Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#Actualrpiller

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:30 AM

No letterboxing. I think that looks bad.

 

From using %'s what I see is that the position (x,y) of the controls can always use straight up % and look the way I want. ie. x,y at 50% will always be the same position on any resolution because it's using 50% of it's parent and if no parent then that's calculating based on the screen width/height.

 

However using % for size (width, height) doesn't work correctly when done on a base resolution. ie. 50% width is not the same on a 4:3 vs 16:9. It'll appear much wider. However I don't want it to appear that much wider. I want it to look proportionate just like it does on my base resolution that I developed on. It will be wider than the 4:3 base resolution but not what 50% width would give you. Somehow it needs to know that 50% at 4:3 would = some other % at 16:9 to look basically the same on screen when I scale the control images.


#1rpiller

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:26 AM

No letterboxing. I think that looks bad.

 

From using %'s what I see is that the position (x,y) of the controls can always use straight up % and look the way I want. ie. x,y at 50% will always be the same position on any resolution because it's using 50% of it's parent and if no parent then that's calculating based on the screen width/height.

 

However using % for size (width, height) doesn't work correctly when done on a base resolution. ie. 50% width is not the same on a 4:3 vs 16:9. It'll appear much wider. However I don't want it to appear that much wider. I want it to look proportionate just like it does on my base resolution that I developed on. It will be wider than the 4:3 base resolution but not what 50% width would give you. Somehow it needs to know that 50% at 4:3 would = some other % at 16:9 to look basically the same on screen.


PARTNERS