1600x1200 Instrument Panels ?

[Tachyon]

I'm not hurting for graphics horse power on my system and would like to run at 1600x1200x32 but the DG4's panels
are set for a maximum of 1280x1024. I already know about the scale setting in the control panel that will allow it to
be sized back to the proper dimensions. However, as with any graphic that gets "scaled" it no longer looks right or
clear. What would be involved in creating a 1600x1200 panel set or dare I ask ...... Dan .... would you consider make
a 1600x1200 panel set?



Post Edited ( 06-14-07 13:25 )

[Tachyon]

Hmmm - okay - 174 reads and 0 replies is either really cool - or sucks. Either ya all are ignoring me or I've stumped
everyone

so does anyone know *where* they are?  Maybe I'll putz with them myself .....

[sunshine135]

Tachyon wrote:
Hmmm - okay - 174 reads and 0 replies is either really cool - or sucks. Either ya all are ignoring me or I've stumped
everyone

so does anyone know *where* they are?  Maybe I'll putz with them myself .....

I don't think it is as much that you stumped everyone as much as it is that everyone knows Dan isn'tgoing to make a
new panel. New panel leads = new DG= more people asking for new things like higher resolution panels. It is a
vicious circle.

Cheers,

[DanSteph]

Sorry for lack of reply, Shunshine is plain right, of course I can do a new panel
probably would take only some hours, then you'll have two version of DGIV
one with wide panel one with normal panel (I doubt a 1600 panel make
anything good on common hardware) wich I don't like anyway.

Then you'll have people asking why I complied with this request
and not with their "it's simple", "took only one hour or two" blablabla

DGIV dev is now complete until I come back to Orbiter
in several month, now I'm working for food.

Dan

[Tachyon]

Totally understand which is why I worded it ... "dare I ask" ... it was more a tongue in cheek, rhetorical question.

 I was more interested in some guidance from someone who might know "What would be involved in creating...."
without bothering you Dan. I don't even know where those panels are stored.... much less the format.... (DDS??)
At any rate.... I'll get out my sledge hammer and start looking around for myself....  thanks for the nod though.. I was
beginning to think I was typing in invisible pixels.  

[DanSteph]

Tachyon a écrit:
without bothering you Dan. I don't even know where those panels are stored.... much less the format.... (DDS??)
At any rate.... I'll get out my sledge hammer and start looking around for myself....  thanks for the nod though.. I was
beginning to think I was typing in invisible pixels.  

You may use "hack" and replace ressources (bmp) in dll but that would not fit code
and all dynamic stuff (buttons display) would be at wrong place. No way sorry.

Maybe a gray stickers glued on screen to hide side ?

For DGV I may do it (two version) but this request is so rare that I'm not
sure I'll.

Dan

[sunshine135]

DanSteph wrote:

You may use "hack" and replace ressources (bmp) in dll but that would not fit code
and all dynamic stuff (buttons display) would be at wrong place. No way sorry.

Maybe a gray stickers glued on screen to hide side ?

For DGV I may do it (two version) but this request is so rare that I'm not
sure I'll.

Dan

Actually Dan- you may have a point here. I guess it all depends on what is really bothering Tachyon. If the issue simply is
that at the higher resolution, you can see out of the sides of the control panel, I would just take the panel .bmp, and open
it in paint.net or paint, and just add some extra "grey" onto the sides. It wouldn't be difficult to make it look
professional. Thus, no modification needed to the poisition of the instruments, switches, or other gizmos, and the panel
looks full across the screen.

However, Tachyon, if you decide to "post" your modified panel, make sure you ask Dan for permission and give him credit.
After all, it is still his panel.

Cheers,

[woo482]

dan I may be bug you by saying this but will ther  be a dg5 and if thear is a chute for the dg wold be nice?

[DanSteph]

woo482 a écrit:
dan I may be bug you by saying this but will ther  be a dg5 and if thear is a chute for the dg wold be nice?

Sorry ?

Dan

[woo482]

dan I may be bug you by saying this but will their be a dg5 and if there is a chute for the dg wold be nice?

[Krytom]

woo482 wrote:
dan I may be bug you by saying this but will their be a dg5 and if there is a chute for the dg wold be nice?

Um



You do know that that makes no sense, don't you? Even to me with English as my first language.
And don't just repeat it thinking that we might understand it the second time.

Luckily for Dan and everyone else I have the ability to read and understand any messed up version of the English language:

woo482 meant to say:
Dan, I may be bugging you by saying this, but will there be a DG5? If there is, a chute for the DG would be nice.

[DanSteph]

Thanks for translation Krytom

DG5 yes it's mentionned in the "If you ever make a DGV" two thread below this one,
a chute for DGIV no way, why should it have one ? Crew can eject.

Dan

[sunshine135]

DanSteph wrote:
Thanks for translation Krytom

DG5 yes it's mentionned in the "If you ever make a DGV" two thread below this one,
a chute for DGIV no way, why should it have one ? Crew can eject.

Dan

I think he means a drag chute to slow the DGIV down upon landing Dan.

[Doug Beachy]

sunshine135 wrote:
If the issue simply is
that at the higher resolution, you can see out of the sides of the control panel, I would just take the panel .bmp, and
open it in paint.net or paint, and just add some extra "grey" onto the sides. It wouldn't be difficult to
make it look professional. Thus, no modification needed to the poisition of the instruments, switches, or other gizmos,
and the panel looks full across the screen.

Unfortunately that will only work if you add "grey" to the right-hand side of the
panels only: the reason is that each time a paintable area (e.g., a gauge or button) is defined during startup its
top-left and lower-right panel coordinates are registered with the Orbiter core like this:

oapiRegisterPanelArea (AID_ATTITUDEMODE,        _R(1089,  69, 1129, 113), PANEL_REDRAW_MOUSE,
PANEL_MOUSE_DOWN);

As you can see, the area's panel coordinates [ _R(1089,  69, 1129, 113) ] are specified as absolute values and
will be painted at those coordinates over the background panel.  
Let's say you widen the background panel bitmap by 320 pixels (making it 1600 pixels wide) by adding 160 pixels of
gray to the left and the right
sides -- now the background panel bitmap will no longer match the controls because all the controls will appear 160
pixels "off to the left" of where they should be on the new (wider) panel.

[sunshine135]

As you can see, the area's panel coordinates [ _R(1089, 69, 1129, 113) ] are specified as absolute values and
will be painted at those coordinates over the background panel.
Let's say you widen the background panel bitmap by 320 pixels (making it 1600 pixels wide) by adding 160 pixels of
gray to the left and the right
sides -- now the background panel bitmap will no longer match the controls because all the controls will appear 160
pixels "off to the left" of where they should be on the new (wider) panel.

Understood. I was simply offering a suggestion.

With that being said, you could offset all of the panel settings by 160 pixels to the right if you added pixels to the left.
I didn't say it would be easy. If Tachyon wants the panel bad enough, he could spend the time to do it versus waiting on Dan
to do it. Would it not take Dan just as much time?

[Doug Beachy]

With that being said, you could offset all of the panel settings by 160 pixels to the right if you added pixels to
the left. I didn't say it would be easy. If Tachyon wants the panel bad enough, he could spend the time to do it versus
waiting on Dan to do it. Would it not take Dan just as much time?

The issue is that each ship's C++ code (i.e., its DLL) must be "aware" of the resolution of the 2D panel so it knows to
adjust each paintable area's coordinates as necessary.  In other words, each call to 'oapiRegisterPanelArea' is made
from the ship's C++ code, and so the only way to change that is to modify the source code and rebuild the DLL --
something that only the ship's author can do since only he has the source code.

[DanSteph]

The problem is mainly perf concern, Orbiter is not very good at drawing 2D panel
You can verify this if you switch panel off (F8 ) on a "midlle end/low end" computer
while watching fsp.

Adding 400x??? gray pixel would not do anything good and would be an
innaceptable loss of perf for nothing for peoples that doesn't run Orbiter in 1600

= would need two different version of DLL (DGV)

That's not a big problem anyway I can set an option in DGVconfig wich would
set (copy) the right dll in place.  

But not yet of course, and the last question is: how much peoples run in 1600 ?
I have something like high end computer and I still run in 1280x1024 wich is most
common.

Dan



Message modifié ( 21-06-2007 12:47 )

[woo482]

Dan[/quote]


I think he means a drag chute to slow the DGIV down upon landing Dan.

[/quote]

Yes I did I can never slow down even on the biggest runways

[DanSteph]

do you apply brake ?

Dan

[woo482]

air brake? yes why?

[Quick_Nick]

But do you apply wheel brakes? Decimal and comma on main part of keyboard. Comma is left wheel brake, decimal is
right wheel brake. Use both most of the time.

[Tachyon]

I don't want to start a "poll" thread (can this forum software even do that?? ) and I'm not bragging then I
say this ... and I do realize that I am on the upper end of the curve here. But *I* think that most users (>50%)
have current technology hardware. The present run of FPS games demands it. Heck FSX is worthless without it. As for
me ... I'm sporting dual 8800GTX's SLI'd on a eVGA 680i mobo, 6600 Dual core CPU, and 4gb of 8500DDR2. So when I
install something and config's its screen settings.... I pretty much set everything I can find to MAX. (<-- sry - just
had to)   Anyone with a >2ghz P4 (or AMD equivalent), 512mb-1gb main system memory and either of the current
cards from ATI or nVidia can do this..... specially in Orbiter ... it isn’t doing that much graphically. My cooling fans don't
even spool up.

Yes ... I actually had thought about the "add the grey side panels" as a solution ....so thanks for stopping me before I
burned any time on that one.

And it's not that big of a deal to me.. I was kind of hoping to learn myself how to this and get some of my creativity
juices flowing in the process .... but it's looking like too big of a deal and has to potential to ruffle some feathers in the
process ... which of course I do not wish to do.

[DanSteph]

POLL up

You may run a poll on M6 anyway, I'm not sure the poll here would have a big success
and be representative of user res.

Dan

[sunshine135]

Tachyon wrote:
I don't want to start a "poll" thread (can this forum software even do that?? ) and I'm not bragging then I
say this ... and I do realize that I am on the upper end of the curve here. But *I* think that most users (&gt50%)
have current technology hardware. The present run of FPS games demands it. Heck FSX is worthless without it. As for
me ... I'm sporting dual 8800GTX's SLI'd on a eVGA 680i mobo, 6600 Dual core CPU, and 4gb of 8500DDR2. So when I
install something and config's its screen settings.... I pretty much set everything I can find to MAX. (&lt-- sry
- just
had to)   Anyone with a &gt2ghz P4 (or AMD equivalent), 512mb-1gb main system memory and either of the current
cards from ATI or nVidia can do this..... specially in Orbiter ... it isn’t doing that much graphically. My cooling fans don't
even spool up.

Oh come on...You don't have a wife and kids do you? What you have is one of the very latest and greatest machines. Dual
8800GTXs only come on the very top end machines. The only thing you are missing is the Quad Core and you would be in the
$4,000 to $6000 dollar range. Yes- you are bragging. Loading Orbiter on a machine like that is like killing flies with a
flame thrower. In short, you have tremendous overkill.

Most people, especially those of us with families, cannot afford a machine like that. Quite frankly, that would be a waste of
money for most of us, and a good developer knows they produce a software product at or slightly above the median hardware for
the target group.

Dual 8800GTXs........ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....I'm laughing insanely. I wish!!!


Regards,

[yagni01]

sunshine135 wrote:

DanSteph wrote:
Thanks for translation Krytom

DG5 yes it's mentionned in the "If you ever make a DGV" two thread below this one,
a chute for DGIV no way, why should it have one ? Crew can eject.

Dan

I think he means a drag chute to slow the DGIV down upon landing Dan.

Yes, and chutes are for [air|space]craft with under-engineered brakes. Maybe an arresting
hook.