What hardware and operating system do you expect to use to play MWIF?

[Anendrue]

Will there be any wide screen support and if so at what screen resolutions.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Will there be any wide screen support and if so at what screen resolutions.

Could you be more specific when you say wide screen? For example, the game already supports dual monitors side by side.

[Anendrue]

I apologize for not being specific in my question. I know I don't sound real clear here. A better question would be...

Will a larger video mode such as 1600x1200 display more physical map than 1024x768?

Or does the map quality just improve with larger video modes selected?

So if a wide screen monitor or dual monitors is used what is the net effect visually?

[tigercub]

Operating system: Windows xp (second edition)
CPU: AMD Athlon 3.5ghz
Main memory: 1gig RAM
Hard Disk: 1.90gb, configured FAT 32 (66.6gb used)
Display Adaptor: NVIDIA GeForce GT 6600 256 meg great card at a good price
Monitor: 19 inch Benq LCD flat
Internet connection: DSL 512k
if that helps.
my computer is petty much top end because i am a photographer.(need the power)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I apologize for not being specific in my question. I know I don't sound real clear here. A better question would be...

Will a larger video mode such as 1600x1200 display more physical map than 1024x768?

Or does the map quality just improve with larger video modes selected?

So if a wide screen monitor or dual monitors is used what is the net effect visually?

I do not know for certain - I did not write the original code that handles this. What the program does is take the width of a panel (the full screen can be viewed as a panel), multiples it by the pixels per inch for the screen and then divides by 96. Each hexagon is 136 pixels wide at the highest zoom level, so we are talking about 1.4 inches per hex - if the density of the pixels on your monitor are 96 per inch. I am a little out of my depth here - the more you drift into hardware, the less sure I am of my footing.

A simple analysis would say 1600/96 = 16 2/3 hexes at zoom level 8. I am not certain that is a valid conclusion however.

As you zoom out the pixels per hex (width) drop by multiples of 17: 136, 119, 102, 85, 68, 51, 34, 17 are zoom levels 8 through 1 respectively.

I expect the game to be primarily played at zoom levels 5 and 6, with some dropping back to zoom levels 3 and 4 for seeing the big picture and naval moves. Level 2 should also work for naval moves (I certainly intend to make the counters legible for that purpose). Zooming in to levels 7 and 8 will be used for analyzing close in combet - which units attack which hexes along a short section of the front line.

I still am unable to answer your going in question though: "Will a larger video mode such as 1600x1200 display more physical map than 1024x768?".

Sorry.

Perhaps some one who is more familiar with how the hardware (monitor/video card) and software (operating system's definition of pixels per inch) interact can provide more insight into this issue.

The hexes are interlaced vertically, so the 152 pixel vertical height per hex is effectively 114 pixels per row. 1200/114 = 10 1/2 hexes.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Operating system: Windows xp (second edition)
CPU: AMD Athlon 3.5ghz
Main memory: 1gig RAM
Hard Disk: 1.90gb, configured FAT 32 (66.6gb used)
Display Adaptor: NVIDIA GeForce GT 6600 256 meg great card at a good price
Monitor: 19 inch Benq LCD flat
Internet connection: DSL 512k
if that helps.
my computer is petty much top end because i am a photographer.(need the power)

Typo?

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I do not know for certain - I did not write the original code that handles this. What the program does is take the width of a panel (the full screen can be viewed as a panel), multiples it by the pixels per inch for the screen and then divides by 96. Each hexagon is 136 pixels wide at the highest zoom level, so we are talking about 1.4 inches per hex - if the density of the pixels on your monitor are 96 per inch. I am a little out of my depth here - the more you drift into hardware, the less sure I am of my footing.

A simple analysis would say 1600/96 = 16 2/3 hexes at zoom level 8. I am not certain that is a valid conclusion however.

As you zoom out the pixels per hex (width) drop by multiples of 17: 136, 119, 102, 85, 68, 51, 34, 17 are zoom levels 8 through 1 respectively.

I expect the game to be primarily played at zoom levels 5 and 6, with some dropping back to zoom levels 3 and 4 for seeing the big picture and naval moves. Level 2 should also work for naval moves (I certainly intend to make the counters legible for that purpose). Zooming in to levels 7 and 8 will be used for analyzing close in combet - which units attack which hexes along a short section of the front line.

I still am unable to answer your going in question though: "Will a larger video mode such as 1600x1200 display more physical map than 1024x768?".

Sorry.

Perhaps some one who is more familiar with how the hardware (monitor/video card) and software (operating system's definition of pixels per inch) interact can provide more insight into this issue.

The hexes are interlaced vertically, so the 152 pixel vertical height per hex is effectively 114 pixels per row. 1200/114 = 10 1/2 hexes.

As a Windows developer myself, I can say that unless C/MWiF includes code that scales visual elements to the size of the window, the larger the window, the more that should be able to be displayed in it. Thus, the more screen pixels available for the window to fit inside, the more map should be visible within a maximised window.

Since I have been reading posts regarding the "number of pixels" in display element positioning, I can guess that there is probably no code that scales the map to the window size. If there was, I'd expect to be hearing about inches, centimetres or twips.

Whether working in pixels, centimeters, inches or twips, Windows appears to assume that the number of pixels per whatever unit of linear measurement you use is constant for monitors (72 DPI, I think), regardless of the screen resolution. It is variable for other devices such as printers where the DPI is variable.

Of course, the units used depends upon the development environment. MS products tend to use twips, or centimetres/inches if MS was being nice when they produced the development software. Some Windows system API calls require pixels. I don't know what other dev environments require for form development.

With what Steve described, it seems that MWiF may scale graphics to the window size. This can be answered by performing the following tests:

1. If the size of the map window is increased or decreased, is more or less of the map shown, or do the hexes and their contents grow or shrink?

2. If the Windows screen resolution is increased or decreased, is more or less of the map shown, or do the hexes and their contents grow or shrink?

It seems to me that ideally the users should have the choice between scaling the graphics or displaying more of the graphics, though if such a choice is not available, I would prefer to see more map than a scaled map, especially since scaling TTF fonts is occasionally prone to problems.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

It's all done with one line of code. I wrote the comment based on MS documentation of the call.

================
// Screen is a system variable for the current screen display device
// Technically, PixelsPerInch is for the vertical, not the horizontal
Width := MulDiv(Width, Screen.PixelsPerInch, 96);
================

MulDiv performs the following: X = (A * B)/C

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It's all done with one line of code. I wrote the comment based on MS documentation of the call.

================
// Screen is a system variable for the current screen display device
// Technically, PixelsPerInch is for the vertical, not the horizontal
Width := MulDiv(Width, Screen.PixelsPerInch, 96);
================

MulDiv performs the following: X = (A * B)/C

Letting Windows worry about it strikes me as the right approach.

CWIF works fine on the WEGA 1920 x 1200 screen on my Dell Laptop.

It also worked fine on my Tablet PC (1024 x 768) and in dual monitor mode with an additional 1280 x ? screen.

So I think people should be optimistic.

[Anendrue]

Thanks for the prompt response. Based on what I have read and my humble understanding of programming the map is of a fixed size and will display more map as more pixels are used. Higher resolution = more map. As for dual monitors it will depend on a persons settings on their video card and/or windows xp dual view modes.

[tigercub]

yes 190gig

[dhatchen]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Porting MWIF to Unix someday (not tomorrow) is a possiblity. The Borland package I am using to develop MWIF is Delphi (for Windows 32). It contains a parallel set of library routines for Unix. According to Borland, coverting the code from one to the other isn't too difficult - but I have never tried it. Let's see if MWIF runs ok under emulation; in which case the question will be mute.

If you ever do this, call me. Off the cuff though, I would recommend against it unless there is a compelling reason. I write in the CLX library mostly and have ported applications, but you need the unofficial patches to make it work right and you need to start with the intention to port. Changing the forms between the two libraries is a bear-wrestling match and all Window-isms need to be removed or isolated for drop-in replacement.

[po8crg]

By the time it's released:

Pentium D at 3 GHz or so
2GB RAM
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition
...and a nice new video card as well.

[wodin]

AMD 3600
1 gig ram
Nvidia 6600GT.

[stewart_king]

OS: Windows XP pro
CPU Speed: 2.4 ghz
Memory: 1 gig
Disk: 40 GB + 20 GB
Monitors: 1068 x 760 resolution
Video card memory: 32 mb
Internet connection: dial-up at home, T3 available for downloading patches, etc.

I have never played any of these games over the internet, only ftf hotseat or against the AI. Who knows what the future holds, though?

[hakon]

OS WinXP Media Center Ed
CPU: AMD 4400+ (dual core)
2 gig ram
ATI X1600XT
1 TB disk
Resolution 720p (1280x720)

Dual core cpu means that multithreading support would be good. It also means that problems could arise if the app is not thread safe. Btw, a lot of dual core cpu's are being sold these days.

Support for res of 720p would be very nice, since others resolutions appear blurry on my projector.

[caine]

Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) (2600.xpclient.010817-1148)
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1500MHz, ~1.5GHz
512MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 4000
128.0 MB
1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)

[Matt242]

Operating system - Windows XP Professional
CPU - 3.00 GHz
Main memory - 512 MB RAM
Disk - 160 GB
Monitor - 19 inches
Screen memory - 128 MB
Internet connection - DSL

[Jeff Gilbert]

The three main systems I would be using for MWiF are below.
Obviously, I would be using the emulator [Virtual PC] on the Mac.

OS: Win2k Pro SP4
CPU: Intel 2.4 GHz
Main Memory: 1 GB
Hard Disk: 80 GB
Display Adapter: ATI 9250 256MB VRam
Monitor: 17 inch LCD
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

OS: WinXP Pro Pro SP2
CPU: AMD 1.2 GHz
Main Memory: 512 MB
Hard Disk: 40 & 30 GB
Display Adapter: ATI 9250 256MB VRam
Monitor: 17 inch LCD
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

OS: Mac OSX 10.3.9
CPU: PowerMac 1 GHz
Main Memory: 1 GB
Hard Disk: 20 & 30 GB
Display Adapter: 2 x ATI [128MB Vram each]
Monitor: 2 x 17 inch Studio Displays
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

The three main systems I would be using for MWiF are below.
Obviously, I would be using the emulator [Virtual PC] on the Mac.

OS: Win2k Pro SP4
CPU: Intel 2.4 GHz
Main Memory: 1 GB
Hard Disk: 80 GB
Display Adapter: ATI 9250 256MB VRam
Monitor: 17 inch LCD
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

OS: WinXP Pro Pro SP2
CPU: AMD 1.2 GHz
Main Memory: 512 MB
Hard Disk: 40 & 30 GB
Display Adapter: ATI 9250 256MB VRam
Monitor: 17 inch LCD
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

OS: Mac OSX 10.3.9
CPU: PowerMac 1 GHz
Main Memory: 1 GB
Hard Disk: 20 & 30 GB
Display Adapter: 2 x ATI [128MB Vram each]
Monitor: 2 x 17 inch Studio Displays
Display Resolution: 1024x768
Internet Connection: 768k Cable

Thank you to everyone who posts to this thread.

The beta testers just pointed out to me that several of my new screens assumed 1280 by 1024. I am in the process of revising them down to 1024 by 768 (2 done, 1 to go). That is the minimum screen size MWIF will support. I would like to add extra capability for players who have higher resolution available (1280x1024 and 1600x1200). The main screen supports those already, so it is just a question of giving some of the smaller pop-up forms variable size - depending on the current screen resoultion the player is using. The program also supports dual monitors (side by side).