Author Topic: 2.00 Screen resolution for NeoLemmix V2.00n (Read 13451 times)

namida · « **on:** July 13, 2015, 05:19:20 AM »

Final decision: 2x resolution will be supported (except in the unlikely event that a decision is made to up both physics and display to work off a base of 3x resolution). Whether or not to change gameplay physics' resolution can be discussed in this topic, although the decision is semi-finalized as that physics will remain at 1x and only display will operate at a higher resolution (if the user chooses to do so).

Currently, all the internal rendering (except the menu screens) is done at 320x200, before being resized to fit the actual resolution in play. While I will most likely keep gameplay physics at this, I'm thinking of using something a bit higher for the actual rendering, so that the graphics can be a bit more detailed, and optionally, the skill panel can fit more stuff (I have some pretty bold plans for this in itself, too).

In regards to this, what should I aim for? In order to keep the gameplay area neatly lined up with the skill panel, the width would have to be a multiple of 320. The most obvious choice would be 640 - double the area, while still small enough that any display will be able to fit it. Although it doesn't strictly have to be so, the logical follow-on from this is that the overall screen area (before resizing to fit) would be 640x400. However, an issue that comes to mind here is that those on resolutions of 1024x768, 1366x768 or 1280x720, this can't be resized larger for the screen without distortion (due to non-integer resize factors) - the current 320x200 display can be resized to 960x600, exactly triple.

While the gameplay area would have to be an integer multiple of 320x160 (so, in this case, 640x320), the skill panel does not nessecerially have to keep its current proportions. If we use the lowest height here (1280x720), then the gameplay area alone resized would be 1280x640; leaving 80 pixels at that size - or 40 pixels once it's downsized. Whether this would be enough or not is another matter... and there would also be width issues in the case of 1024x768. If we were to keep the current proportions, this would mean a very small screen size (although, it'd be the same as Lemmini without using zoom, so maybe not too bad?) for anyone playing on a screen resolution of less than 1280px wide and/or 800px tall. It's also possible (though it may not look great, and could especially be problematic in levels where pixel precision is needed) to not strictly require integer resizing factors.

So - what kind of resolutions are people using? Especially, how many people use the three that I mentioned may be problematic? Or, are there any other solutions people think could be workable?

607 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:06:08 AM »

Hm, I don't know, really.
I've always used 1024 * 768, if it's of any good to know that.

IchoTolot · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:50:06 AM »

I play on a 1920x1080 resolution.

My opinion would be:
Let the gameplay area be at it's original size, if ANY consequences could affect the gameplay. May it be in precision (which a lot of levels have) or screen size (one of the biggest advanteges of NeoLemmix over Lemmini is that you can run it at fullscreen and not in a window of which you cannot change the size! And even I say this is painful with Lemmini.)
A little more detail with a bigger resolution ONLY if it still runs fullscreen without a black edge or distortion and precision and gameplay are not affected!

The skillpanel and Info panel can be resized though. Especially the Info pannel to fit in total IN and OUT numbers, so you can have that information ingame. Skillpannel for 1 or 2 additional skills can be nice, but not as a big must have.

mobius · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:07:40 PM »

awesome!

my monitor is 1680x1050

I wouldn't mind a windowed option [that you can resize]

namida · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:15:21 PM »

I'll definitely try to get some kind of windowed mode going. Considering that I plan to rewrite almost everything apart from the DAT code and the gameplay physics, it should be doable.

So, we know someone uses 1024x768. Most likely, there'll be people who use 1280x720 too (as that's standard 720p resolution), so I should probably try to work with something that would work with a screen size (hypothetically; since I don't know if this is actually a resoluiton that's ever used) of 1024x720. Ideally I'd like to use 640x320 for the playing area, but this doesn't have to be the case. Since the playing area can be scrolled, I guess it doesn't strictly have to be full-sized in all cases - and if the internal physics still run based on 320x160, then there are workarounds that would affect visual quality but not the ability to distinguish individual pixels.

I myself use 1920x1080 (1080p), which is a particularly easy one to work with for this...

At some point, I'll probably make some kind of mockup EXE (which displays a static image of a level, along with a skill bar, but doesn't actually implement any gameplay) and see how it looks for various people.

ccexplore · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:37:06 PM »

If you can ensure that both the original 320 graphics and the new 640 graphics are identical in terms of gameplay physics, then perhaps you can consider leaving it as a user choice, where they can chose the lower resolution graphics in order to better fill up the screen, vs higher resolution graphics that may not fill up the screen as nicely at some resolutions.

You can also potentially support non-multiples of 320 if you look into adjusting the widths and spacing of the skills panel accordingly.

The two other resolutions you mentioned (other than 1024x768) are for widescreen. Obviously, widescreen will always be problematic even if you scale at non-integer multiples: you either end up with less room vertically than usual, or you end up not being able to make full use of the wider horizontal estate and have to basically black-bar on left and right.

namida · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:40:00 PM »

Yeah, that's true. However - aren't the majority of screens widescreen these days? I was actually quite surprised to hear that 607 was using a non-widescreen.

Simon · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:47:07 PM »

Quote

aren't the majority of screens widescreen these days?

1280x1024 and 1400x1050 >_>;;

Choose a scaling factor according to the vertical length, and support arbitrary aspect ratios horizontally. Widescreen users should benefit from the large map view. This is the deluxe solution. Designing aspect-ratio-agnostic can be hard.

About aligning the map with the panel: The minimap can be stretched if necessary, it doesn't display the zoomed-out terrain with proper aspect ratio anyway. Even L1 has spare width in the panel next to the minimap. Instead of a longer minimap, extra buttons are even better.

Windowed support will be appreciated by some, and would help in testing different aspect ratios.

-- Simon

ccexplore · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2015, 09:59:16 PM »

Quote from: namida on July 13, 2015, 09:40:00 PM

aren't the majority of screens widescreen these days?

Simon basically beat me to it, but given how PC sales have been in decline, don't be surprised that many may still be using older hardware that may not support widescreen.

Anyway, that's sort of besides the point since we do know that more recent hardware are likely to support widescreen, and it is widescreen where you can't expect to just directly scale up the layout of original Lemmings. Simon's "deluxe solution" is worth considering especially taking widescreen into account.

607 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2015, 04:49:22 PM »

Quote from: namida on July 13, 2015, 09:40:00 PM

Yeah, that's true. However - aren't the majority of screens widescreen these days? I was actually quite surprised to hear that 607 was using a non-widescreen.

Yes, they are. But I like this resolution, and if you don't mind, I won't be changing it any time soon (plus I don't really have money to spare on monitors at the moment).

namida · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:02:44 AM »

So I'm thinking, I'll offer a similar setup to what Windows Lemmings has - except that the underlying mechanics will always run based on low-resolution, to ensure consistency. The skill panel - which I plan to make a bit more customizable, as I've been saying - will have the option when in hi-res mode of simply enlarging everything, or using the extra space to fit more stuff (for example, displaying all 16 skill slots regardless of which ones are in the level).

The one question that remains is widescreen. Given that a majority of monitors are widescreen, I'd like to make use of it; at the same time, given that it seems a lot of people here still use 4:3 resolutions, I absolutely don't want to require widescreen. The question then is how best to do this... Most likely, I won't aim to have a full-blown "adapt to any display size", but simply offer a Widescreen mode that uses an aspect ratio more suited to widescreens. The most likely candidate here is (with low-resolution graphics) 424x200 - this is because it adapts fairly well to common sizes, with little unused area:

1024x600 = 2x zoom = 848x400
1280x720 = 3x zoom = 1272x600
1366x768 = 3x zoom = 1272x600
1680x1050 = 3x zoom = 1272x600 (4x zoom is slightly too large; this is the one resolution it doesn't work too great with - not that it will be awful, just not perfect)
1920x1080 = 4x zoom = 1696x800

It's not quite so ideal in high-res, but still manageable (and in some cases it will fit better by using non-widescreen). Basically, anything that uses 2x or 3x zoom above would instead need to use 1x (giving a game resolution of 848x400), while a resolution capable of using 4x or higher could use 2x zoom (giving 1696x800). If anyone actually uses a display resolution high enough to get a 6x zoom (2560x1440 for example; which would give a game resolution of 2544x1200), then 3x zoom could be used in hi-res.

Another factor in choosing this is that the width and height are both divisible by 8. This will allow better re-use of existing assets rather than having to make new ones; particularly important for the skill panel.

To add to that, certain combinations of settings could also be used for the skill panel and the game area:

- A standard-screen skill panel could be used together with a widescreen game area display (in which case it'd be centered), but not the inverse
- A low-res skill panel could be used together with a hi-res game area (in which case it'd just be resized to fit)
- A hi-res skill panel could be used together with a lo-res game area *ONLY* when the zoom is even (2x, 4x, 6x, etc)

namida · « **Reply #11 on:** August 04, 2015, 10:44:57 AM »

So I've been thinking about this, and am wondering one more thing...

It's safe to assume no one here uses anything lower than 640x480, right?

So... the question is, is there a need to support a low-resolution skill panel, keeping in mind that it could be stretched to fit odd sizes (or, in any case other than low-res with 1x zoom, centered)? Unlike the play area, it isn't critical to have a pixel-perfect, unstretched display for the panel - as long as you can clearly make out the information on it (or in other words, it's fine to zoom it by non-integer multiples).

namida · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2015, 01:36:14 PM »

It seems there's a strong preference for hi-res here.

So my next question - is there anyone who thinks they're likely to use Low-Res at 1x zoom? The reason I ask this is that, if not, the skill bar can be set to "always hi-res" which would greatly simplify implementing it. Low-Res at 2x zoom, or Hi-Res at 1x zoom, still only needs a minimum resolution of 640x400, so I doubt we'd ever run into a situation of actually not being able to handle it.

namida · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2015, 04:23:19 AM »

I've been working on some experimental code (ie: not part of the actual new app, but just in a test app to look into what does / doesn't work well) for handling various zooms as well as switching to/from full screen. ~~Few minor bugs but shouldn't be anything I can't fix~~ fixed. I'd say there's about a 100% chance you can expect both full screen and windowed options for 2.00n.

In regards to the question about Low-Res 1x Zoom; it shouldn't be too much hassle to support it - however, if I do indeed go with a "hi-res only for skillbar" option (which would still allow the gameplay area to be low-res), this may simply mean that the skill bar may be hard to read at 1x zoom low-res. So I'd like to know if there's anyone who thinks they're likely to use 1x Zoom Low-Res (it won't be a problem with 2x Zoom or higher Low-Res, or any zoom Hi-Res), so that if there is, I can specifically look at alternative options to minimize problems that could arise in such a setup.

Still need to check it on Linux too. Cross-compiling is something I haven't been able to get set up (at least not in the Windows to Linux direction, which is what I'd be interested in, given that my main PC is the Windows one), but I should be able to simply compile it on the Linux machine and test that way.

namida · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2015, 04:16:23 AM »

They say an image is worth a thousand words. This is a thousand times more true when trying to describe images.

Do note this is a mockup, not an actual gameplay image (as could be evidenced by the mixed style of skill panel icons, the lack of actual skills on them, the mismatch between the level shown on-screen and the level shown in the minimap, etc; this image has been increasingly made from cut-and-paste parts depending on what I want to test at the time); but this shows what a hi-res skill panel might look like, including at 320x200 window size (which is what low-res 1x zoom would be).

Is anyone likely to use it at that size, and if so, do they find it hard to read the skill panel?

EDIT: Updated the image to contain some actual icons, even if it's only the release rate change ones.

GigaLem · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2015, 04:23:57 AM »

oh i likey does this mean LPI and beyond will be windowed?
Also did you make this level?

namida · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2015, 04:29:36 AM »

Nope, that level isn't one of my own. I just happened to need a hi-res level image for something I was testing, and that was the first one I had in my NeoLemmix Editor folder. I forget who it's by, but the name of the level is "Lemming Sold Seperately". (As I mentioned; that's not the actual level's skillset / etc in the image; in fact, the skill panel comes from an entirely different screenshot, specifically "Lemming It The Hard Way" (Breezy 30 of Lemmings Plus Omega), apart from the three hi-res panels that I manually edited in for the sake of creating that image.)

As I mentioned numerous times; I plan to support both fullscreen and windowed in V2.00n. Here's a shot of the same thing full-screen (unfiltered; though supporting filtered display will be very easy to do - in fact, the downsizing to 1x zoom does already use it).

namida · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2015, 05:41:44 AM »

So, I tried actually adding some lemming icons to the skill panels, and the result is... not too impressive, even at 640x400. It's not too bad at full-screen. As such, I decided to trial two alternative options that might make the type of skill a bit more visible - one is adding a black outline, which doesn't help too much at 320x200 but works pretty well at 640x400. The other was to change the background color of a panel button; while this is quite clear even at 320x200, I don't really know how I feel about the idea in general...

The outline idea can be seen on the Climber, while the changed background color can be seen on the Floater. The Walker uses neither.

Any thoughts?

I'll also mention - since no one seems to be objecting to the idea of not supporting 320x200 display (low-res would still be supported, but only at a minimum of 2x zoom), am I safe to assume no one has a problem with this? It'll greatly simplify handling of the skill panel this way.

(Note that the fullscreen pic doesn't have any smoother of any kind applied to it, and is a 2.5x zoom from the base resolution of 640x400, which is why it appears distorted. Integer zoom factors wouldn't have this issue; an alternative option is using a smoother of some kind, which is very simple to do. Heck, here, I'll attach another screenshot with a smoother applied to it.) (Yes, I am aware that "smoother" is probably the wrong terminology to be using here.)

mobius · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2015, 08:13:57 PM »

I don't know why you said it's not too impressive. I think all those pics look great

the climber looks a little better imo because of the black outline.

Simon · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2015, 10:31:10 PM »

Quote from: namida on August 21, 2015, 05:41:44 AM

I'll also mention - since no one seems to be objecting to the idea of not supporting 320x200 display (low-res would still be supported, but only at a minimum of 2x zoom), am I safe to assume no one has a problem with this? It'll greatly simplify handling of the skill panel this way.

If someone can't display at least 640x400, chances are they can't run your 32-bit binaries in the first place. ;-) Tablets have a larger resolution.

-- Simon

namida · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2015, 05:11:49 AM »

Quote from: möbius on August 21, 2015, 08:13:57 PM

I don't know why you said it's not too impressive. I think all those pics look great

the climber looks a little better imo because of the black outline.

I was meaning as in, it's hard (at low zooms) to see what the skills actually are; more than that the images themself don't look too great.

Quote from: Simon on August 22, 2015, 10:31:10 PM

Quote from: namida on August 21, 2015, 05:41:44 AM
I'll also mention - since no one seems to be objecting to the idea of not supporting 320x200 display (low-res would still be supported, but only at a minimum of 2x zoom), am I safe to assume no one has a problem with this? It'll greatly simplify handling of the skill panel this way.

If someone can't display at least 640x400, chances are they can't run your 32-bit binaries in the first place. ;-) Tablets have a larger resolution.

-- Simon

I figured "can't" won't be an issue, but the possibility is more of someone who might want to (for whatever reason) run it at low-res 1x zoom. (Perhaps someone who actually uses a low-resolution like 640x480 or 800x600; or maybe a huge screen, might find such a setup reasonable.)

namida · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2015, 08:18:41 AM »

So, I decided to try something else. I didn't really like the alternate colors (see the floater in the previous pics), but I thought the outline didn't stand out enough. But what if I doubled the thickness of it? Well, that looked a tad messy... so then I thought, what if I do that, but make the "doubled" outline semitransparent? The result looks quite nice at all zoom levels, IMO!

Also, I added some game font text to the mockup "screenshot". Notice that unlike the other elements, it hasn't been increased in size, which allows fitting far more of it. I find it to still be very readable at 640x400, while readable with some effort (or with already having a general idea of what it might say, which is probably the case 99% of the time) even at 320x200.

(If anyone's wondering, the skill count font is one of the standard Windows ones (Calibri, I think), the game text font is the standard DOS one just without the resizing, the "blank slate" skill panels are custom made, while the icons on them are made mostly from WinLemm's high-resolution lemming sprites, apart from Bomber, Pause and Nuke (which come from the WinLemm skill panel, with minor modifications) and the Release Rate ones (made from scratch). I haven't made icons for most of the NeoLemmix skills yet, though I have for Walker, Disarmer and Cloner. The remainder, I need to make high-resolution sprites first; in particular, I'm hoping to differentiate Platformer, Stacker and Glider a bit more from Builders and Floaters than they currently are.)

I'm thinking that 1x Zoom Low-Res probably can be enabled, but perhaps with a warning message notifying the user that it might make things harder to see and that a higher zoom is recommended.

EDIT: I made the Glider sprites (though I still need to do the pulling-out-the-glider ones), and as such also made a Glider skill panel icon to go with it. But it does look very similar to Floater. Players who are familiar with them could tell them apart due to the lemmings facing different directions, while those who look closely can see the difference even if they were facing the same way (the different shape of a glider compared to an umbrella, and if you look really closely, you can notice the lemming is actually hanging off a bar with two hands, rather than holding onto a handle with one). Would simply differentiating them in color (which would by extension also apply to the actual lemming sprites) be enough, you think? And if so, what color would go well - I'm thinking red might be the best option (and have included a possible red version in the attached image), since blue or green wouldn't stand out as much from the lemming itself.

EDIT: Here you go. Glider!

Making it into a GIF was done with a kinda shitty online GIF generator, so the animation timing is a bit faster than it should be and the lemming jumps upwards slightly between the "pull out glider" (first 4 frames) and the "gliding" (the rest).

namida · « **Reply #22 on:** September 06, 2015, 12:59:18 PM »

Here's another thought - should mixed resolutions be supported? Obviously they'd have to be resized to all ultimately match up, but the idea here is (aside from simply user preferences) - some things such as terrain and the skill panel only need to be drawn once, which means that the level might load a bit slower in higher resolutions, but it'll have little effect while playing (not none at all, but it'll be a relatively small difference). Other things such as objects and lemmings need to be redrawn every frame, which could result in slowdown especially on slower PCs.

(Although, I am strongly leaning towards only supporting a single resolution for the menus and skill panel anyway; with only the gameplay area being configurable.)

namida · « **Reply #23 on:** September 09, 2015, 08:36:49 PM »

Doesn't seem to be much feedback coming on this anymore. So, here's my final thoughts, and I'll probably close this topic soon if no one expresses a desire to have something else supported:

Zoom
Zooming can be done at integer multiples (for low-res) or half-integer multiples (for hi-res; including 50%). Whatever resolution the player is using, it'll be resized to fit the zoom level.

Rendering
Rendering will be supported at 320x200 or 640x400 initially; with possible support for higher resolutions at a later point in time. The user can choose either low-res or hi-res; but certain elements (such as the skill bar) will *always* be drawn at hi-res. In fact, I'm leaning strongly towards having only the level's graphics (terrain, objects) drawn with variable resolution, since this is the only part where low-res will offer any significant advantage (unless there's too much of a performance hit elsewhere). This is basically to avoid having to have two versions of lemming sprites, skill panel graphics, etc, which may be important if someone wishes to use custom ones in their pack. I may even consider having only hi-res even there, simply with an option that sacrifices graphic quality to a small degree in favor of being extremely clear about what is or isn't solid (since, keep in mind, the internal physics will still be running at 320x200 resolution).