Would you be happy with a minimum screen size of 1280 x 1024?

[Arjuna]

Let's try again. Would you be in favour of increasing the minimum screen size to 1280 x 1024?

[Helpless]

My laptop votes "No" [:)]

Now days there is a tendency to fit everything to mobile phone screen [:D]

[Titus]

No, because I would prefer true 4:3 resolution i.e. 1280x960 at least for now when using 4:3 monitor. BTW, I am considering buying a widescreen TFT monitor with native resolution of 1680x1050. How does COTA scale on widescreen resolutions?

[JudgeDredd]

Dave

Can't you make the unit boxes a popup dialog? So double clicking a piece of kist displayed the details in a popup dialog and double clicking another piece of kit bourhg tup the details in the open dialog (making sure the user doesn't have to close the current dialog...too many clicks!!)

Would seem better than removing some of your market. I'd be fine with a popup (but NOT modal)...if I'm going to read the details of a unit, then I would be pausing probably anyway.

But the inclusion of a unit detail screen, I think, is essential. I often look at the unit lists,. only to wish I could see what a MkIV looks like

[TMO]

I'm stuck with 1024 by 768 as max resolution so have to say no I'm afraid.

Regards

Tim

[Robin le guetteur]

I vote no because I prefer the feeling to be very close on the map while zooming, with a very small part of the map and units visible, just focused on the details of one particular action...
It's more immersive like this for my taste.
This discussion remember one we had at Ageod for Bith of America and his sequel. Not easy to be understand with such "subjective arguments" but in fact, really important...
[;)]

[captskillet]

No, laptop only goes to 1280 X 800 [;)]!

[HansBolter]

Even though I have had a 21" monitor for the last 5 years I never run anything over 1152x864 due to my very bad eyes and how tiny the icons get at resolutions higher than that. Even at 1152x864, sometimes my screenshots are too large to post to the forum and I have to restart the game in 1024x768 to get a small enough screen shot to post.

If you do decide to increase the minimum resolution to such a high level, you will have to increase the limit on the attachment size for this website.

[oi_you_nutter]

HTTR & CotA have enough flexability as it is, using the manual resolution setting as per the manual. add a few more of the most common resolutions if you want, not forgetting widescreen as well.

there are so many resolution combinations nowadays, keep it simple and flexable with 1024x768 as the minimum, there are many customers out there who need that resolution because of their hardware or their eyesight.

[GoodGuy]

No, for reasons I've outlined in the other poll.

[z1812]

Hi All,

As I said in the "immersion post" an extra data tab to display a pic or photo with some key info would work. No need to eliminate any lower resolutions then.

I would prefer not to have a momentary pop-up. Something that can be tabbed to display on the side bar and viewed as each succesive unit is chosen will, I beleive, add more to immersion and quick retreival of key information

Regards John

[flintlock]

The idea behind the original thread which spawned this poll would add *so* much to this series while, I believe, also making it more accessible to potential customers.

While I can fully appreciate the desire to not break existing code at this stage, maintaining XGA as the status quo seems to severely cripple an easy and effective implementation of this much desired feature. Hey, the extra 524,288 pixels that SXGA offers is nothing to scoff at. [;)]

I'm always a little surprised at how many people still use XGA today, though I do understand circumstances that may necessitate this. Unless you're purchasing a widescreen LCD today, all the 4:3/5:4 aspect ratio LCDs I've come across have a native resolution of 1280x1024 (even the small 17" models). Heck, even some motherboard manufacturers are now booting their BIOS' into spartan XGA resolutions.

But I digress.

I would love to see the minimum resolution set to a more standard SXGA, and readily reap the benifts that PG would garner from the added real estate. Currently my existing side and force data tabs of the side bar sport a lot of dead space below--such a waste. *hint, hint*

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: flintlock

Unless you're purchasing a widescreen LCD today, all the 4:3/5:4 aspect ratio LCDs I've come across have a native resolution of 1280x1024 (even the small 17" models).

It might be like that with current displays that are available in stores these days (and this still would have to be verified), but the actual technical progress may still not have "reached" each and every customer, most likely, let alone users who have to cope with reduced possibilites on their laptops.
Plenty of LCDs with native resolutions of 1024 or 1154 px have been sold during the last few years, so I don't see why a developer of a niche-game should reduce the pool of potential customers (by adding such a barrier), especially if you're keeping in mind that this pool is anything than big atm.

For me, it would be like releasing a game that had been developed for use in conjunction with DirectX10 exclusively, where DirectX10 would not be available for any other OS than Windows Vista. XP users would be left out in the rain.

Developers don't have to make things downward-compatible down to DOS 16-bit, sure. But the 1024*768 resolution isn't that much of an ancient screen resolution, yet.

You could research what resolution ppl have, ask for their opinion, by adding a mandatory poll to the BFTB install wiz. That would reveal the actual user settings...... it's just that most ppl don't like mandatory polls, hehehe... i think someone proposed such a questionaire in conjunction with another topic/thread here, already.
So, i'd stick to some downward-compatibility 'til you can consider lower resolutions to be an "ancient" or an unimportant factor, imho.

[flintlock]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Plenty of LCDs with native resolutions of 1024 or 1154 px have been sold during the last few years

Most definitely. As far as 4:3/5:4 aspect ratio LCDs are concerned, I was merely pointing out that a native resolution of XGA is only used on 15" or smaller LCDs, which you'll likely find on budget or older laptops. I can't see anyone going out an buying a 15" LCD for their desktop if they plan on running any games on it. That basically leaves you 17" and 19" LCDs, which all use a native resolution of 1280x1024.

Widescreen LCDs are a whole different animal.

1024*768 resolution isn't that much of an ancient screen resolution, yet.

Well, XGA is approaching its 17th birthday (pretty ancient technology wise), and arguably not exactly a standard resolution any longer.

You could research what resolution ppl have, ask for their opinion, by adding a mandatory poll to the BFTB install wiz

This is a whole different topic, but that approach would definitely go over like a lead ballon. If approached in a different manner, people are a lot more likely to be responsive. Explain if you're willing to submit your system specs, it would help as a reference for future development projects. I believe it would backfire horribly attempting to make this mandatory. Regardless, I'm confident that PG know this all too well.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: z1812

Hi All,

As I said in the "immersion post" an extra data tab to display a pic or photo with some key info would work. No need to eliminate any lower resolutions then.

I would prefer not to have a momentary pop-up. Something that can be tabbed to display on the side bar and viewed as each succesive unit is chosen will, I beleive, add more to immersion and quick retreival of key information

Regards John

I beg to disagree. I think a popup dialog that you can move (and isn't modal) would be a better idea than an extra tab...otherwise, you're going to the unit information and clicking a unit (Mk IV) and then clicking again to view the details....going back to select a different unit (by unit, I'm referring to individual types...like 7.5in Howitzer, or Mk IV etc...not 1 Bn RE...if you are doing the information on Regiment level, then I suppose tabbed would work)

In my view, there are two ways of doing this. Either by forcing the minimum resolution which I think would be a mistake for PG or by creating a popup dialog which is moveable and doesn't interfere with gameplay.

The reason I think it would be a mistake to force a higher resolution is, as stated, some people simply don't play at those resolutions and therefore you're losing part of your market. I personally have a 1280x1024 so don't mind the extra "real estate" but other people simply can't do it, either because their system cannot support it, or bad sight or any other number of reasons.

What is it you said, Dave, about small ideas snowballing? [;)]

[Arjuna]

Well forget a popup dialog. Too much work there. Probably the best compromise is to split the E&S tab view such that the list occupies the top half and the bottom displays the estab data for the currently selected item in the list.

[z1812]

Hi Arjuna,

Your idea seems a good compromise. Once my planing is done for a scenario I don't look at the info tabs very much. I check when the scenario is ending sometimes and of course to determine remaining supplies for units. Sometimes I want to know a little more about a group but usually I am focused on the map.

In consideration of sales I would not limit resolutions beyond what they are now. For people with laptops that would be a problem.

Don't you like the idea of an extra tab to enable a graphic with some condensed information?

Regards John

[oi_you_nutter]

there is another reason why people stick at 1024x768, its easier on the eyes, i know a few people with 19 inch crts or 17 / 19 inch lcds who run them at 1024x768 because the text is too small at the maximum or native resolution.

running HTTR or CotA at 1680x1050 on a 20.1 inch widescreen LCD gives lots of screen space but the text is on the verge of being too small for my eyes

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: z1812
Don't you like the idea of an extra tab to enable a graphic with some condensed information?

John,

IMO most players will be searching for the equipment data in the context of reviewing an existing force's equipment list. Even if they weren't we would still need some list on which they could select the desired item. And if you are going to be viewing the equipment of a particular unit then I for one would prefer to not have to flick back and forth from one tab to another.

What do others think?

[flintlock]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
if you are going to be viewing the equipment of a particular unit then I for one would prefer to not have to flick back and forth from one tab to another. What do others think?

Shuffling back and forth between two tabs is definitely not desirable. Especially when the information you're after would be much more efficient presented on a single tab/screen. While certainly not an elegant solution from a design standpoint, if faced with having this feature implemented in this clumsy manner or not at all--I'll take it.

Dave, please don't misunderstand. I absolutely love the interface and find it elegantly designed. However, if I just picked up the game for the first time I'd likely pause and scratch my head wondering why this feature was designed this way--given the rest of meticulous and streamlined execution of the interface.