30. April 2013, 21:14:54

#20

KolyaQuote

Also 65535 is not a power of 2.

30. April 2013, 21:24:30

#21

bluemessQuote

There's no need for it to be power of 2, it could be any integer (natural, to be specific) value. Don't be mislead by this 64, programmer's nature makes them choose "round" numbers by their standards

30. April 2013, 22:41:24

#22

gnartschQuote

Wow. There is really a discussion going on about this.
The odd thing: if the individual value (2, 3, ... 64) were factors, then factor 2 should not result in a vertically optimized UI.
2*(640x480) would be (1280x960) and with my resolution (1680x1050) there should be gaps.
So maybe it is really just an on/off switch?
Anyone seeing a difference at higher resolutions?

30. April 2013, 23:00:43

#23

KolyaQuote

Uh, gaps? Look the UI is an overlay. Its size has no business with your screen resolution, except it has to fit into it.

30. April 2013, 23:06:13

#24

voodoo47Quote

Quote by Kolya:

Uh, gaps? Look the UI is an overlay. Its size has no business with your screen resolution, except it has to fit into it.

he probably means the interlocking of the UI elements that can be observed in the 640*480 resolution, which disappears when a larger resolution is used, as the elements move away from each other.