QF2 Discussion

voxnat · Post by **voxnat** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:22 am

Thank you AH, GSH - all working now - much appreciated

voxnat · Post by **voxnat** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:16 am

Sorry - not quite there - next issue is an oversized radar/map and health indicators taking up most of the screen (only in QF2). Is this a known issue?
Many thanks,

Nielk1 · Post by **Nielk1** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:04 am

voxnat wrote:Sorry - not quite there - next issue is an oversized radar/map and health indicators taking up most of the screen (only in QF2). Is this a known issue?
Many thanks,

Probably modders thinking they need to include sweeping shell changes in their mods and not accounting for all screen sizes.

Red Spot · Post by **Red Spot** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:55 pm

Nielk1 wrote:
voxnat wrote:Sorry - not quite there - next issue is an oversized radar/map and health indicators taking up most of the screen (only in QF2). Is this a known issue?
Many thanks,
Probably modders thinking they need to include sweeping shell changes in their mods and not accounting for all screen sizes.

Bit off-topic. I kinda dislike how certain games now facilitate for the 16:9 ratio screens but are dropping it for 4:3 ratio screens. Dont get me wrong though, I like my TV to be 16:9, but my monitor 4:3 (this way I can have a set of 'tools' at the bottom/top of the screen and still have 16:9 in the actual game).
Eg: In BZ2 the radar/health/F-keys all more or less reside in the 4:3 part of the screen while the bit left is basically 16:9.

Nielk1 · Post by **Nielk1** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:08 am

BZ2 pins to corners, ratio is irrelevant except in the shell.

Red Spot · Post by **Red Spot** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:36 pm

Nielk1 wrote:BZ2 pins to corners, ratio is irrelevant except in the shell.

I guess you dont understand me. It is not about the position of attributes but the overall size of the screen and what you end up left with that is not covered by text or pictures.
If I have a screen that is 45cm*(4:3) high and 1/4 of that hight is used by 'features' I have 33,75cm of usable screen hight left. With a screen that is 33,75cm*(16:9) high I'm left with 25,3cm of usable screen hight.
As you can see the usable screen hight of a 4:3 monitor is as much as the overall screen hight of a 16:9 monitor, in this case 33,75cm. (I know the comparison doesnt completely hold up since the compared monitors are not of the same diagonal size.)

*60cm width

Nielk1 · Post by **Nielk1** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:33 am

How much screen area you have by differing aspect ratio is irrelevant in this interface... The corner pinning of the elements are optimal at all ratios. I even tried 10:16, though the resulting FOV made me ill.

Red Spot · Post by **Red Spot** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:21 pm

No it is not. The human eye has a ratio of about 16:9, not 4:3. So by keeping the hud elements in the 4:3 part you can use the full ability of your eyes without having hud elements in your face. Using a 16:9 screen, no matter what ratio you set manually, will basically always be in your face.
I.o.w what I have in my 16:9 range of my 4:3 monitor is cramped in a smaller area on your 16:9 screen, assuming width of the screen is the same.

Nielk1 · Post by **Nielk1** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:47 am

Your eyes see in a circle of varying degrees of clearness where at the sitting position one uses at a desk using a computer the guages are in the zone that is less clear and more just for motion. Your ratio argument is invalid here where at either ratio the controls are too far out for reading.

I've done a lot of research in this area. Just track what your eyes do when you play and see for yourself.

Zero Angel · Post by **Zero Angel** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:20 am

Nielk1 wrote:How much screen area you have by differing aspect ratio is irrelevant in this interface... The corner pinning of the elements are optimal at all ratios. I even tried 10:16, though the resulting FOV made me ill.

i believe he is saying that the balance between what's visible onscreen and the HUD can be out-of-balance when you condense what might look good on a 16:9 screen (and technically fit on a 4:3 screen) down to a 4:3 screen. While everything may technically fit on-screen with no overlaps and nothing being cut-off, designing without serious consideration to how it looks at 4:3 can cause the HUD to take up most of the viewable room. He is advocating for thin, non-obtrusive HUD elements at the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Take the radar, for example. A healthy balance on a 4:3 screen is for the radar to take up no more than 1/3 of the width, and the weapon/ammo display to take up another 1/3, with the remainder being empty space. If the radar takes up 2/3 of the width of the screen (leaving no empty space at the bottom) on a 4:3 screen. Then it interferes with user experience.

Red Devil · Post by **Red Devil** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:52 pm

a picture is worth a thousand words

Nielk1 · Post by **Nielk1** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:14 am

Speaking of HUDs taking up the entire screen, those bonjour cockpit shots... shudder

I would post a diagram, but this tablet makes it a bit hard to do that.

Red Spot · Post by **Red Spot** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:20 pm

Red Devil wrote:a picture is worth a thousand words

Exactly, but you dont think I'm going to make 2 squares in different ratios to show what I mean? If it wasnt easy enough to do I might have, but I have no issue picking my moments for trivial discussions.

Battlezone Forums

QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion

Re: QF2 Discussion