PDA

View Full Version : [Resolved] SRL-6 ~ Resizable Screen Size vs. Fixed Size



Coh3n
11-16-2013, 12:45 AM
One of the biggest changes in SRL-6 was the support of all screen sizes, and a (somewhat) lenient interface setup. Now as probably all of you that have used SRL-6 have realized, it's a pain to setup your RS properly, and there are a lot of bugs with the "dynamic" support we originally aimed for.

Olly; has brought up the fact that most, if not all, SRL-6 users use the default 960 x 640 screen resolution anyway, so we're here to get your feedback on whether or not keeping this idea of a "dynamic" SRL is worth the trouble. We also have to think about how many interface possibilities there actually are, and to have a 100% dynamic SRL is likely far out of reach at this time.

One of the reasons (probably the biggest) we didn't use fixed screen to begin with is because originally you couldn't see all the inventory slots (you had to scroll). This has been updated as there were a lot of complaints about it.

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of fixed size(please post more if you think of them):

Advantages:


Development will be easier. We won't have to worry about keeping things dynamic.
We won't need any collaboration upon login (finding interfaces), we'll have static coordinates for each interface (like previous versions of SRL).
Users will no longer be using the exact same resizable screen resolution.
There will be much less bugs, a lot of current bugs have something to do with the "dynamic" support.
Functions such as MMToMS will be possible again.
The user setup will go from 15 steps down to 1 or 2.


Disadvantages:


Scripts that have been written for a specific screen size (like the default 960 x 540) will need to be updated.
Small, restricting mainscreen. Makes object finding more difficult.


If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Cheers,
The SRL Development Team

E: We also want to make it clear that having a poll doesn't mean we are going to do whatever the result is. This is here to see what you, the users, think. The poll will certainly help in our decision, but there is no guarantee based on the poll results.

rj
11-16-2013, 01:07 AM
I voted for fixed screen because I think there should be a more easy universal standard.

Nebula
11-16-2013, 01:24 AM
Does it even matter

Do whichever is easiest for srl developers. If I were botting I wouldn't care what my screen size is lol. you're not actually playing, you're boting so it shouldnt matter

Coh3n
11-16-2013, 01:40 AM
Does it even matter

Do whichever is easiest for srl developers. If I were botting I wouldn't care what my screen size is lol. you're not actually playing, you're boting so it shouldnt matterLol fair enough. :p Obviously a fixed size is easier. It actually would make all the code in SRL simpler, which might get people to contribute more.

Itankbots
11-16-2013, 02:17 AM
fixed sized.....I never understood why you guys went for resizable. It adds pretty much nothing (bigger screen? awesome?) And makes botting alot harder and resource heavy. Its the main reason i haven't touched SRL6 yet...aside from looking at it...i prefer my working SRl5

riwu
11-16-2013, 02:25 AM
For some of the activities, having a bigger screen is a big advantage as you can click far apart targets w/o having to navigate with the map.

Is there any plan to include OGL in SRL 6? Ogl provides much more reliable methods regardless of screen size.

Coh3n
11-16-2013, 02:32 AM
Is there any plan to include OGL in SRL 6? Ogl provides much more reliable methods regardless of screen size.By OGL I'm assuming you mean Brandon's OGL library? No, we have no plans to include it in SRL-6. As of right now, SRL is and always be 100% color. SRL-6 does run in OGL mode, though, so you can use it along side the OGL library (like we did with the old Reflection) if you wish.

E: As far as I know, Brandon's library has the potential to do A LOT (maybe it already does). It may be better to use 100% OGL if you want a larger screen size. That's what I would do.

bonsai
11-16-2013, 06:08 AM
Guess I'm on the minority side of this one :)

The small size is restrictive. Everyone running with the same exact size is more detectable. The small size we're using is likely far outside the norm of average users.

On the coding side, I appreciate the difficulties in making it all work.

Coh3n
11-16-2013, 06:27 AM
On the coding side, I appreciate the difficulties in making it all work.I do too. I have no doubt that making a 100% dynamic color system is possible, no doubt at all. It's a matter of it being feasible in our current state. We do not have a paid, full time staff to dedicate to a project that large, and given the circumstances, making things easier now will likely benefit SRL in the future.

Zyt3x
11-16-2013, 11:24 AM
I am and will always be voting for a more dynamic and thus more human-like include.

The Killer
11-16-2013, 11:34 AM
I'm just going to say making it dynamic is effort... Sjoe; and Soviet Union; get this joke;))
Honestly, I don't mind. A dynamic screen is more human like for sure but if its more hassle than its worth (which it probably is since you've had to ask us about it) then don't bother.

Ashaman88
11-16-2013, 02:09 PM
I always liked fixed. Mostly due to the fact that I would make fixed bounds on the main screen to search in for an object... If everyone has the same sized screen makes it easy to just do that as opposed to more time consuming methods of excluding parts of the ms. If it's dynamic I don't think that technique would work.


Hopefully that made sense. But I do understand the desire for dynamic as well, it just creates more pain from a scripting standpoint (ex you get the perfect color, only color you want is showing on your ms, so done right? Wrong what if a user has a larger screen and since there are more objects on their screen more potential for false positives. So you would have to test a bunch more, with lots of resolution types.)

Foundry
11-16-2013, 03:50 PM
By OGL I'm assuming you mean Brandon's OGL library? No, we have no plans to include it in SRL-6. As of right now, SRL is and always be 100% color. SRL-6 does run in OGL mode, though, so you can use it along side the OGL library (like we did with the old Reflection) if you wish.

E: As far as I know, Brandon's library has the potential to do A LOT (maybe it already does). It may be better to use 100% OGL if you want a larger screen size. That's what I would do.

Sorry this is a bit off topic but I didn't want to bother to make a thread about it...

Do you have to use OGL when using srl-6? Is there any alternatives that work currently?

Also, I voted fixed screen size. I haven't ran into a problem yet where I needed a larger screen size and the advantages make it a pretty obvious choice to me.

Thanatos
11-16-2013, 04:16 PM
Would it be possible to make it for fixed for ease of scripters right now, and then keep plugging away at making one for resizable? I know it would be more work, but open it up and have people contribute, etc, as they do and it may take time but eventually it would move from fixed to resizable. Personally to fixed makes it easier to use, but not as fun for learning and it's always the same.

Coh3n
11-16-2013, 06:18 PM
Sorry this is a bit off topic but I didn't want to bother to make a thread about it...

Do you have to use OGL when using srl-6? Is there any alternatives that work currentlyI'm actually not 100% sure about that. SRL-6 was written in OGL graphics mode, but I'm not sure if the functions will work in other modes. I've never tested myself.


Would it be possible to make it for fixed for ease of scripters right now, and then keep plugging away at making one for resizable? I know it would be more work, but open it up and have people contribute, etc, as they do and it may take time but eventually it would move from fixed to resizable. Personally to fixed makes it easier to use, but not as fun for learning and it's always the same.We've been talking about this a little. Using fixed screen, but still writing the core of the include for dynamic interfaces. It's a possibility for sure.

bg5
11-16-2013, 07:03 PM
I don't play RS anymore, but I would say most people want to keep game resources on lowest possible level while botting.

Also, what was already said above, different screen size may differ script logic:

e.x. in script written for fixed size I have something like this:

TreeArray := FindAllTrees();
SortTreesByNorth (TreeArray);
GoTo(TreeArray[0]); // go to northest one tree on screen


But now I change screen size to bigger and I see on MS far, far away at north another tree behind a fence, where I don't want to go. Thus I need to change my script:

TreeArray := FindAllTrees();
SortTreesByNorth (TreeArray);
if (ScreenSize = fixed) then GoTo(TreeArray[0]) // go to the northest one tree on screen
else GoTo(TreeArray[1]) // go to the second from north visible tree


So to use whole benefits of dynamic SRL, script developers would need to write scripts with dynamic screen support too, which is rather unlikely.

Ian
11-17-2013, 10:31 PM
I think that a fixed screen size would be better because it makes things simpler. While you can see farther with a larger screen size, resizeable would mean that not everyone would have the same things on their screen while standing in the same place which could cause problems for some scripts.

Fixed would make it so scripters and devs don't need to test everything on many different sizes to know that the script works.

Coh3n
11-17-2013, 10:35 PM
I think that a fixed screen size would be better because it makes things simpler. While you can see farther with a larger screen size, resizeable would mean that not everyone would have the same things on their screen while standing in the same place which could cause problems for some scripts.

Fixed would make it so scripters and devs don't need to test everything on many different sizes to know that the script works.It would indeed make things simpler. That's the main reason for bringing up the discussion in the first place.

The poll is actually close than I thought it would be. :p