Thank you.

1024x600 would be fine. Also, for very high resolutions an introduction of fov option might be needed.

cybersphinx wrote:Didn't we agree on requiring 800x600 a while ago already?

That's what I remember, as well. But somehow the 640x480 requirement kept coming back...

cybersphinx wrote:The main argument for lower resolutions I remember from that was for making videos because of the bandwidth/processing power needed for higher resolutions.

The recording programs can't downsample?

They can, but our pixel-art UI widgets would become too small (consider 1080p->240p of youtube quality). As soon as somebody makes a scalable UI, this would no longer be a problem.

win 8.1 tablets?

Emm even if you manage to put it on your laps together with an external keyboard and print comfortably, i doubt you'd get an external mouse that is as precise and convenient as a touchpad (something touchscreen isn't) and doesn't require a table to work(?)

NoQ wrote:Emm even if you manage to put it on your laps together with an external keyboard and print comfortably, i doubt you'd get an external mouse that is as precise and convenient as a touchpad (something touchscreen isn't) and doesn't require a table to work(?)

You just need to get additionally Y-OTG usb cable and plug any mouse+keyboard you may want. Another thing is to get usb hub and plug any usb devices you want + charge battery.

Per wrote:

cybersphinx wrote:Didn't we agree on requiring 800x600 a while ago already?

That's what I remember, as well. But somehow the 640x480 requirement kept coming back...

cybersphinx wrote:The main argument for lower resolutions I remember from that was for making videos because of the bandwidth/processing power needed for higher resolutions.

The recording programs can't downsample?

640x480 is still very useful for debugging multiple games at once. I suppose 800x600 would be a logical choice as minimum, depending on how things get re-written.

The original videos are 320x160, and the "improved" ones are upscaled versions with the "hq" being 1024x768 I think it was.
Rending them shouldn't cause that big of a hit compared to 640x480, but, I don't think that is the problem we have, though, if you have a lower quality video card, then 640x480 is your only choice if you don't want to see performance hits.

The main problem we have is all source material is very low res (640x480 or lower), and it looks like crap the higher we go.
It would be best to have multiple bitmaps of what we need, and handle it that way.
SVG is out of the question, there just isn't good support for that in a cross-platform way.

Yeah, what vexed said running lower rez for debugging. Very important.

Also, while a tablet/phone may do 1280x700 (or such), the desktop interface will be very unclickable on such a device.

Y-OTG usb cable and plug any mouse+keyboard you may want

I cannot just put a keyboard on my laps, then put the screen on some other place on my laps, then put a mouse on somebody else's laps and move it around with my third hand. I need to have those in one piece and properly positioned against each other.

The correct alternative is a transformer dock panel. Such devices do exist as well (hmm, maybe i just get one?), and some of them even have a hard disk drive. But that's already at least twice as expensive.