So just as a basic sanity check, I decided to run Chelnov. It's an interesting use case - namely that it runs at 256x240, which means it has non-square pixels when displayed on its 4:3 monitor. I figured I would take a screenshot to get a good baseline.
I ran MAME with -window -video gdi -r 256x240, expecting to be given a window with a 256x240 client rectangle, and exact pixels displayed in there. What I got was this:
A 272x230 window with a 256x192 client rectangle.
That makes a certain amount of sense. By default, keepaspect is turned on, so it's trying to constrain Chelnov's non-4:3 resolution to a 4:3 resolution, so it selects 256x192 instead for the client rectangle size based on my -r 256x240.
However, when I try adding -nokeepaspect into the mix, all fuck breaks loose:
The window itself is 256x240. It looks like with -nokeepaspect, suddenly the resolution specified by -r is interpreted as the window size rather than the client rectangle size! What the hell?
It's interesting to note that SDL does not have this issue with resolutions, though it does spawn windows that are offscreen, which means you can't move them. This is with -nokeepaspect, I get a 256x240 client rectangle, as expected:
And if I specify -keepaspect, I get a 256x240 client rectangle, as requested by -r 256x240, but the image is downsized to 256x192 and letterboxed, as expected:
So, this pretty much backs up what R. Belmont has been saying, which is that SDL builds of MAME already get this behavior correct, and it's D3D and BGFX that are the odd ones out.
Anyway, back to the salt mines. Hopefully I can make Windows behave the same way as SDL, minus the offscreen window border.
|
Index 
Flat 
I'm beginning to understand users' frustration with video options
Reply
Re: I'm beginning to understand users' frustration with video options
