An approach for running 1024*640 AGS games on widescreens

[Gord10]

I have read the discussions about the usage of 16:10 ratio in AGS, which are rather old. I couldn't decide whether I should had posted this text in AGS 3.2 Wishlist topic, because this is both a wish/suggestion for AGS and about my approach to being able to use widescreens efficiently.

I am making an AGS game in 1024*768 (to be exact, I'm remaking what I have done with AGS during last one year, because I'm not satisfied with the result) (and I don't want to lower the game to 640*480 or 640*400) and I have concluded that 16:10 is the most suitable aspect ratio for the game. Even though AGS doesn't have an available ratio for such a high resolution, we are still able to make the essential graphics in 1024*640 (or *576) and put horizontal bars to complete them to 768 height.

And we have a new "Slide borders on widescreen" feature in AGS 3.2.0 Beta to keep the visible aspect ratio of our games, so we can say that games with 16:9 or 16:10 can be done with 1024 weight.

However, we encounter the windowed box discomfort when we use manual horizontal and automatic vertical bars in a game working on widescreens, like in this example. The ratio is kept, but there must be a way to fill the fullscreen.

Assuming graphic options like 1280*800, 1024*640 couldn't be added, we have to use those window boxes in our games on widescreens while they were already designed for widescreens or we will turn back to 4:3.

Or we are going to make use of this simple approach that I'm planning to use: Resizing our 1280*800 graphics to 1024*768 and disabling "Slide borders on widescreen" feature. It is going to corrupt the ratio of essential graphics, but we are going to be able to use the full widescreen like in this and this (this one can be disturbing, you are warned) example, in case the game is designed as 16:10.

And what about 4:3 monitors and windowed views? The solutions I come up with are:
*Preparing an alternative version of the game which is most suitable for 4:3 screens (the hardest solution)
*Asking the players to lower their monitor's height setting manually. It needs to be done only once, because the PC remembers the monitor settings for each games (at least for me. can be a Windows XP feature?).

But I believe there must be a better way to accomplish satisfying my game's need, doesn't there?

[RickJ]

And what about 4:3 monitors and windowed views?

Couldn't the rooms you be allowed to scroll.  On 16:10 the whole room would be displayed at once and on 4:3 the room would scroll?

[Gord10]

It wouldn't be a problem -at least for me- if the room scrolling doesn't get allowed, as I'm not designing any scrolling room.  


This example image is 1600*1000 sized and it looks the way I want on widescreen when I resize the image to 1024*768 and import to AGS with those settings I mentioned.

Not surprisingly, the image is going to look weird running windowed (and even when running fullscreen in a 4:3 monitor), like this. My current solution is to ask the 4:3 monitor users to change their monitor settings in order to get this or to prepare an alternative version for 4:3 users without needing to ask the players to do anything.

But I belive there may be a better way to keep the graphics for both monitor ratios.

[TerranRich]

Isn't it 16:9 and not 16:10?

[Gord10]

"It"?

Honestly, I have been thinking that the famous 16:9 looks prettier than 16:10 (especially for the cinematic scenes), but I tended to design the game in 16:10 assuming it was the common widescreen ratio. But now I see that "true widescreen" monitors in 16:9 exists, as well, and this may mean any other problems can occur.

It's good that I'm still at the beginnings of the game, it won't be too hard to convert the graphics to the most appropriate size.

[Stee]

It's both.

16:10 is more common in computer screens. It's typically the aspect ratio all the HD resolutions are in.

From wikipedia:

Common screen resolutions of 16:10 screens

Name   Dimensions   Diagonal screen size
WXGA   1280×800   13â€"15 in (33â€"38 cm)
WXGA+   1440×900   15â€"19 in (38â€"48 cm)
WSXGA+   1680×1050   20â€"22 in (51â€"56 cm)
WUXGA   1920×1200   23â€"28 in (58â€"71 cm)
WQXGA   2560×1600   30 in (76 cm)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16/10#Common_screen_resolutions_of_16:10_screens


Consequently, 1024x640 is a rather strange resolution to request support for. Is it some sort of silly netbook format? It's 8:5 aspect ratio.

16:9 ratio is the hd tv resolutions you get such as 1366x768 and 1920x1080

[Gord10]

Yes, I remember CJ's this post. I agree that 1024*640 is a curious size to request (honestly, downgrading 1200*800 essential graphics to 1024*768 does a better work),  I just wanted to be sure if there was a better solution than the ones I am planning to use.

[TerranRich]

Honestly, I have never heard of any of those resolutions, Stee.

And, um, 1366x768? What's that? If you mean 720p HD, that's 1280x720.

[Stee]

TerranRich its a resolution for 720p (or technically 768p) and 1080i capable (it will scale the signal down) hdtvs.

There are some really weird resolutions out there. For instance my laptop does 1440x900 (which it at now) 1366x768, 1365x768 and 1360x768 as well as the other lower common resolutions

[FSi++]

Mine only does 1280x800, 1024x768, 800x600 and 640x480 :<

My really old CTX display used to allow 848x480, which was fun, but not really useful.

[Pumaman]

However, we encounter the windowed box discomfort when we use manual horizontal and automatic vertical bars in a game working on widescreens, like in this example. The ratio is kept, but there must be a way to fill the fullscreen.

The problem is that if AGS had an option for a widescreen resolution like 960x600, then people with 4:3 monitors would have to run it at 1024x768, which would leave them with borders on all four sides.

The only reasonable solution is to find two common resolutions that have the same width but different heights -- like 640x400 and 640x480 do. But I'm not sure if such a resolution exists at higher resolutions...

[monkey0506]

It's both.

...

Consequently, 1024x640 is a rather strange resolution to request support for. Is it some sort of silly netbook format? It's 8:5 aspect ratio.

Uhhh...you sort of negated yourself there. First you were supporting the idea of 16:10 format, then you go questioning it. (You do of course realize that 8:5 and 16:10 are the exact same ratio...?)