Comment on the 'screen resolution' poll

from Stardock Forums
I'm not quite sure what they are getting at with this question. They could do a couple of things by supporting higher resolutions. One would be to just add more detailed graphics, prettier ships, stars, etc. In my opinion this would be a waste of time. The other way to go, (what I would like to see) is to keep the graphics the same detail, just allow them to appear smaller and fit more of the map on the screen.
383 views 13 replies
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
That is exactly what I have been trying to get at but everyone thinks that I was looking for a graphics engine rewrite. Just the ability to use 1280x1024, not default to, with the exact same graphics would be awsome... :)
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Wouldn't variable resolutions at this stage of the game, by default, involve some graphic engine rewrites? I guess someone from Stardock would have to say if the effort would be worth it or not. And, taking a look at those poll numbers, I still say most of us wouldn't know 1280x1024 (or greater) if it hit us on the head. Then there would be the potential complaints from people who would say "These ship graphics suck at 1600x1200" and even a few who may say "This games looks funny on 800x600." I do agree that modern programs need to support variable resolution, but I am just saying that Galciv may be too far along for the programming resources that may be required to put in this requested feature.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Then there would be the potential complaints from people who would say "These ship graphics suck at 1600x1200" and even a few who may say "This games looks funny on 800x600."
End of quote


Good point. Playtesting could reveal this as a problem. Everytime stardock enhances the game somebody seems to find a reason to fault them for it.

Once I bought a girlfriend of mine 6 roses and gave them to her. All she did was complain for 15 minutes about how I should have gone to a less expense florist and then got her a full dozen. >:( Finally, I grabbed the roses and tossed them out of the window. Problem solved.

I wonder how she's doing these days.

[Message Edited]
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Qui-Gon - of all people you should know being just a 'half' is not a good thing - just like your buddy Darth Maul found out.

Sorry - couldn't resist.....

I think the resolution question comes up because of the limited area a ship sees at the current setting. I had a boost in sensor range that made a corvette have a sensor range greater then what I could see on the screen. I was using the corvette to scout out uncharted territory for my survey ship to find anomalies.

I was constantly dragging to see how far over and up I had to go to get the best use of the new range. It was hard for me to tell where I had explored since the sensor range was greater then the half of the sector I was cruising.

It would be cool if I could see present sector and about halfway into the surrounding ones. Yes I know there is the minimap and I use it all the time. My point is the minimap does not always show uncharted territory correctly I think. With the influence toggle off, you see black (explored) or clouds (unexplored) on the mini map. My question is what the break point for being explored or unexplored? Is it all the spaces in a given sector being explored or 75% or 51%? To be honest I'd like it set at 100% - if there is some corner I missed that has an anomaly with a good bonus - I want to know about it and make sure I find if before some AI releases a Precursor Ranger right under my nose.
:D

I'm no programmer so I don't know if my wish is a major rewrite or not.

As for those who rant about changes - what can you do? Stardock I think is really outdoing themselves with the updates. They are frequent and free - and the expansion will be too. I usually wait for a game to be out for a year to let all the patches be done and for the price to drop. I couldn't wait for MOO3 - what a mistake that was. My 4X mode was running and Ihad to fill it with something - so thank goodness for GalCiv.

I've ranted about the manual but in hindsight with all the changes - it would be hard for them to keep a 'current' manual. Thank goodness for fanboys like JavaScout - I'd be lost without his tech tree and would have returned GalCiv a while ago. :HOT:
[Message Edited]
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Qui-Gon - of all people you should know being just a 'half' is not a good thing - just like your buddy Darth Maul found out.
End of quote


Yes, I realize that now. At the time I was just a padawan learner in the ways of the female mind. I saw 6 of something. She saw one-half of something. Kind of a Mars/Venus thing. I would never do 6 roses again, that's for sure.

I was constantly dragging to see how far over and up I had to go to get the best use of the new range. It was hard for me to tell where I had explored since the sensor range was greater then the half of the sector I was cruising.
End of quote


Good example. I guess that goes to show that the higher resolution isn't just for eye candy. It can make gameplay for this great game even better. Less time spent scrolling around and more time doing stuff.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
If I was not playing GalCiv on a laptop; I'd go for the 1028x76 resolution. As it is, 800x600 is the best for me. This is especially so, since I have to use a screen magnifier to see most of what is on the screen.

Strangely enough, I have no problem with the higher resoluton on a 17in. or higher monitor size. These higher resolution shows up great. As for seeing stuff, it is a simple matter of getting XP to give me larger fonts sizes and adding fonts like Clarendon BT & etc.. The same principle applies to the sceen elements - title bar, scroll bar.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
bgofct: I was bothered by that same thing about the more-than-a-sector sensor range until I discovered that you can move a ship (via the keyboard, at least) without having it be on screen. I do it all the time now. As long as the ship is moving in a single direction, your display can be as far away from it as you want. (If you do turn the ship, the display will most likely hop back to be centered on the ship.)
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
One annoying feature of variable screen resolutions: The font size must also be a parameter! On some games, I set it to run at 1600x1200 instead of 800x600 and now the fonts are too small to read!

Having the graphics appropriately scale for different resolutions is trickier than it sounds.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Any given font (except one that's at an unnaturally small point size to begin with) will only ever be too small if you have your resolution set higher than your monitor realistically is designed for. Anyone, for example, who thinks that they can play 1600x1200 on a 17-inch monitor is SERIOUSLY deluding themselves... I wouldn't consider that really viable as a long-term resolution until 21 inches.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top


Once I bought a girlfriend of mine 6 roses and gave them to her. All she did was complain for 15 minutes about how I should have gone to a less expense florist and then got her a full dozen. Finally, I grabbed the roses and tossed them out of the window. Problem solved.I wonder how she's doing these days.
End of quote


Bwahahaha, seriously dude, i would dump that one in a second. Some women are just never happy no matter what you do... :D
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
That is exactly what I have been trying to get at but everyone thinks that I was looking for a graphics engine rewrite.
End of quote


It would still require rerendering the UI, which is a large part of the graphics, and require adding more MB to an already fairly large download for those new UI renderings. Expect an increase of about 10 MB or so for each additional resolution, if on-the-fly rendering isn't used.

On-the-fly rendering would slow the game down, and would increase the minimum specs for the came as well, so that may not be a likely possibility. It would probably be enough to render the game nearly unplayable on my computer, at the least.

~SDC~
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

It would still require rerendering the UI, which is a large part of the graphics, and require adding more MB to an already fairly large download for those new UI renderings. Expect an increase of about 10 MB or so for each additional resolution, if on-the-fly rendering isn't used.

On-the-fly rendering would slow the game down, and would increase the minimum specs for the came as well, so that may not be a likely possibility. It would probably be enough to render the game nearly unplayable on my computer, at the least.
End of quote


There are ways to perform on-the-fly rendering without dramatically increasing program size or causing a performance hit.

It involved producing a "filler" tile that is pasted between the large gaps in the GUI that appear when the resolution is increased. The disadvantage would be the big gap between the GUI buttons, as well as the fact that the GUI would shrink as the resolution increases.

The disadvantage is easily solved using only two GUIs and the scaling of GUI controls. To negate the performance hit from scaling, the GUI components are pre-rendered as soon as the resolution changes (and perhaps some anti-aliasing is possible as well.).

Naturally, this would only occurr on a total rewrite of the GUI code.