Properly setting the HUD size in NewDark

[6643536e9b8ffgnartsch]

Hey guys, I was always wondering how exactly to set the HUD size in NewDark properly.
As people pointed out already, the cam_ext.cfg has options for that.
But it just doesn't make much sense to me.

I would have imagined that this variant would provide a scaling factor:
d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 2
But it does not accept floating point numbers as it should ?
I would like to use some factor like 1.6 or something, since that value scales too high for my taste.

Original settings (without any scaling) : way too small, can't read anything.
I am using the native 1680 x 1050 resolution of my TFT.
Image: http://www.gnartsch.de/Thief-FM/beta/SS2/Shock2%202013-04-28%2013-13-37-62.jpg

Code: [Select]

d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 2 A bit too big and not everything fits onto the screen. And the monkey diagram seems misaligned.
Image: http://www.gnartsch.de/Thief-FM/beta/SS2/Shock2%202013-04-28%2013-15-12-32.jpg

The best solution seems to be fiddling with the second variant and play with the HEIGHT.

Code: [Select]

d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 640 640Image: http://www.gnartsch.de/Thief-FM/beta/SS2/Shock2%202013-04-28%2013-14-26-73.jpg

I can not that 640 640 makes much sense to me (following the descriptions in cam_ext.cfg), but at least it works in a reasonable way.

Is that a bug in NewDark ?
Should the first variant allow floating point factors ?
At any rate I smell a bug in the code responsible for that.

Anyway, the bottom line is that tweeking the HEIGHT gives you the chance to scale the HUD as you wish.

[6643536e9baccbluemess]

If you want it 1.6 or something times upscaled try this formula:

(1680 / 1.6) (1050 / 1.6) = 1050 656

and set:

d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 1050 656

[6643536e9bd36voodoo47]

hud scaling works in a peculiar way.

short story: try d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 64, this should set the best pixel perfect scaled hud resolution for you. if you don't like the result, enter the desired hud resolution, like this: d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 840 525.

[6643536e9be56bluemess]

Whether he set d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay to 64 or 2 it wont matter, it will be 2x upscaled. With 840 525 it will also be 2x upscaled, which he mentions is too big.

[6643536e9c0a0Kolya]

I don't think I have ever seen that research screen.

[6643536e9c477Zanderat]

I don't think I have ever seen that research screen.

Same here.  Is it from a mod?

[6643536e9c613ZylonBane]

Obviously it's a mod. The question is, which one?

[6643536e9c7a8Briareos H]

The proper (original) hud is actually scaled properly on those screens. Since the mod you're using wasn't created with NewDark in mind, it looks like the research image gets thrown out of the screen so I don't think there's a clean way to do a proper pixel-perfect scaling, you'll have to find the overlay resolution you like best.
It doesn't look like there is a bug in the new engine either, just that it was probably made without knowledge that some mods would add large panels to the UI.

[6643536e9c895ZylonBane]

Or the mod was developed by someone who never tested it at 640x480.

[6643536e9cabagnartsch]

That monkey report was taken within Zygoptera's Arena mission.
Well, I thought that would be a stock report. Maybe I was wrong.

Indeed the settings 2 and 64 simply produce the same result. No matter what individual value you enter, the screen will always look like shot #2.
Or is there any info availlable what 2 or 64 would do differently ???
Thanks for pointing out the formula for the second variant, bluemess!



With that I was able to calculate how the Original Look and Feel would be calculated.
in order to achieve a more or less original look and feel (even on widescreen), you want to use the formula to calculate the factor for a fixed height of 480.
For a more modern look and feel that makes good use of the widescreen resolution you might want to achieve a fixed height of 640.
(Don't ask why it would be 640. It must be a mere coincidence related to the UI design, but it looks best imho, at least for 16:10 TFTs)

E.g. given a native resolution of 1680x1050 you get these results:

'Original' SS2 Look & Feel (o.k. widescreens adds some blank space horizontally, but the view is vertically optimized)
f=1050/480=2.1875
1680/f=768
d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 768 480

'Modern' Look & Feel (making best use of the top of the screen, horizontal optimization)
f=1050/640=1.640625
1680/f=1024
d3d_disp_scaled_2d_overlay 1024 640

[6643536e9cbe1gnartsch]

By the way: why am I not allowed to open threads right in the appropriate sub-forum?
It seems I am only able/allowed to open new threads in 'Recreation', 'Engineering' & 'Helpdesk', but nowhere else?
This thread surely does not belong here.

[6643536e9cd89Kolya]

Indeed, it belongs into the Helpdesk.
The other forums are file archives and only persons with upload rights can create new threads there, because every thread is about a download in these forums.

EDIT: If you had written a mod for SS2 I would gladly give you upload rights and then you could start a new topic about it in the SS2 mod archive. Until then you like most people can only reply to threads in the file archives. You can create new topics only in the Community boards.

[6643536e9cf23voodoo47]

under normal circumstances, those are the subforums where 99% of all new topics should be posted anyway.

and yeah, moved to the helpdesk.

[6643536e9d44fbluemess]

[...]
Or is there any info availlable what 2 or 64 would do differently ???
[...]

Yes it is. It will try to do pixel perfect (multiply by integer numbers) UI (640x480) upscale as many times as it fits your resolution, up to 64 times. But it will stop at 2 because:

(640 * 2) (480 * 2) -> 1280 960 < 1680 1050 - fits OK

(640 * 3) (480 * 3) -> 1920 1440 > 1680 1050 - doesn't fit

[6643536e9d63fSimplex]

So if I understood this correctly, for any res below 2560x1440 having anything else higher than "2" will not make any difference, yes?

Also, this research screen is cool

[6643536e9d75cvoodoo47]

so it seems - no idea why the default setting is so high (64 would translate into 40 960*30 720, and even the craziest monitor configuration I know of is "only" 11 520*4 320). still, it should be the first value the user should try, as it should result in an optimally scaled hud in most cases.

[6643536e9dad3Olfred]

My guess would be that 64 is the maximum value and it's set at the highest to ensure that it's always scaled to the biggest possible for the current resolution.

[6643536e9dc23bluemess]

Author probably pick that value by hand choosing somewhere between good measure and ridiculous.

[6643536e9dd67ZylonBane]

No, he picked "ridiculous", full stop. No doubt deliberately.

[6643536e9dfc7bluemess]

Since we are putting that much thought to it, probably more than the author himself:

I think there is no actual technical limitation (like this 64) how many times UI can be enlarged, but that variable by definition takes integer values, so it couldn't be set to something like "bestfit" or "infinity", and some value had to be chosen. Setting it to 65535 would puzzle as too much, as 64 gave us enough of the riddle.

[6643536e9e0cfKolya]

Also 65535 is not a power of 2.

[6643536e9e25dbluemess]

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

[6643536e9e38agnartsch]

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?

[6643536e9e495Kolya]

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