Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Over]

Hi!

I'm thinking about buying an ultrawide monitor (25", 2560 x 1080) and I'm wondering how will DF look on it. Does it scale to that resolution? Will it just center on the monitor? Will I have performance problems?

So, does anyone here has tried it on a ultrawide monitor? What's your experience? And if it's not a big bother, would you mind sharing a couple of screenshots?

Thanks in advance.

[elcr]

It should be fine with RESIZABLE and BLACK_SPACE set to yes in init.txt, or with graphics enabled. With that pixel density you'll probably need to zoom in a bit or use a high resolution tileset though. I saw 24x24 and 32x32 tilesets floating around somewhere.

[Over]

With that blackspace command I assume that the game doesn't scale to wider monitors, it keeps the aspect ratio? So I won't see a wider game area?

[King Mir]

BLACK_SPACE space makes it so individual tiles don't stretch, but the game will add more tiles if they fit within the game window. If they don't fit, it adds black space for the difference.

[Miuramir]

See the Tileset repository on the wiki for some ideas.  On my primary home monitor which is 1920 x 1200, I currently use "Yayo's Oreslam", a square 20x20 tileset with windowed settings at WINDOWEDX:95, WINDOWEDY:55 (1900 x 1100, so as to still be able to see other stuff underneath).  I've also used "Haowan's" 18x18, which is a hair smaller but looks slightly closer to the classic characters, with good success. 

For a true 2560 x 1080 monitor, the equivalent settings for a 20x20 would be WINDOWEDX:127, WINDOWEDY:49 (2540 x 980 window). 

For comparison, assuming 20x20 tiles, windowed, 20 px total for left & right margin, 100 px total for top & bottom margin (you can probably squeeze that down to 40 px total, getting up to 3 more vertical characters, depending on your window layout and personal preferences):
* non-square old school (typically 4:3) is 80 x 25 = 2,000 squares
* 1600 x  900 yields  79 x  40 = 3,160 squares (1.78 aka 16:9)
* 1920 x 1080 yields  95 x  49 = 4,655 squares (1.78 aka 16:9)
* 1920 x 1200 yields  95 x  55 = 5,225 squares (1.60 aka 16:10)
* 2560 x 1080 yields 127 x 49 = 6,223 squares (2.37, not quite anamorphic standard 2.39)
* 2560 x 1200 yields 127 x 55 = 6,985 squares (2.13)
* 2560 x 1440 yields 127 x 67 = 8,509 squares (1.78 aka 16:9)
* 2560 x 1600 yields 127 x 75 = 9,525 squares (1.60 aka 16:10)

Personally, for most "practical" use I find the vertical space more useful; my 1920 x 1200 home monitor feels more useful than my 1920 x 1080 laptop more than the simple pixel count would indicate.  My work monitor is a 2560 x 1440, and with rare exceptions (mostly really wide spreadsheets) I find the additional height to be what I appreciate.  Your use cases and tastes will of course vary; but unless your primary use for the monitor is watching high-ratio, high-res (Blu Ray or better) widescreen cinema at close to native 1.85 or 2.39 ratio, I'd personally be slightly dubious about a monitor that wide but that short.  DF with the right settings will handle whatever you get, of course.