4K & UI Scaling

[Zargarx]

I've had to deal with stuff like that in lots of older code.
The monitor resolution was relatively stagnant for most people for a long time from mid 90s up until 2010 or so. Smaller monitors normally had lower resolution.
So with resolutions of 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1368x768, 1440x900, 1920x1080, etc. so the size of an icon was relatively similar for the large majority.
It would be crazy to develop commercial software with that thinking currently or in the last 10 years. But for DDO (and so much more), that code was already done, and most likely in an old (depreciated) framework that almost nobody uses to develop new projects. For some projects, the better approach might be dumping the UI and creating a new one but it is a lot of work and often has lots of hidden gotchas that need to removed. Without examining the DDO source code, it is hard to estimate the pain level. And I suspect this is not high on their priority list unlike lag issues.

[ahpook]

That’s the problem though, literally everything in the UI is 32x32 bitmaps. I mean it is totally possible to do but the hours it’s going to take is very tremendous. There is literally no shortcut for this issue. They just need to hunker down and hire some temps for the art dept and get it done.

Well, no, there literally is a shortcut for this (within the limited parameters of a doubling of size).

The code to scale an bitmap image from 32x32 to 64x64 exists and is probably already in the game in some library they are already using. People do not need to do it by hand if they are comfortable with automated scaling. Scaling up images like this does not produce great results and would not be recommended to get to full screen size (let alone a billboard) but a doubling would not be that bad. In fact, it should look identical to double the image to 64x64 on a 4k as it would to drop the resolution of the 4K in half to run at 1920x1080 and show the 32x32.

[yfernbottom]

Well, no, there literally is a shortcut for this (within the limited parameters of a doubling of size).

The code to scale an bitmap image from 32x32 to 64x64 exists and is probably already in the game in some library they are already using. People do not need to do it by hand if they are comfortable with automated scaling. Scaling up images like this does not produce great results and would not be recommended to get to full screen size (let alone a billboard) but a doubling would not be that bad. In fact, it should look identical to double the image to 64x64 on a 4k as it would to drop the resolution of the 4K in half to run at 1920x1080 and show the 32x32.

Even if they don't have the code in one of their existing libraries, if you have all the image files in a folder, it would be pretty **** easy to write a small script to rescale them in integer multiples of the original resolution in the language of their choice.

And yes, though they would look absolutely atrocious if you blew them up too much, by the time they get scaled back down to the size of a 1c postage stamp on a huge 4k monitor you probably wouldn't even be able to tell that you were looking at blocks of four cells with identical values mimicking giant pixels.

Regardless, since most gamers have 4k monitors, this isn't something they can ignore for much longer if they want new players. I can count the games I have to turn my monitor resolution down for on two fingers, and I find it deeply annoying to have to do.

[koriolis]

And maybe the new Icons should be also sufficient to use with 8k or 16k screens or whatever or for use with DDO with another/new game engine so you don't have to do that work again in 10 or 20 years (yes I'm optimistic for DDO).
So the 10k+ icons are not really a sufficient "excuse" if you ask me

It's only an acceptable excuse if the original artwork files were lost or the actual icons were created in 32x32 pixel format to begin with. If you have the original artwork and it's on a suitable resolution, then in theory the exporting can be automated
But if you need to upscale 10k icons manually by hand, then you might as well rasterize them - redo them literally - to vector format so it's resolution independent (and be prepared for it to take months).
If the graphic engine requires bitmap - which it probably does - it's then trivial to batch export them to any resolution required.

[dredre9987]

Even if they don't have the code in one of their existing libraries, if you have all the image files in a folder, it would be pretty **** easy to write a small script to rescale them in integer multiples of the original resolution in the language of their choice.

And yes, though they would look absolutely atrocious if you blew them up too much, by the time they get scaled back down to the size of a 1c postage stamp on a huge 4k monitor you probably wouldn't even be able to tell that you were looking at blocks of four cells with identical values mimicking giant pixels.

Regardless, since most gamers have 4k monitors, this isn't something they can ignore for much longer if they want new players. I can count the games I have to turn my monitor resolution down for on two fingers, and I find it deeply annoying to have to do.

They aren't all in one folder either LOL. Again not saying this can't be done but it is a very time consuming process on their end. It is literally every single icon in the game. It DOES need to get done though at some point.

[dredre9987]

It's only an acceptable excuse if the original artwork files were lost or the actual icons were created in 32x32 pixel format to begin with. If you have the original artwork and it's on a suitable resolution, then in theory the exporting can be automated
But if you need to upscale 10k icons manually by hand, then you might as well rasterize them - redo them literally - to vector format so it's resolution independent (and be prepared for it to take months).
If the graphic engine requires bitmap - which it probably does - it's then trivial to batch export them to any resolution required.

Original creations are in 32x32 pixel. Not sure if all original files are there but I sure hope they are. It is something they have to do by hand, so yes they should be recreated to vector. Not sure if it requires bitmap or not.

[scut207]

It's been many years since I worked in it, but this used to be a very common issue in the printing industry, and I'm willing to bet that it still is. Clients would send in a miniscule, heavily compressed JPEG of a logo, for example, and say something along the lines of 'we want this printing on a billboard or sign at a size that's over a 100 times larger.'

They just didn't understand at all when it was explained to them that the printing could be done, but the result would look absolutely hideous, and asking for a version in a scalable image format would be met with blank looks every time.

But as I indicated above, I'd just be bowled over if the source images of game icons were restricted to such a small size. You start large and scale down as necessary. Solves so many issues later on. It's been my mantra for years.

I work in industrial print, specifically image quality and embedded vision. You're 100% correct as to why it looks like **** scaling up small pixelated images.


BUT


Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

this took all of 2 methods in gimp: a cubic resize and sharpness algorithm. both easily done in C or C++ or whatever.

The problem more than likely is making the mouse click detection work in the archaic interface.

[J1NG]

Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

Well, I think you'll be surprised.

Whilst it is easy enough for players to know and muscle memory where they placed their favourite spells and effects or items on their own hotbars that they set up and then key specific keypress combinations, specific gestures, or mouse buttons.

The same can't be said of the Buff/Debuff bar at the top of the screen.

Right now, it is still possible to quickly glance at the top of the screen to look at what Buff/Debuffs you have going on and recognise from Icons that are clearer. What happens when the icons are fuzzy/blurry and you now have identical ones visually that you need to mouse over the Buff/Debuff to find out which is which? Because, the Buff/Debuffs don't stay in the same position as they are refreshed or renewed as well. This adds an unnecessary complexity where (like the UI issue itself) there shouldn't be.

So I personally feel that if left for a full rework would be the best idea rather than just let an automatic scale up of the images do the job. If we say lets just identify the ones that are troublesome and fix just those, we might as well go the full hog and do them all. Since they will need to inspect which ones (from ALL the icons) to see if they need to rework those specific pairings. Not only that, but to also do minor checks for Colour Blindess issues as well. Which again, means we may as well get the Devs to do it all again from the ground up instead.

J1NG

[LurkingVeteran]

Having the UI not default to unreadable dimensions on 4k screens should be #1 priority. Rly bad first impressions for any new or returning players.

[dredre9987]

I work in industrial print, specifically image quality and embedded vision. You're 100% correct as to why it looks like **** scaling up small pixelated images.


BUT


Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

this took all of 2 methods in gimp: a cubic resize and sharpness algorithm. both easily done in C or C++ or whatever.

The problem more than likely is making the mouse click detection work in the archaic interface.

Hotbars and such are not scalable either so work to be done there as well. I think the only thing actually scalable is the chat font LOL. mouse click detection is probably also an issue as you suggest

[PaddyMaxson]

This and so much this. I have been trying to tell people for years why they haven’t done it yet…

On the last yes the icons were all made at 32x32. Poor foresight but that’s what they did.

It's a reasonable explanation of why it'll look like **** to just shoot them all through a macro that creates a copy where each pixel is a block of 4 (64x64px) then just had a 1x or 2x UI scaling option but I think maybe looking like **** might be better than looking like a UI for ants.

Appreciate it's not quite as easy as that, but if doing the icons is the major drawback, I suspect "The double size UI is in beta and icons might look terrible" isn't that big a sticking point for people who are willing to live with DDO's larger technical issues.

[yfernbottom]

They aren't all in one folder either LOL. Again not saying this can't be done but it is a very time consuming process on their end. It is literally every single icon in the game. It DOES need to get done though at some point.

Derp....

Yes, I know that. What I am saying is that if you put all the images in the same place, it's literally only a few lines of code to import the files into any programming environment, rescale them and spit them out at a higher resolution with slightly modified names. If you have a database (a flat csv file would be fine) that includes the paths to the correct directories/ folders, they can be anywhere at all and you can just have your script crawl through the list.

[yfernbottom]

I work in industrial print, specifically image quality and embedded vision. You're 100% correct as to why it looks like **** scaling up small pixelated images.


BUT


Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

this took all of 2 methods in gimp: a cubic resize and sharpness algorithm. both easily done in C or C++ or whatever.

The problem more than likely is making the mouse click detection work in the archaic interface.

I would take icons that looked like that all day every day instead of having to turn my monitor resolution down to 2005 to be able to play the game. If you load up the game at 4k it actually looks really good, except for the tiny UI icons you can barely see.

However, I can also see where mouse click detection would probably be bear to figure out. That's a good point, it had not occurred to me.

[Oxarhamar]

Derp....

Yes, I know that. What I am saying is that if you put all the images in the same place, it's literally only a few lines of code to import the files into any programming environment, rescale them and spit them out at a higher resolution with slightly modified names. If you have a database (a flat csv file would be fine) that includes the paths to the correct directories/ folders, they can be anywhere at all and you can just have your script crawl through the list.

Indeed it's not asmuch work as it's being made out to be

&

it's worth it it's long past time for the scalable update



looking for problems instead of looking for solutions

[Oxarhamar]

I work in industrial print, specifically image quality and embedded vision. You're 100% correct as to why it looks like **** scaling up small pixelated images.


BUT


Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

this took all of 2 methods in gimp: a cubic resize and sharpness algorithm. both easily done in C or C++ or whatever.

The problem more than likely is making the mouse click detection work in the archaic interface.

Beautiful

Well done +1

[Loriega]

"Blurry icons" is non-issue that certainly is a poor excuse for not having a scalable UI.

I switched back to 3840x2160 and while I can't read the small fonts anymore while being laid back in my chair, at least my eyes don't bleed anymore and the colors are more vibrant and almost everything looks sharp.

Lag has improved but is still present.
Inventory space is still too small.
The mouse still defaults to hover over the reroll loot button for accidental shard wasting (I doubt this is even legal in the EU).

[dredre9987]

"Blurry icons" is non-issue that certainly is a poor excuse for not having a scalable UI.

I switched back to 3840x2160 and while I can't read the small fonts anymore while being laid back in my chair, at least my eyes don't bleed anymore and the colors are more vibrant and almost everything looks sharp.

Lag has improved but is still present.
Inventory space is still too small.
The mouse still defaults to hover over the reroll loot button for accidental shard wasting (I doubt this is even legal in the EU).

It isn't just blurry issues...The complete UI would need to be recoded....I don't understand how people don't get this...

[dredre9987]

I work in industrial print, specifically image quality and embedded vision. You're 100% correct as to why it looks like **** scaling up small pixelated images.


BUT


Realistically, how many people would really complain if their icons were blurry if they got to scale their interface? I certainly would live with it just fine.

this took all of 2 methods in gimp: a cubic resize and sharpness algorithm. both easily done in C or C++ or whatever.

The problem more than likely is making the mouse click detection work in the archaic interface.

Yes but nothing in the UI is scalable. The whole thing would need to be recoded.. I don't get why people don't understand this/ The UI isn't just icons...it's click detection, borders, hell it is the whole overlay. That also means every single window you open in game.

You have Non-diegetic, Diegetic, Meta, and Spatial. They literally have to recode everything


https://www.toptal.com/designers/gui/game-ui

Maybe that will give some scope



Then on top o that think of everything in DDO that uses something like that.

[dredre9987]

Again I am not saying this shouldn't be done, but you have to see why they are hesitant to do so.

[Oxarhamar]

It isn't just blurry issues...The complete UI would need to be recoded....I don't understand how people don't get this...

Even if that were true it’s long past due