|
From: | Ronald Lamprecht |
Subject: | Re: [Enigma-devel] 320x240 resolution |
Date: | Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:37:04 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) |
Hi, Tacvek wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clarence Risher" <address@hidden>A while back I put a bit of effort into porting enigma to a platform with a 320x240 display. A lot of the graphics code is very adamant about 640x480 being the min resolution so I had to butcher it pretty badly. With the new version out, I loathe the prospect of trying to merge my fork with the new code. Is there any chance of a [near] future version of enigma officially supporting 320x240?
Clarence, can you publish screenshots from your port - some levels and the menus?
May I enquire what platform it is that you are porting to that uses 320x240?QVGA is a fairly small screen resolution.Obviously the simplest solution would be simple scaling. However, if you are talking about a portable platform with a small display (Such as QVGA WM5 devices) then that solution would be far less than ideal. (The fonts mutilated and halved in size could make it very difficult to read.)For the in-game graphics obviously simple scaling would work (although manually created and tweaked image files are better). But the in-game text, and especially the menu system have more difficulties. Some of the new menus are full (The level information screen already leaves out some info on VGA resolution IIRC.)I'm sure you've already though of all that.I would say that it seems unlikely that Enigma will be natively support 320x240 in the near future. However, if somebody did the work and created a clean patch to add support for QVGA resolution, I'm confident it would be considered. If you were willing to put the effort into making your port an official port (merging needed changes into the tree) then that would be the ideal solution, and I would strongly doubt any current developers would object unless the necessary changes create an excessive maintenance burden.
I agree to Tacvek's statements. -- Ronald
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |