Introversion

The problem isn't the size of the resolution, it's the aspect ratio. 1600x1050 is bound to cause problems with some programs since its not of a common display aspect ratio i.e 4:3 or 16:9.

yeah, but you'd think it would scale the menu sizes to the smaller dimension, but instead it seems to scale them up to the larger one. the type and list box could be half the size, imo, at least on higher resolutions.. I'd also say that wide formats are getting close to common place. every new apple product is widescreen... half of dell's line up is. etc. I would think that it would be better to play at the screen's native resoultion rather than having the video card split pixels and distort the video to fit 1024x768 into the widescreen...

Well I run on Intel 975 motherboards, Intel Core 2 Extreme Processors running at 1066 mhz system bus speed, then hyperthread that…giving me four threads through the processor. Run that mix with 4gig of Duel Core ram
I found that my old ASUS boards were running at 350 frames per second in game server mode on Half-Life2 and Dystopia. I switched to Intel and now run at 1000 frames per second in server mode…render time for LightWave, Maya, Max and Vue now render in half the time.

The processor is the Big cost though...aside the duel 7900 512mb graphics. Intel right now is the only one with that speed at that price.

Here are some game speed tests results... http://www.intel.com/performance/deskto ... gaming.htm

mellowvision2 wrote:yeah, but you'd think it would scale the menu sizes to the smaller dimension, but instead it seems to scale them up to the larger one. the type and list box could be half the size, imo, at least on higher resolutions.. I'd also say that wide formats are getting close to common place. every new apple product is widescreen... half of dell's line up is. etc. I would think that it would be better to play at the screen's native resoultion rather than having the video card split pixels and distort the video to fit 1024x768 into the widescreen...

My point was that you aren't even using a widescreen resolution. Widescreen has an aspect ratio of 16:9, standard is 4:3, you are using neither of those. I wouldn't be surprised if you chose that resolution for the simple fact that its the largest one your graphics card can handle, is that the case? Running incorrect resolutions for the aspect ratio of your display is bound to cause distortions so how about you try a different one like a suggested.

Lowell wrote:Well I run on Intel 975 motherboards, Intel Core 2 Extreme Processors running at 1066 mhz system bus speed, then hyperthread that…giving me four threads through the processor. Run that mix with 4gig of Duel Core ram
I found that my old ASUS boards were running at 350 frames per second in game server mode on Half-Life2 and Dystopia. I switched to Intel and now run at 1000 frames per second in server mode…render time for LightWave, Maya, Max and Vue now render in half the time.

The processor is the Big cost though...aside the duel 7900 512mb graphics. Intel right now is the only one with that speed at that price.

Here are some game speed tests results... http://www.intel.com/performance/deskto ... gaming.htm

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

Well seeing as I don't eat rice from China...nothing. But it will help on game frame rates and stop the lag on big maps.

As for the objective list screen, it needs a scroll bar...

For the aspect ratio of 1600x1050...I can't help you if you want to "stretch" your image, it should be 1600x1200, or 1200x1050.

Lowell wrote:But it will help on game frame rates and stop the lag on big maps.

So, rather than suggesting mellow uses a smaller resolution which would cost nothing you are suggesting he/she goes out and shoves an Intel Conroe in his/her Mac Powerbook? Um... yeah...

Lowell wrote:For the aspect ratio of 1600x1050...I can't help you if you want to "stretch" your image, it should be 1600x1200, or 1200x1050.

I don't want to do anything. I'm not the one using such a resolution. Please re-read the last ten or so posts since you seem to be very mistaken.

part of it is a typo, my resolution is 1680 x 1050. it is the native resolution for my dell widescreen 20" display. I believe it is common on other displays of it's size.

Well this is the problem of not only going widescreen but for also using a LCD display. 1680x1050 may produce the best quality since it's the native resolution but it's aspect ratio is neither 4:3 or 16:9.

So how about you do like I've suggested twice already and try lower resolutions. You may notice poorer quality, most likely with the text, but consindering Darwinia isn't meant to be photorealistic it shouldn't matter, especially if you find hit upon a decent match. You may also experience better frame rates.

Montyphy wrote:Well this is the problem of not only going widescreen but for also using a LCD display. 1680x1050 may produce the best quality since it's the native resolution but it's aspect ratio is neither 4:3 or 16:9.

So how about you do like I've suggested twice already and try lower resolutions. You may notice poorer quality, most likely with the text, but consindering Darwinia isn't meant to be photorealistic it shouldn't matter, especially if you find hit upon a decent match. You may also experience better frame rates.

As I said above, the problem is not the resolution of the screen. There are TWELVE objectives in Hadron. This is going to go off the bottom of the display. On my own laptop (a PowerBook), I tried it at a bunch of resolutions, including 1200x900, 800x600, 400x300 (which are 4:3), and 800x450 (which is 16:9). In all cases, the objectives go off the bottom of the screen. Furthermore, the entire windowed is scaled to the resolution, so I see exactly the same objectives at 1200x900 that I see at 400x300. THE PROBLEM IS NOT HIS RESOLUTION. There are more objectives than can be seen on the screen.

As to framerates, Darwinia on Mac does not perform as well as Darwinia on Windows. Some of this has to do with the OpenGL implementation on the Mac (though that has been mostly cleared up), and some of it has to do with the AI implementation in Darwinia (more units slow down Darwinia very quickly). Part of the reason that I have not played Particles Within is that too many of the levels are huge, and have too many enemies, rendering at less than 10 FPS. Lowell, you may have a beast of a machine, but the rest of us do not. You should not expect everyone to be able to play Particles Within as well as you can.

xander

thanks xander.

it's true, I consider is a major accomplishment to have completed particles within on my old powerbook. the levels are fun, but not well thought out for universal use, and it makes the game play much more challenging. you really have to plan ahead and avoid over ammassing of darwinians in order for the game not to choke on the mod.

Hadron has many objectives, as do many of the maps. The objective list needed a scroll bar.
I never thought of anyone playing the mod on a laptop I like to immerse myself inside a game…whatever it may be. So with that, I tend to make large landscapes and missions.

mellowvision2 wrote:the levels are fun, but not well thought out for universal use, and it makes the game play much more challenging. you really have to plan ahead and avoid over amassing of Darwinians in order for the game not to choke on the mod.

There are four outlying islands on Hadron, each needs 100 Darwinians to capture the islands and the pop lock will kick in. The Center Island’s Trunk Port will stop spawning when the objectives are cleared; also a pop lock is set at 50 Darwinians for the center. Hadron is busy for sure...I even blacked out the water which brought up the frame rate quite a bit. I have seen much larger numbers of Darwinians on maps before...so 450 - 600 would not be too large of an amount.

I had many troubles constructing the mod; several things just don't work as intended for one, which means I had to rework many maps. Four maps had one red AI Unit and one green AI Unit, it played great on my PC, and however during the tests it was causing other machines to crash. That meant a Major overhaul at the eleventh hour to even get it to move along. I can't tell you how many nights were spent re-typing storyline, scripts, game and mission files.

I like overlapping objectives. Do one thing that causes something to push you back, then you have a new objective pop up and so on. Hadron's Spam Death Script is a prime example. I just don't like "simple" maps. I want the game to fight back before I move along.

Montyphy wrote:So, rather than suggesting mellow uses a smaller resolution which would cost nothing you are suggesting he/she goes out and shoves an Intel Conroe in his/her Mac Powerbook? Um... yeah
I don't want to do anything. I'm not the one using such a resolution. Please re-read the last ten or so posts since you seem to be very mistaken.

Thanks for your help Monty...but I was talking to mellowvision2, on his comment a few posts back from yours, I wasn't referring to you.

Xander wrote:As to frame rates, Darwinia on Mac does not perform as well as Darwinia on Windows. Some of this has to do with the OpenGL implementation on the Mac (though that has been mostly cleared up), and some of it has to do with the AI implementation in Darwinia (more units slow down Darwinia very quickly). Part of the reason that I have not played Particles Within is that too many of the levels are huge, and have too many enemies, rendering at less than 10 FPS. Lowell, you may have a beast of a machine, but the rest of us do not. You should not expect everyone to be able to play Particles Within as well as you can.

The "Mac" is dead... Long live the Clone!!!
You can forget Roller Coaster Tycoon3, Half-Life2, BattleField2, Earth 2160 and a Ton of other games. Not to mention the "new" ones coming out. They all take the newer chipsets on the motherboards to run fast or at all. Everyone will have to upgrade soon if they expect to play games of the future. I am upgrading constantly but for different reasons.

My question is this. If people are going to resize the frame, why is there no scroll bar on the in-game menus? Can the other menus be seen clearly at "each" different setting?

On this second half the lists are shorter...I think eight is the largest objective listing so far. I keep my res at 1600x1200 all the time, I get a headache if it is set lower...things get out of focus and fuzzy.
Could someone please tell me just how many menu lines can be seen on lower machines?

Lowell wrote:The "Mac" is dead... Long live the Clone!!!
You can forget Roller Coaster Tycoon3, Half-Life2, BattleField2, Earth 2160 and a Ton of other games. Not to mention the "new" ones coming out. They all take the newer chipsets on the motherboards to run fast or at all. Everyone will have to upgrade soon if they expect to play games of the future. I am upgrading constantly but for different reasons.

Great. Your response is basically "Macs suck, get a better computer." That's productive. We are not talking about Roller Coaster Tycoon, or Half-Life 2. We are talking about Darwinia. Darwinia runs well on the Mac. Most mods run perfectly well (Insurrection has a couple of choppy places, EW3 has some really bad places, and Stricken Souls is really bad in a couple of spots). Your mod does not run well. You don't seem to care, and would rather poke fun at the computer that mellow is using. Fine. Whatever. It doesn't really matter. The problem, however, is not with Macs, the problem is with the way in which you have designed your mod. You have used a very high end machine, and expect everyone else to be able to play your mod. Most people don't have the same power that you do. If you want people to be able to play your mod, then you will have to tone it down a bit. If you prefer to stick to your "artistic vision" or whatever it is, that is also fine, but many people are not going to be able to deal with it. You are going to have to accept that "get a new computer" is not really an acceptable answer to those people. Perhaps you should include some minimum system specs...

Lowell wrote:My question is this. If people are going to resize the frame, why is there no scroll bar on the in-game menus? :roll: Can the other menus be seen clearly at "each" different setting?

Then menus do not scale, but the research panel, task manager panel, and objectives panel do scale. Below are links to three screenshots of Garden at 80x60. Notice that all of the objectives still fit on the screen. I have also looked at Darwinia at 80x300 (very tall) and 400x60 (very wide). Everything scales very well vertially, but has some trouble horizontally. The pics are in .bmp, because that is the Darwinia default.

http://yozh.org/images/garden8060-01.bmp
http://yozh.org/images/garden8060-02.bmp
http://yozh.org/images/garden8060-03.bmp
http://yozh.org/images/garden40060-01.bmp

So, as I said before, the problem is that there are too many objectives to fit on the screen.

Lowell wrote:On this second half the lists are shorter...I think eight is the largest objective listing so far. I keep my res at 1600x1200 all the time, I get a headache if it is set lower...things get out of focus and fuzzy.
Could someone please tell me just how many menu lines can be seen on lower machines?

xander

xander wrote:Great. Your response is basically "Macs suck, get a better computer."

The comment presented was about Frame Rates. I made a note that when I upgraded my motherboards to Intel that I got 1000fps from my older top-of-the-line ASUS at 350. This also speeds the frame rates on any games played on that board. Roller Coaster3 is known for it's big lag...it runs fast at full parks on mine.

I cannot speak for the older machines. Darwinia won't play on my laptop at all (older motherboard chipset) Sometimes the CPU and graphics cards aren't the real problem...the chipsets are soldered on the motherboards...the only way to upgrade is replace.

xznder wrote:You don't seem to care, and would rather poke fun at the computer that mellow is using. Fine. Whatever. It doesn't really matter.

No I was not poking fun at anyone. The Mac used to be good for graphic software...but not anymore. They are all pulling away from Mac and changing to the Windows format. Mac wants to place Intel CPU's and run Windows. As an Engineer I can poke fun at that...and they still want more than $3500 for a G5 these days.

xander wrote:If you prefer to stick to your "artistic vision" or whatever it is, that is also fine, but many people are not going to be able to deal with it.

...Wow... where is the Flame smiley
Remember...Darwinia was advertised on Steam...Half-Life2 players all have beefy machines as do the other games mentioned.

Yes...I am concerned if people cannot play the mod. I have several emails from people all over the globe that played it and can't wait for the second half. As this is not the only mod running, some of my tacticks may spill over from other battle maps. And...mellowvision2 completed the map. So I guess a Mac laptop can play Particles afterall. In the Mod tutorials it is written that the largest landmaps are around 46000 mine are well under that. My unit count is under 1000 any level. Those figures should be within the guidelines. Also after the version0.15 update...I didn't get a single email or post of any troubles, either here or any of the MOD Forums it has been posted on...and as mellowvision2 had said, he completed the Hadron level. The version 0.15 also went under some rather long and hard testing...two Macs were on the team.

Thanks...

Lowell wrote:Also after the version0.15 update...I didn't get a single email or post of any troubles, either here or any of the MOD Forums it has been posted on...and as mellowvision2 had said, he completed the Hadron level. The version 0.15 also went under some rather long and hard testing...two Macs were on the team.

Not receiving emails is not an indication of no problems. It could just mean no one is playing your updated mod or that no one can be bothered to report a problem. Heck, there hasn't been a bug report in the Defcon Alpha section for a while now but it doesn't mean none exist.

Montyphy wrote:

Lowell wrote:Also after the version0.15 update...I didn't get a single email or post of any troubles, either here or any of the MOD Forums it has been posted on...and as mellowvision2 had said, he completed the Hadron level. The version 0.15 also went under some rather long and hard testing...two Macs were on the team.

Not receiving emails is not an indication of no problems. It could just mean no one is playing your updated mod or that no one can be bothered to report a problem. Heck, there hasn't been a bug report in the Defcon Alpha section for a while now but it doesn't mean none exist.

Lowell wrote:I have several emails from people all over the globe that played it and can't wait for the second half.

...I guess you didn't see my remarks about emails I have recieved thanking me for the mod and can't wait till part two is done.

Are you having trouble with the Mod Montyphy...? You talk about Defcon...have you played Darwinia?

EDIT// okay...I didn't see your avatar before, so you have played the game. Have you played my mod? The MODDB group gave me a score of 8 out of ten...several are "watching" the progress of the mod and many people around the planet have given me much input.

EDIT-EDIT// I forgot, Xander, your pictures are smaller than a poastage stamp on the monitor...I couldn't see what you were trying to show me. No matter, as I have said eight is the max objectives so far, if that is too many for them to be shown please let me know...

Thanks