Poll: What would you prefer SRL-6 to use?

Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: SRL-6 ~ Resizable Screen Size vs. Fixed Size

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default SRL-6 ~ Resizable Screen Size vs. Fixed Size

    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.
    Last edited by Coh3n; 11-16-2013 at 02:54 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,762
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2739 Post(s)

    Default

    I voted for fixed screen because I think there should be a more easy universal standard.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    1,242
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    193 Post(s)

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    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
    Lol fair enough. Obviously a fixed size is easier. It actually would make all the code in SRL simpler, which might get people to contribute more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    815
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    284 Post(s)

    Default

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,568
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Quoted
    356 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riwu View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    770
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Quoted
    364 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bonsai View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,876
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)

    Default

    I am and will always be voting for a more dynamic and thus more human-like include.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Discord
    Posts
    3,114
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quoted
    538 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hyrule
    Posts
    8,662
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1870 Post(s)

    Default

    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.)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    An horse
    Posts
    300
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    120 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coh3n View Post
    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.
    Currently lurking while messing around with dll injection. Will continue contributing after I finish my quest.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    177 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HardcorBoter View Post
    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
    I'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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    805
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Quoted
    152 Post(s)

    Default

    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:
    Simba Code:
    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:
    Simba Code:
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,867
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1663 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMWxi View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •