Yeah Eternity w00t!

[SoM]

It's good to finally have the windows port out for public testing. Feel free to let me know if you have problems with it. Quasar` and I have worked hard on it so I hope everyone enjoys it :)

[boris]

PLEASE make it run in high resolutions. (and no, 640x400 is *not* a high resolution)

[DooMBoy]

Hip hip hooray!
/me spanks

[Lüt]

boris said:

PLEASE make it run in high resolutions. (and no, 640x400 is *not* a high resolution)

The only next step up is 1280x800, and not many PCs can handle that.

[SoM]

boris said:

PLEASE make it run in high resolutions. (and no, 640x400 is *not* a high resolution)

640x400 is higher than 320x200 :P

BE GLAD WE GAVE YOU THAT! heh

I really don't see the point in playing doom in 1024x768 anyway.

[Quasar]

boris said:

PLEASE make it run in high resolutions. (and no, 640x400 is *not* a high resolution)

Like the FAQ (eefaq.txt) says, the reason Eternity doesn't support any other resolutions yet is because none of its drawing code's been generalized to allow that -- it takes a ton of extra math when you don't allow assumptions about the width of the screen.

It'll be a ton of work to ever get it like zdoom, but I imagine I will probably undertake it someday, since people want it so bad :P

[oblivion]

Lüt said:

The only next step up is 1280x800, and not many PCs can handle that.

yeah, its a oddball rez not supported by many cards. but i think 1920x1200 is supported by a bunch of cards. my monitor cant do it tho. :(

[999cop]

Very thoughtful.

[Kaiser]

I could never find the perfect port, but now, with Eternity, I just found my perfect port.

[SoM]

Deathman said:

I could never find the perfect port, but now, with Eternity, I just found my perfect port.

* SoM gives Deathman a big hug!

Finally, I'm part of a doom project that people actually like! ;)

[Hodapp87]

640x400 suffices for me, and the framerate is very high. Detail higher than that doesn't matter much to me because I can't shoot that far accurately anyway, unless I'm using some generic sniper designed for it.
If it is _REEEAAALLLLLLLLLLLY_ necessary to see in detail far away, could a simple zoom feature be implemented to satisfy some people?
Aside from that, I don't see much of a point in playing at above 640x400. 320x200 could be a bit less detailed than I would like at times, but 640x400 is more than enough.
----------------
Hypothetically speaking, could you do 800x600 and simply forget about 50 horizontal lines each on the top and bottom of the screen, leaving you with 800x500, with the same 8:5 pixel ratio as 320x200 and 640x400?
And continue it onto... 1024x768 with 1024x640 used? 1152x864 with 1152x720 used? 1280x1024 with 1280x800 used? 1600x1200 with 1600x1000 used? 1880x1400 with 1880x1175 used? 2048x1536 with 2048x1280 used? I think I made my point. Besides, I ran out of resolutions that are anywhere near 'common'.

* The problem *
It would look weird, or stretched, or whatever. 320x200 and 640x400 are 8:5 pixel-wise but 4:3 by physical length/width. 800x500 (1024x640, 1152x720, 1280x800 . . .) is 8:5 by pixels but also 8:5 by physical length/width.
Hmmmmmmmmmm...

[Quasar]

That's why we didn't support any higher resolutions through that letter-boxing method. 320x240 and 640x480 were supported with letter-boxing because many cards cannot do 320x200 or 640x400 in fullscreen any more, and those would otherwise be the only fullscreen modes available.

To do proper support for high res, the drawing code would need to be generalized to correct for aspect ratio and use the entire screen space.