9 replies to this topic

[Centaur Machine]

So I have an issue where all the fonts are too big.



I have to use medium font size for my OS because my monitor is high resolution; I can't read the standard-sized fonts well. Figuring this was the problem (after redownloading and reinstalling all the fonts and having no change), I put the font size back to normal in my OS settings and restarted. This fixed the font size for some things (for example, 'Script by Germax') But 'Game Over' and scores and things like that are always too big, a little too low, and clipped off at the bottom, as you can see from the screenshot. This pertains to all tables that use fonts as opposed to a DMD or artwork.

Any advice? I'm running VP 9.07 at 1920 x 1080.

Testing ...

Yes, running at 800x600 fixed the issue and the fonts display correctly.

I hope that this could this be fixed in future versions of Visual Pinball. I plan to stick with 1920x1080 (1080p), my new monitor's native resolution.

[StevOz]

You are running tables designed for a 4:3 display at a 16:9 resolution so those font display errors will always be present with tables that use textbox(s) on the backdrop. Also the whole table will be distorted/stretched sidewise and the ball will be oval shaped as well.

Although if you can live with playing tables distorted like that then you can adjust those textboxes to fit. In the editor select the Backdrop view (the Back... icon on the left), also click the Options icon, then click on the textbox, adjust the settings on the right side, firstly click the Font and try a smaller font size and then try the table. If this works then you good to go, just save the table with the new adjustment, otherwise, you may need to try a smaller fontsize and/or adjust the Position settings.

See screenshot attached..

Attached Files

•  fontsize.jpg   126.77KB   23 downloads

[jpsalas]

This is a bug that has been in VP for ages. You will also see that the position is not the same in different resolutions. The only solution is to adjust the text boxes

[GSGregg]

Hello, Centaur Machine (good choice for your favorite!):

If playing in the intended 4:3 ratio would help, go to your graphics card's Control Panel and create a Custom Resolution; in your case, it would be 1440x1080. I'm not the expert, though; rob046 described the procedure and the reasons for it in the thread, 'Are unclewilly's tables playable for you', post #120 on page #6. Maybe it'll straighten out your Font prob.

BEGIN ORBIAN ATTACK!

GSG

Edited by GSGregg, 11 July 2010 - 12:01 PM.

[rob046]

Yeah, don't run at 1920x1080!

You are stretching the table super wide. I have a 1920x1200 LCD & running at that looks way to wide, 1920x1080 is even wider than that.

Yeah I've gone on about all this before. There are several reasons why its best to run at a true 4:3 resolution. I think the biggest misconception is that you running at 1440x1080 will be lower quality because its not your native resolution or that its technically a lower rez.
However, it is your native resolution though because as shown above, that pixel height number matches (1440x1080) your native rez (1920x1080). Thus, you will see no quality loss, in fact tables will look better, perform better, & you'll avoid glitches like this. For example, my monitor is 1920x1200, so I run VP at 1600x1200.

If this resolution isn't available to you (1440x1080), you can create it. I do go into all this more in the thread GSGregg mentioned.

Edited by rob046, 11 July 2010 - 05:08 PM.

[Bob5453]

When we all had 4x3 monitors, some authors would try to make the table as wide as possible to use as much of the monitor as possible. This was fantastic, but now if you play one of those tables on a widescreen, with the widescreen resolutions, they look horrible in my opinion. There is an upside, the authors that made those skinny tables, their tables now look pretty good stretched into the wrong resolution.

Turn your widescreen monitor and try the FS tables. Awesome.

[Centaur Machine]

Yeah, don't run at 1920x1080!

You are stretching the table super wide. I have a 1920x1200 LCD & running at that looks way to wide, 1920x1080 is even wider than that.

Yeah I've gone on about all this before. There are several reasons why its best to run at a true 4:3 resolution. I think the biggest misconception is that you running at 1440x1080 will be lower quality because its not your native resolution or that its technically a lower rez.
However, it is your native resolution though because as shown above, that pixel height number matches (1440x1080) your native rez (1920x1080). Thus, you will see no quality loss, in fact tables will look better, perform better, & you'll avoid glitches like this. For example, my monitor is 1920x1200, so I run VP at 1600x1200.

If this resolution isn't available to you (1440x1080), you can create it. I do go into all this more in the thread GSGregg mentioned.

Thank you for the help everyone. I'm using Windows 7 (64-bit) as well, and have not had much luck getting ATi Tray Tools to work (since it is unsigned). So I'm using Catalyst CC, and looking at my video options, I don't have 1440x1080 or anything at 1080, and I don't see a way to create the resolution.

So do you know of a way for me to lower my graphics cards resolution? How did you do it?

EDIT:

I found Powerstrip and installed that and figured out how to create a custom resolution of 1440x1080. Then I set VP to that resolution and the aspect looked much better; correct. But then it did something weird so I closed it. That program scares me with its custom settings. But I still have the custom resolution available in Catalyst CC, so all's good, I guess.

It didn't seem to help framerates much, but it did fix the aspect.

But if the height is unchanged (1440x1080), then I shouldn't have any black borders at the top and bottom right? So that's an overscan problem, I think. If I change overscan in CCC, it will be a global change at all resolutions, I believe. I really need a better tool.

But aspect fixed; I'll probably be getting a new video card in a month or two and every thing will be golden.

Edited by Centaur Machine, 12 July 2010 - 08:18 AM.

[rob046]

Yeah, don't run at 1920x1080!

You are stretching the table super wide. I have a 1920x1200 LCD & running at that looks way to wide, 1920x1080 is even wider than that.

Yeah I've gone on about all this before. There are several reasons why its best to run at a true 4:3 resolution. I think the biggest misconception is that you running at 1440x1080 will be lower quality because its not your native resolution or that its technically a lower rez.
However, it is your native resolution though because as shown above, that pixel height number matches (1440x1080) your native rez (1920x1080). Thus, you will see no quality loss, in fact tables will look better, perform better, & you'll avoid glitches like this. For example, my monitor is 1920x1200, so I run VP at 1600x1200.

If this resolution isn't available to you (1440x1080), you can create it. I do go into all this more in the thread GSGregg mentioned.

Thank you for the help everyone. I'm using Windows 7 (64-bit) as well, and have not had much luck getting ATi Tray Tools to work (since it is unsigned). So I'm using Catalyst CC, and looking at my video options, I don't have 1440x1080 or anything at 1080, and I don't see a way to create the resolution.

So do you know of a way for me to lower my graphics cards resolution? How did you do it?

EDIT:

I found Powerstrip and installed that and figured out how to create a custom resolution of 1440x1080. Then I set VP to that resolution and the aspect looked much better; correct. But then it did something weird so I closed it. That program scares me with its custom settings. But I still have the custom resolution available in Catalyst CC, so all's good, I guess.

It didn't seem to help framerates much, but it did fix the aspect.

But if the height is unchanged (1440x1080), then I shouldn't have any black borders at the top and bottom right? So that's an overscan problem, I think. If I change overscan in CCC, it will be a global change at all resolutions, I believe. I really need a better tool.

But aspect fixed; I'll probably be getting a new video card in a month or two and every thing will be golden.

I have win7 64bit as well, & I'm not familiar with any of the issues you are having.
Not sure about how you set a custom resolution within the ATI driver since I've only ever had to do it on my laptop that has nvidia. Yeah the 1600x1200 that I run VP at is a common rez, so its already a default option as a resolution. 1440x1080 likely needs custom made if you don't see it as an option in the CCC. I know its super easy to do in the nvidia control panel, I'm sure if you google you can find an easy way to do it through CCC, you just need to find it. I noticed that CCC can be a little trickier to find stuff on than nvidia's control panel.

I can't stand these 1080x displays. PC monitors aren't HDTV's, so they shouldn't have the same ratio. Then consider all the old apps made for 4:3, then 1920x1080 kinda sucks for monitors. Too wide for my taste anyhow, a 16:10 widescreen ratio is perfect, IMO.

To answer your question about the bars. You should definitely not be seeing black bars on the top & bottom. If VP is running at 1440x1080, then it should perfectly fit your screen top to bottom. You will of course have black bars on the sides.
Hey, I bet this is a simple scaling setting thing.
Go into the CCC, enable gpu scaling, set it to maintain aspect ratio. That should fix it. Your monitor might have built in scaling options as well, I do all my scaling through the monitor, set it to 1:1 or "maintain aspect ratio".
You'll get it to look right, its not a problem with your card, I'm sure.
I don't even mess with "overscan", I have that disabled, so I cant really comment on what that does or doesn't do. but if its enabled & you think its causing problems, disable it.
Everything you want to do should be fixable pretty easily within CCC, you shouldn't need any 3rd party apps. Unless CCC really doesn't have a place where you can choose or create 1440x1080, but I have a feeling it does somewhere.

Edited by rob046, 12 July 2010 - 05:58 PM.

[destruk]

Well, you have to be able to play BluRay on your pc without downsampling the source video. That's as good a reason as any for having 1920x1080 resolution on a pc.
Of course I would settle for an affordable video card and display to match 4096x4096 myself.

Edited by destruk, 12 July 2010 - 06:27 PM.

[Centaur Machine]

Yeah, I wanted a 1920x1200 monitor but they hardly make them anymore, at least in a gaming configuration. And otherwise they are mad expensive.

16:9 is pretty sweet, but it's weird for a week or two. But this monitor is twice the size than my old FS, and leagues better.


I've been looking for software to adjust my ATi card in Windows 7 since 7 came out. I don't think there is one compatible with Windows 7. Well, the only one I knew of in XP was ATi Tray Tools despite asking around and searching.

I don't have an option for GPU scaling. I've got an old video card so I have to use a legacy version of CCC; I guess that's the reason. Did some searching. Yeah, I don't have this image scaling part on mine, just the other stuff: http://img24.imagesh...s/i/vistaq.jpg/


I'm pretty sure overscan allows you to scale the screen. + or -. I don't think that's really used for DVI, so maybe that's why I don't have the overscan option either. Maybe my monitor is at fault for windowboxing (letterboxed vertically and horizontally). I don't think this monitor has 1:1, it just stretches to fit and letterboxes. But it's weird that it would squish the screen because it was 1080.

Bad monitor for VP, bad video card for VP. I guess I'll just have to try a 2nd monitor. Fairly soon I'll be getting a new nVidia video card.

Edited by Centaur Machine, 13 July 2010 - 05:49 AM.