In regards to increasing the panel's width - when the current-standard (ie: non-compact, with the extra feature buttons and the larger minimap) panel was introduced, some users complained it appeared too small on their screen, because there wasn't room to zoom it further. Let's consider - on common resolutions, can we add 16px (the width of one button) to each skill panel type, without forcing a lower level of zoom? What about 32px?
To start off with, some details to be aware of:
- I am assuming full-screen here. If anyone has any particularly specific setups using a windowed display that they're concerned about, please mention this so they can be taken into account.
- NeoLemmix is DPI-unaware. This means that, for example, if your display resolution is 1920x1080, but you have Windows scaling set to 150%, NeoLemmix thinks it's running on a 1280x720 resolution display (with the upscaling from that performed by the OS, not by NeoLemmix). I will account for (a) the most common cases, (b) cases that I personally use, or (c) cases that anyone else mentions they personally use.
- When unzoomed, the standard skill panel is 416px wide.
- When unzoomed, the compact skill panel is 320px wide.
- Both skill panels are 40px tall. Irrelevant here, but mentioning for completeness's sake.
- These widths include the minimap, and the height includes the information text above the actual skills. In terms of NeoLemmix's internal workings, this entire area is the skill panel, and is rendered / zoomed as one large area.
Again - please let me know if you use a resolution or zoom factor not covered here, so it can be taken into account to decide whether widening is feasible.Sample resolution
- Standard panel: Current {#1}, +16px {#2}, +32px {#3}
- Compact panel: Current {#1}, +16px {#2}, +32px {#3}
- Importance: {How important do I think accounting for this resolution is?}
#1 - The maximum zoom level the panel can be displayed at, at the current size.
#2 - The maximum zoom level the panel could be displayed at, if the width were increased by 16px.
#3 - The maximum zoom level the panel could be displayed at, if the width were increased by 32px.
640x480
- Standard panel: Current (1x), +16px (1x), +32px (1x)
- Compact panel: Current (2x), +16px (1x), +32px (1x)
- Importance: Probably very low. I suspect few people use this anymore.
800x600
- Standard panel: Current (1x), +16px (1x), +32px (1x)
- Compact panel: Current (2x), +16px (2x), +32px (2x)
- Importance: Also probably very low and not much used anymore. Not to mention, it's completely unaffected by the addition of even 32px, on either panel.
1024x768
- Standard panel: Current (2x), +16px (2x), +32px (2x)
- Compact panel: Current (3x), +16px (3x), +32px (2x)
- Importance: Probably the most common resolution among 4:3 holdouts, so maybe a bit more important than the other 4:3's.
1280x720 and 1280x1024 (Also: 1920x1080 with 150% scaling; 2560x1440 with 200% scaling; 3840x2160 with 300% scaling)
- Standard panel: Current (3x), +16px (2x), +32px (2x)
- Compact panel: Current (4x), +16px (3x), +32px (3x)
- Importance: 1280x720 is probably quite important; as most 1080p displays (which are becoming increasingly common) are by default set to 150% scaling.
1366x768
- Standard panel: Current (3x), +16px (3x), +32px (3x)
- Compact panel: Current (4x), +16px (4x), +32px (3x)
- Importance: Pretty much the most common display resolution these days, especially for laptops, so very important.
1536x864 (Rarely if ever used directly, but 3840x2160 at 250% scaling is this)
- Standard panel: Current (3x), +16px (3x), +32px (3x)
- Compact panel: Current (4x), +16px (4x), +32px (4x)
- Importance: I believe 250% is the default scaling for 4K screens, although 4K screens themself aren't too common yet. But regardless - this one needs no special attention, as everything fits.
1650x1050
- Standard panel: Current (3x), +16px (3x), +32px (3x)
- Compact panel: Current (5x), +16px (4x), +32px (4x)
- Importance: Was common on slightly older hardware, I believe it's pretty rare on newer gear.
1920x1080 (Also: 3840x2160 at 200% scaling)
- Standard panel: Current (4x), +16px (4x), +32px (4x)
- Compact panel: Current (6x), +16px (5x), +32px (5x)
- Importance: Although the resolution itself is very common, use of it without some >100% scaling is rare (though not unheard of - I myself prefer to be at 100% scaling on a 1920x1080 display). However, one counter-argument there is that an effective resolution (ie: the resolution NeoLemmix thinks it's running at, before OS scaling is applied) of 1920x1080 is pretty much the highest that NeoLemmix runs smoothly at even on high-end hardware, so some people might deliberately aim for this.
2560x1440
- Standard panel: Current (6x), +16px (5x), +32px (5x)
- Compact panel: Current (8x), +16px (7x), +32px (7x)
- Importance: Low. NeoLemmix doesn't run smoothly anyway when (it thinks) it's running at resolutions this high.
3840x2160
- Standard panel: Current (9x), +16px (8x), +32px (8x)
- Compact panel: Current (12x), +16px (11x), +32px (10x)
- Importance: Low. NeoLemmix doesn't run smoothly anyway when (it thinks) it's running at resolutions this high.
Overall - the compact panel gets hit much harder by this than the standard one, going against the whole reason it was implemented. This alone might be grounds not to do this for the compact panel (as there's no rule saying we can't eg. increase the with on the standard one, while shrinking the minimap or shrinking the pause / nuke buttons on the compact panel).
The standard panel on the other hand is only affected, out of the common cases, at a (perceived) resolution that's 1280px wide; or at resolutions where NL won't run well anyway. But 1280px wide is one of the most common, possibly even
the most common, resolution widths, so it definitely needs to be considered...