OpenXcom Forum
OpenXcom => Offtopic => Topic started by: Amiga on March 15, 2018, 11:21:47 am
-
Personally I really like SABR-XCOMified. Just wondering what type of filter you guys prefer....
-
Only original (no filter)... everything else is heresy :)
-
Only original (no filter)... everything else is heresy :)
A very blurry heresy :)
-
How I feel when I see those filters:
(https://i.imgur.com/lCZLth3.jpg)
-
How I feel when I see those filters:
(https://i.imgur.com/lCZLth3.jpg)
On my machine sabre is more sharp than original (no filter) .
I've played UFO on every platform starting in 95 on A600. I don't mind to use filters to enchance graphic
-
The problem with a lot of those filters for me is how they mess up text. On this machine I can't do much with filters on here, but with emulators for older consoles I've used them, and prefer the less drastic ones, because so many of the higher level ones make low-res text unreadable. I would like a filter that can make things look a bit sharper and clearer without distorting the text so much.
-
I get the point of wanting the filter. The pixels are distracting at first. They reveal how little visual information is present. Your eye thinks it should be an easy task enhancing the resolution in order to gain new information. But the information simply isn't present. To the untrained eye, smoothing the edges may make the image appear sharper, but in reality it cannot gain any detail and in fact loses some.
The biggest reason I dislike the visual filter is that it prevents me from examining or manipulating the image at the pixel level. I don't always just see the image in situ, often it takes on a greater importance to me. Seeing the filter just shows me how many possibilities aren't there that could have been. Also, I'm just so used to seeing pixels that they don't phase me at all, and I see right past them to the image. So the minor loss in detail is noticeable to me. The image actually looks less detailed with the filter.
-
Maybe one day someone will redo all the graphics at higher resolutions, but I do understand that will be at least as difficult and time consuming as making them originally . . . and the original developers had nothing else to do at the time but the graphics for UFO Defense. And they got paid for it. So, not really expected high res textures made any time soon.
As far as filters reducing detail, I'm sure a filter can be designed that can make things appears sharper when you have a high resolution set without messing with detail. Something like HQX, but significantly less aggressive. Until that happens, though, I'm sticking with vanilla.
-
Most of the shit I do tends to be far too complicated for even the best of these filters to scale up;
(https://dl.dropbox.com/s/6131gp48qu46mc3/097.png)(https://dl.dropbox.com/s/bw0ewzcbu3emr6f/099.png)
resulting in some pretty nasty deformation instead of the intended look
So obviously I've learned to love the big squares despite being a big fan of said filters some six years ago.
-
I use HQX.... but now I will try again using original openxcom... I´m feeling as an heretic now :'(
-
Actually looks to me like that image came out pretty decent with the filter, but I've seen enough to know how often you don't get results that good. As I said before, especially with text.
I would like to add about games made in the last 20 years using at least bilinear filtering, and most of those looking horrible without it, while applying it to unedited older games can look horrible with it . . . this is because those designed to played without it had textures designed with that in mind, so filters get unpredictable. From about '98/'99, when more were made with 3D acceleration in mind, and use of bilinear filtering, those textures were drawn with the filter as a major consideration, and had to be tested with them extensively. High end filters are likely to never really look good without a full graphics overhaul, and designing for a filter in mind makes the work even more extensive than before . . . so I understand why it's never been done yet.
-
I won't vote because I don't know what the question means.
Does anyone care to link to a relevant explanation, because I suspect that Google would deliver billions of irrelevant results.
-
If you look in the video setting for OpenXCom, on the right is a setting for filters. These apply post processing effects to the screen, and they are pretty resource intensive compared to running with no filter.
-
If you look in the video setting for OpenXCom, on the right is a setting for filters. These apply post processing effects to the screen, and they are pretty resource intensive compared to running with no filter.
"Disabled", "Scale", "HQX", "CRT-interlaced*", .... I'm not even sure if I have GL-accelerated hardware - it's not a factor I consider at all when buying machines. I'll try several, but the list is long.
"Scale" and "HQX", "Curvature", "HQ2x", "OpenXcom*", "Pixellate*", "Quillez*", "Row*", "SABR-XCOMified*", "SABR*", " scale4xHQ*", " have no visible effect on my system.
"CRT interlaced*", CRT-simple*" and "CRT*" introduces a curve, and lines reminiscent of an early 1980s glass teletype. Even I had a flatter, squarer tube when I first brought a PC (which was pushing 7 years old when the original game was released. Clearly a modification for the sadomasochist fraternity.
"Phosphor-simple*" has a slight effect on colour balance, as if your blue gun were under-current.
"dot_n_bloom*" just makes things dim.
"heavybloom*"makes it look as if your guns are flat-out misaligned.
"simplebloom*" is between the last two.
From the "*" modes working, I infer that I do have the appropriate hardware acceleration. SHRUG, but I'll file that information somewhere on the grounds that it might be useful somehow.
Ah, there's a setting for "grab mouse", which I had been wondering about.
OK, what were the poll questions? I don't see any reason I'd use any of these tweaks.
-
I voted "other", because "disabled" isn't considered an option.
-
Any option without a "*" uses software-filters, no openGL involved there.
Regarding a system with openGL-accelerated hardware, it is quite easy to spot f you have incompatible hardware. The game will crawl to a bad performing slideshow when selecting a "*" filter (< 1fps) on those. This is based on my experience with a 2005 netbook ;).
I find it quite remarkable that most filters have no visible effect on your system, things like scale (and the like), HQ alike and SABR sabre alike have a tendency to smooth the edges making the interface more rounded.
I kinda suspect that you are running with a display resolution comparable to the game (640x480 if i'm correct), in that case the scalers probably don't have anything to scale. But this is bordering on my knowledge and might be wrong.
-
I think disable is vanilla.
-
it is quite easy to spot f you have incompatible hardware. The game will crawl to [...] (< 1fps) on those.
OK, so there's acceleration.
I spent a number of hours fiddling with graphics options when I first met a Xenix system in 1989, then got back to doing paid work . It's not something that I pay much attention to.
I find it quite remarkable that most filters have no visible effect on your system, things like scale (and the like), [...]
I kinda suspect that you are running with a display resolution comparable to the game (640x480 if i'm correct),
1366 x 768 according to ControlCentre/Displays. One of these days I'll write it down, because I never remember it. I'm trying to remember what the resolution is if I hook the laptop up to the telly is, but I'd need a longer lead to use that more than occasionally.
I only gave each filter a couple of seconds test. They may have had more subtle effects that I just didn't notice.
Still getting whacked by 4 cyberdiscs on mission 2, a terror attack. Much dieing of the Rookies.
-
The actual original resolution would have been 320x240 at most, possibly 320x200. It was a standard VGA game, and standard VGA can only achieve 8 bit color at up to 320x240. If it goes to 640x400 or 640x480, you can only get 4 bit color.
-
320x200
-
It was a standard VGA game, and standard VGA can only achieve 8 bit color at up to 320x240. If it goes to 640x400 or 640x480, you can only get 4 bit color.
Not quite sure on the "standard" but Mode-X went up to at least 320x400 and there was an unchained 640x400 8bpp mode. At least every VGA had the required 256 kB VRAM.
As for the topic:
An incomplete list of reasons for rejecting patches:
- cosmetic OpenGL shaders
* No.
- Scale2x, HQ3x, ...
* Nearest/linear via OpenGL should be enough.
I'd take GUS emulation over pixel fudging.
-
All of the old 16-bit VGA DOS games I remember were using 320x200 resolution. It seemed to be an industry standard at the time.
-
All of the old 16-bit VGA DOS games I remember were using 320x200 resolution. It seemed to be an industry standard at the time.
Industry standard indeed. Many 32-bit VGA DOS games used 320x200 too, for example Doom and, um, XCOM. It is much simpler for the programmer than the larger resolutions.
"Not only is there a high 256-color resolution, there are lots of higher 256-color resolutions, going all the way up to 360x480-and that’s with the vanilla IBM VGA!" -- Abrash, Michael: Graphics Programming Black Book, chapter 31, page 589. PDFs (http://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/graphics-programming-black-book/184404919)
-
Many 32-bit VGA DOS games used 320x200 too, for example Doom and, um, XCOM.
Doom had 16-bit color (I think) and X-Com had 8-bit color.
I do recall playing Tomb Raider 2 as a DOS-compatible game and it had 32-bit color but it was one of the first to have 32-bit and one of the last to be DOS-compatible.
-
Doom had 16-bit color (I think) and X-Com had 8-bit color.
All used 320x200 with 8-bit color. Doom and X-Com are 32-bit games because they run on 32-bit 386 processors using 32-bit code and 32-bit address space; that DOS4G/W thing you may have seen when starting these game is a good indicator of 32-bitness. A completely random example of a 16-bit DOS game using the same graphics mode would be Master of Orion, which ran on the 16-bit 286 processor. (Now about 16-bit games using larger-than-320x200x256 modes... maybe Pinball Fantasies?)
I do recall playing Tomb Raider 2 as a DOS-compatible game and it had 32-bit color but it was one of the first to have 32-bit and one of the last to be DOS-compatible.
I suppose this is something artists and programmers can never agree on, but this is honestly the first time I've encountered an gfx-bitdepth-is-game-bitness argument outside game console marketing material.
Somewhat on topic: while I do love the blocky pixels, linear scaling seems better than nearest for the aspect ratio correction.
-
I suppose this is something artists and programmers can never agree on, but this is honestly the first time I've encountered an gfx-bitdepth-is-game-bitness argument outside game console marketing material.
It seems a more important distinction than basing it on the addressing. Unix has been 64-bit AFAIK since the days of the greenscreens, while Microsoft kept escalating the bit number as time went by. The addressing is just a non-paramount choice, while the bit number on the colors used by the graphics system is actually visibly distinguishable and grew over the years along with the technology.
-
It seems a more important distinction than basing it on the addressing. Unix has been 64-bit AFAIK since the days of the greenscreens, while Microsoft kept escalating the bit number as time went by. The addressing is just a non-paramount choice, while the bit number on the colors used by the graphics system is actually visibly distinguishable and grew over the years along with the technology.
There big difference between 16 and 32 bit, first of all this is not address space but size of registers. Why this importation? This is because how fast processor can calculate big numbers, If we assume that we have multiple processors that have same speed but different registers then then in same time:
8bit will calculate values up to 255
16bit will calculate values up to 64Ki (64*1024^1)
32bit will calculate values up to 4Gi (4*1024^3)
64bit will calculate values up to 16Ei (16*1024^6)
And current processors aren't in reality 64bit but 256bit but because nobody use 16Ei values it calculate smaller but multiple values at once (SEE, AVX-512).
Address space grow too, but sometimes it can be bigger or smaller than processor. Some 8bit processors can have 16bit address space and today 64bit processor have only around 48bit address space (https://superuser.com/a/168121/368048)
And why its matter? It determine how big and complex game can be. Of corse in today times 90% memory is used by graphic stuff but still sometimes today games can crate things that was impossible for previous generations.
Btw UNIX on what machine? First of all Microsoft is not responsible for change of bit numbers but Intel or AMD. Second we are discussing home computers not super computers (that many times uses UNIXs).
-
It seems a more important distinction than basing it on the addressing. The addressing is just a non-paramount choice, while the bit number on the colors used by the graphics system is actually visibly distinguishable and grew over the years along with the technology.
OK, so Doom, X-Com, MOO1 and Starcraft were 8-bit games and Super Mario Land was a 2-bit game. Got it.
-
Not quite sure on the "standard" but Mode-X went up to at least 320x400 and there was an unchained 640x400 8bpp mode. At least every VGA had the required 256 kB VRAM.
That 256kB VRAM is why 8-bit color couldn't apply to higher resolutions, like 640x400/480. There actually wasn't enough RAM space available to accommodate that many pixels in 8-bit color mode, and any VGA with more VRAM addressable is considered to at least be SVGA (Super Video Graphics Adapter) as distinguished Standard VGA. Although it does seem from other are saying that 320x400x8 was also used, I don't think it was very common. And checking the math, 640x400x8 should have been possible, though there may have been a necessity to put other things in VRAM that prevented the full space from being available to handle it.
I even just checked the Wikipedia page for VGA to confirm a bit, and the common resolution/bit depth combinations show that 8-bit was not available for 640x400, and in fact it isn't even listed as a standard resolution, though 640x350 and 640x200 are, both in 16 color or monochrome.
Quick edit: Reading more, I found this a little lower down from the standard resolutions:Higher-resolution and other display modes are also achievable, even with standard cards and most standard monitors – on the whole, a typical VGA system can produce displays with any combination of:
- 512 to 800 pixels wide, in 16 colors (including 640, 704, 720, 736, 768...), or
- 256 to 400 pixels wide, in 256 colors (including 320, 360, 384...)
-
That 256kB VRAM is why 8-bit color couldn't apply to higher resolutions, like 640x400/480. There actually wasn't enough RAM space available to accommodate that many pixels in 8-bit color mode, and any VGA with more VRAM addressable is considered to at least be SVGA (Super Video Graphics Adapter) as distinguished Standard VGA.
My mistake. The unchained 640x400x8 mode requires SVGA [source] (http://qzx.com/pc-gpe/xtended.txt).