Thread: Skins and aspect ratio

I design everything at 4:3 because I run my CarPC at 4:3 as the ExAudio screen automatically scales it correctly to 16:9. It does not look squished or anything. 16:9 drivers and everything are waaaaaay overhyped IMHO. But there is no reason why you cant make it 16:9. You can make it 2000:1 if you want, it is all free to do.

Also the configurator does use windows forms, and I am in the process of making it tiny-resolution freindly but FCC does not. It uses DirectX. So no scrollbars, pages is how to do it. But if you make an object span multiple pages it is essentially static.

Easy to do.

...Also the configurator does use windows forms, and I am in the process of making it tiny-resolution freindly but FCC does not. It uses DirectX. So no scrollbars, pages is how to do it. But if you make an object span multiple pages it is essentially static...

When I first read this I thought "Dude, you're nuts! I'm looking at MainMDX.cs and it says 'using System.Windows.Forms;' and 'public partial class MainMDX : Form'." Then I actually looked closely at the code and see what you are doing--let VS lay the groundwork then do your own thing.

I read in another thread somewhere that you use DirectX because using the forms presentation layer is too slow. I guess this means you won't be adopting .Net 3.5 and WPF anytime soon, eh?

I design everything at 4:3 because I run my CarPC at 4:3 as the ExAudio screen automatically scales it correctly to 16:9. It does not look squished or anything. 16:9 drivers and everything are waaaaaay overhyped IMHO. But there is no reason why you cant make it 16:9. You can make it 2000:1 if you want, it is all free to do...

DOH! I didn't think about that. Same thing Windows does when you add a widescreen monitor. This is good because I can design something I can see. The only problem is that I tend to get the screen too cluttered and by the time it is shrunken to fit on a 7" monitor, everything will be far too small to see. Just look at my first prototype and you'll see what I mean. Actually, I was just tossing things on the screen to get everything together. I will split it into multiple pages to enhance viewability.

Well C# and DirectX dont play nicely together from what I have seen. So the easiest was to make .NET do the work of setting up a form and bind the DirectX object to the Form. Then you still have a title bar, still have min/max box, still have a close box, and the best part is you still get the .NET mouse/keyboard events which I prefer to DirectX's.

I am always up to making things better, but I dont think .NET 3.5 will have any substantial improvement in speed. When i did it with .net before, everytime you changed page, you could see all the elements populate the screen 1 by 1. It was fast, but you could see it. Also rotating and smearing it was too slow in .net.

I do need to find a better way to capture the DirectX errors, as this was my first try with DirectX.

^for a firs try i think you did pretty daggon good!