Search Results

Search found 3661 results on 147 pages for 'overload resolution'.

Page 12/147 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Scaling background without scaling foreground in platformer?

    - by David Xu
    I'm currently developing a platform game and I've run into a problem with scaling resolutions. I want a different resolution of the game to still display the foreground unscaled (characters, tiles, etc) but I want the background to be scaled to fit into the window. To explain this better, my viewport has 4 variables: (x, y, width, height) where x and y are the top left corner and width and height are the dimensions. These can be either 800x600, 1024x768 or 1280x960. When I design my levels, I design everything for the highest resolution (1280x960) and expect the game engine to scale it down if a user is running in a lower resolution. I have tried the following to make it work but nothing I've come up with solves it so far: scale = view->width/1280; drawX = x * scale; drawY = y * scale; (this makes the translation too small for low resolution) and scale = view->width/1280; bgWidth = background->width*scale; bgHeight = background->height*scale; drawX = x + background->width/2 - bgWidth/2; drawY = y + background->height/2 - bgHeight/2; (this makes the translation completely wrong at the edges of the map) The thing is, no matter what resolution the game is run at, the map remains the same size, and the foreground is unscaled. (With a lower resolution you just see less of the foreground in the viewport) I was wondering if anyone had any idea how to solve this problem? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Pixels - A cry for some insight

    - by CarrotFile
    I'm pretty new to web developing and I'd love some clarification. Although reading more than one book on the topic, I cannot seem to wrap my head around the pixel concept. I encounter problems with this issue when trying to use CSS and pixel units for design that fits different screen sizes. To my understanding a pixel is the most basic unit used by a monitor in order to compose an image on the screen. So if me resolution is 800 by 600, everything on my screen is rendered using those 800*600 basic building blocks. If I were to enlarge my screen resolution, 3 things would accrue: A. The basic image building block(the pixel) would shrink in size B. The pixels would move close together C. Well, more pixels would now be available All these combined lead to a sharper(depending on the viewing distance) and more detail enabling image. Well so far so good. Here is were I start getting lost: To my knowledge a pixel is not a physical, real object. Monitors are not embedded with a few thousand pixels. I am drawn to this conclusion because anyone can change his screen's resolution, making a pixel on his screen bigger or smaller, and adding or subtracting the amount of total pixels on screen. Adding to that, I have herd that different monitors have different pixel densities. For example Apple's retina monitors. Taking all of the above as my knowledge base, These are my questions: If a pixel has no real world constant size, what does comparing different pixel densities matter? Each screen company can define it's own pixel concept and declare the higher density. What does a bigger pixel density mean? Say we take two screens with the same physical dimensions, but with a different pixel density, am I to assert that the main difference would be the larger density screen being able to display a higher max resolution? Or am I to assert that given the same resolution on both monitors, the higher density one would display a sharper, smaller image? If a pixel is not a fixed size within one monitor, is it a fixed size between the same resolution on two different monitors? For example, would two different monitors, set to the same resolution, be comprised of same size, same quantity pixels? I'd love some help (:

    Read the article

  • How can I take browser screenshots at a higher resolution than my browser supports?

    - by Joshua Carmody
    I need to take a screenshot of a website as it would appear on a very high resolution monitor... say 4000x3000 pixels. My laptop's screen has a native resolution of 1400x768. Basically, I need to simulate having a monitor resolution much higher than my monitor and video card actually supports. I want the screenshot of the site to look pretty much how it does when you hit CTRL MINUS (zoom out) in Firefox repeatedly, but without any loss of pixels due to scaling. How can I do this? Is there some way to use virtual machine software to simulate a super-high-res display? If not, is there some way to open a browser window bigger than the screen, and then capture its contents as a PNG somehow? Anything else that might work?

    Read the article

  • Resolution is Being Stupid. Help me?

    - by One Terrorist
    I'm having trouble with a new computer I bought a few days ago. I have come to the conclusion that the resolution of the screen is too small, at the moment it is 1024x768 and I think it should be 1280x960, due to a message given at the resolution tab of the control panel. It states: (!) If your resolution is below 1280x960, some items on the screen may not fit on the screen. The computer is an Asus A54H and runs 64-bit operating system with Windows 7 Home Premium. This link has a screenshot of the screen at the moment, the icons and font are too big and are a little stretched. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • What can I use to monitor which IP address w/name resolution is connected to each PID?

    - by supercheetah
    This would be for under Linux particularly. Is there a tool out there, or a script that I could use to monitor IP connections--with name resolution--and, see which process they're connected to? Right now I'm using this: watch -d netstat -peeW --numeric-hosts --inet But that doesn't give me host resolution. I was thinking of writing up a script with sed or something, but that seemed like more work than it needed to be.

    Read the article

  • What resolution should my Android splash screens be?

    - by Dan Fabulich
    I'm creating a splash screen that will display while my Android application loads. I'd like to create it at the correct size so Android won't auto-scale it up or down to fit the screen. But there are at least three important screen sizes I care about: 320x480, 480x854 (Droid), and 480x800 (Nexus One). I've read the documentation on supporting multiple screen sizes, but I still don't see how I'm supposed to configure different splash screens for Droid/Nexus one (they're both "hdpi" resources as far as Android is concerned), and I don't know exactly how large my splash screen should be in any case. (How tall is the OS title bar/menu in Droid? N1?) What size should I make these images, and how do I tell Android to use the correct size on a given screen?

    Read the article

  • Windows App Resolution

    - by Ricardo
    Hi, I have a windows app that runs correctly in my PC that is 96DPI but when I use it on a PC that has 120DPI the forms transform and all their components scramble. How can I fix this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why does the screen resolution of 1440x900 suddenly disappear from Intel GMA Control Panel?

    - by GeneQ
    I'm using a Vostro 1200 laptop with the Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset powering its graphics and running Vista 32-bit SP2. I've been using the Vostro with a Dell SE198WFP LCD Monitor as the external display since day one for about two years without any problems. Recently, I plugged the Vostro into a couple of other monitors. The problem is, now the native resolution for my main monitor's (the SE198WFP) resolution of 1440x900 @ 60 Hz is no longer available. (See below) I've tried everything from uninstalling and reinstalling the Intel drivers as well as the monitor drivers to no avail. I've goggled this problem and it appears that this has happened to other people but all the answers involve people giving up in frustration or reinstalling; both terrible outcomes. Has anybody ever figured why this happens and have a good solution? UPDATE: This dude has a complicated solution, which I haven't tried yet. His explanations for the problem was After an exausting search for an answer to the matter of why my brand new 19? widescreen monitor’s native resolution (1440×900) was unavailible (sic) in the display properties, I finally stumbled upon an article a person posted on Intel’s forums that basically explained what shannanigans Intel had been up to with their GMA 950 line of onboard graphic solutions. Not very comforting.

    Read the article

  • How do I improve my screen resolution in Windows Remote Desktop?

    - by Jeff
    I'm RDP'ing into a Win2K3 machine from a WinXP machine, and I cannot stand the low screen resolution I get on the Win2K3 box. Text is too large and the graphics/colors aren't very smooth. How do I improve this? If I right-click on the desktop of the remote machine and go to Properties - Settings, I see that the screen resolution is set to 1280x1024 (should be okay, I would think), and the color quality is Medium (16 bit) (not optimal) and I don't have the option to change either setting (because they're set in the .rdp file for the session, right?). If I move over to the Appearance tab, I see that font size is set to Normal, with no option to make it smaller. The thing is, these settings are close to what I have on the XP machine I'm RDP'ing in from. The only difference (in those settings) is the color quality, which is 32 bit. Any ideas on how I can improve the situation? Other tidbits: The graphics card on the Win2K3 machine is ATI ES1000. I think I have the latest drivers for it. I'm running VMware Workstation on the Win2K3 machine, and if I create a Win2K3 VM and RDP into it from the XP machine, the resolution is just fine.

    Read the article

  • 2560 x 1600 screen resolution not available when a second monitor is attached.

    - by sgmoore
    I am running Windows 7 (64-bit edition) and have a 30" Dell 3007WFP monitor which runs at a screen resolution of 2560 x 1600. This works perfectly until I try to connect a second monitor, and then the screen resolution on the main monitor immediately drops to 1280x800 and I can't change it back up to the correct resolution until I disconnect the second monitor. The graphics card is a Nvidia Quadro FX 370. This has a dual link DVI connector (to which the 30" is connected) and a single link DVI connector. The second monitor can run at 1920x1080 and is connected using a VGA to DVI connector. Note, it does not seem to matter whether the second monitor is running at 1920x1080 or even at 800x600. Windows reports Total Available Graphics Memory: 3839MB Dedicated Video Memory: 256MB System Video Memory: 0MB Shared System Memory: 3583MB Does anyone know if this a limitation with the video card, memory, drivers, connectors or something else? If this is a limitation with the video card, can anyone recommend a PCI Express 16 card that would support at least this setup, but preferably support two 30" monitors both running 2560 x 1600. (I'm not into gaming etc, so it doesn't need to be very powerful)

    Read the article

  • Why does the screen resolution of 1440x900 suddenly disappears from Intel GMA Control Panel?

    - by GeneQ
    I'm using a Vostro 1200 laptop with the Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset powering its graphics and running Vista 32-bit SP2 . I've been using the Vostro with a Dell SE198WFP LCD Monitor as the external display since day one for about two years without any problems. Recently, I plugged the Vostro into a couple of other monitors. The problem is, now the native resolution for my main monitor's (the SE198WFP) resolution of 1440x900 @ 60 Hz is no longer available. (See below) I've tried everything from uninstalling and reinstalling the Intel drivers as well as the monitor drivers to no avail. I've Goggled that this problem and it appears that this has happened to other people but all the answers involve people giving up in frustration or reinstalling; both terrible outcomes. Has anybody ever figured why this happens and have a good solution? Thanks. UPDATE: This dude has a complicated solution, which I haven't tried yet. His explanations for the problem was After an exausting search for an answer to the matter of why my brand new 19? widescreen monitor’s native resolution (1440×900) was unavailible (sic) in the display properties, I finally stumbled upon an article a person posted on Intel’s forums that basically explained what shannanigans Intel had been up to with their GMA 950 line of onboard graphic solutions. Not very comforting.

    Read the article

  • NASA Releases Highest Resolution Photo of Mars Ever Seen

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Whether you’re in the mood for a high-resolution extraterrestrial wallpaper or just want to take a very close peek at the surface of Mars, this 23096 x 7681 resolution image ought to do the trick. Courtesy of NASA and Oppurtunity–the Mars Exploration Rover seen in the photo–the panoramic image was captured during the last Martian winter, between the Earth dates of December 21, 2001 and May 8, 2012. Hit up the link below to grab a full-resolution copy as well as read more about the geologic formations seen in the picture and the activities of the rover. ‘Greeley Panorama’ from Opportunity’s Fifth Martian Winter [Nasa] How to Use an Xbox 360 Controller On Your Windows PC Download the Official How-To Geek Trivia App for Windows 8 How to Banish Duplicate Photos with VisiPic

    Read the article

  • CreateRenderTarget returns 0x80070057 in big surface resolution

    - by senggen
    I have created the SLI merged desktop of three 1920x1680 monitors, so the desktop resolution is 5760x1080. There is a 0x80070057 error, while calling CreateRenderTarget to create the RT_Surface: IDirect3DSurface9* _render_surface; HRESULT hr = _device->CreateRenderTarget( _desktop_width * 2, _desktop_height + 1, D3DFMT_A8R8G8B8, D3DMULTISAMPLE_NONE, 0, TRUE, &_render_surface, NULL); It works OK with desktop resolution 1024x768, and the total resolution is 3072x768. In http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb174361(v=vs.85).aspx, it says If the method succeeds, the return value is D3D_OK. If the method fails, the return value can be one of the following: D3DERR_NOTAVAILABLE, D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, D3DERR_OUTOFVIDEOMEMORY, E_OUTOFMEMORY. and no description about 0x80070057. HRESULT: 0x80070057 (2147942487) Name: E_INVALIDARG Description: An invalid parameter was passed to the returning function Somebody please help me.

    Read the article

  • Unable to overscan at lower resolution with AMD ATI

    - by Basavaraj
    I am running Ubuntu 12.04 with the latest ATI drivers installed. I have the catalyst option but I am unable to set overscan. My default resolution is 1920*1080 on 15inch display. I want to set it to a lower resolution. But on setting it to any lower resolution the display shrinks i.e I see black chopped off display on the left and on the right :( Really frustrating this, wasted hours on this already. I realized that this is referred to as overscan, but the ATI Catalyst Administrative just does not allow me to set the option. Can someone please through some light on this topic?

    Read the article

  • Grub-Efi wrong resolution

    - by Nikki Kononov
    My question, as it comes from the title, related to grub, but it's a different thing. I re-installed Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.10 in UEFI mode (before that I was using normal BIOS) and everything went perfectly fine. Both systems load as they should but there is one thing that keeps bothering me. The problem is before I installed both systems in UEFI I used to boot in both system using common grub (non-uefi) and resolution in this grub was correct (which is 1366x768). Right now with grub-efi I have wrong resolution (which is seems to be 640x480). So my question is can can I safely set grub-resolution using grub config files or issue is related to something else? (for instance graphics card). I am using Ubuntu 12.10 Intel HD 3000 + Nvidia GT 540M Optimus (I am using bumblebee) Kernel 3.5.0-19-generic all updates installed! I also added ubuntu x-swat ppa for drivers. Thank you for your help!

    Read the article

  • High resolution CLI?

    - by Mike Williamson
    I want the resolution of my console to match my screen resolution(1440x900). 1024x768 works fine but for some reason when I put 1440x900 when I switch to ttyX the command prompt is almost right off the bottom of the screen! The Ubuntu splash screen goes off the edge of the screen during boot as well. Here is my /etc/default/grub 4 GRUB_DEFAULT=0 5 GRUB_HIDDEN_TIMEOUT=0 6 GRUB_HIDDEN_TIMEOUT_QUIET=true 7 GRUB_TIMEOUT=10 8 GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=`lsb_release -i -s 2> /dev/null || echo Debian` 9 GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet splash" 10 GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="" 11 GRUB_GFXMODE=1440x900 12 GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=keep How do I get my CLI resolution to be 1440x900?

    Read the article

  • "input not supported" at login screen after ati driver is installed

    - by squalo78
    I'm running ubuntu 11.10 and I installed the Ati driver from the oficial page. When i reboot, the grub and the splash screen are working (at lower resolution) but instead of the login screen, it shows "input not supported" message. If I use "Ctrl+Alt+ keypad +" I can see my login screen at 640x480 resolution and login. I don't know how to make login screen displays 1440x900@60, that is the resolution set on my session. I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 with ati hd4200 video card, a monitor acer aL1916w that supports the resolution 1440x900.

    Read the article

  • 12.04 + Alienware M11x R2 + Bumblebee 3.0 = low resolution only

    - by user89171
    I had a fresh install of Ubuntu 12.04 on my Alienware M11x, and it worked with the native monitor resolution of 1366x768. In trying to get the Optimus chipset working, I installed Bumblebee 3.0. Now, I am only offered 640x480 for my monitor resolution. Graphically, Unity 3D appears to be working now, instead of the Unity 2D I had before, so something went right, but I don't know how I can get it to offer me any higher resolutions than 640x480. I've looked up many pages that address this topic, but nothing that I've seen suggested has worked. sudo add-apt-repository ppa:bumblebee/stable sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install bumblebee-nvidia was the latest thing I tried. I've tried some variants of this, I've been sure to uninstall nvidia drivers prior to reinstalling Bumblebee and various video drivers. Does anyone have any clue as to how I can get back to native resolution?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – SQL Server Misconceptions and Resolution – A Practical Perspective – TechEd 2012 India

    - by pinaldave
    TechEd India 2012 is just around the corner and I will be presenting there in two different sessions. On the very first day of this event, my presentation will be all about SQL Server Misconceptions and Resolution – A Practical Perspective. The dictionary tells us that a “misconception” means a view or opinion that is incorrect and is based on faulty thinking or understanding. In SQL Server, there are so many misconceptions. In fact, when I hear some of these misconceptions, I feel like fainting at that very moment! Seriously, at one time, I came across the scenario where instead of using INSERT INTO…SELECT, the developer used CURSOR believing that cursor is faster (duh!). Here is the link the blog post related to this. Pinal and Vinod in 2009 I have been presenting in TechEd India for last three years. This is my fourth opportunity to present a technical session on SQL Server. Just like the previous years, I decided to present something different. Here is a novelty of this year: I will be presenting this session with Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar and I have a great synergy when we work together. So far, we have written one SQL Server Interview Questions and Answers book and 2 video courses: (1) SQL Server Questions and Answers (2) SQL Server Performance: Indexing Basics. Pinal and Vinod in 2011 When we sat together and started building an outline for this course, we had many options in mind for this tango session. However, we have decided that we will make this session as lively as possible while keeping it natural at the same time. We know our flow and we know our conversation highlight, but we do not know what exactly each of us is going to present. We have decided to challenge each other on stage and push each other’s knowledge to the verge. We promise that the session will be entertaining with lots of SQL Server trivia, tips and tricks. Here are the challenges that I’ll take on: I will puzzle Vinod with my difficult questions I will present such misconception that Vinod will have no resolution for it. I need your help.  Will you help me stump Vinod? If yes, come and attend our session and join me to prove that together we are superior (a friendly brain clash, but we must win!). SQL Server enthusiasts and SQL Server fans are going to have gala time at #TechEdIn as we have a very solid lineup of the speaker and extremely interesting sessions at TechEdIn. Read the complete blog post of Vinod. Session Details Title: SQL Server Misconceptions and Resolution – A Practical Perspective (Add to Calendar) Abstract: “Earth is flat”! – An ancient common misconception, which has been proven incorrect as we progressed in modern times. In this session we will see various database misconceptions prevailing and their resolution with the aid of the demos. In this unique session audience will be part of the conversation and resolution. Date and Time: March 21, 2012, 15:15 to 16:15 Location: Hotel Lalit Ashok - Kumara Krupa High Grounds, Bengaluru – 560001, Karnataka, India. Add to Calendar Please submit your questions in the comments area and I will be for sure discussing them during my session. If I pick your question to discuss during my session, here is your gift I commit right now – SQL Server Interview Questions and Answers Book. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Interview Questions and Answers, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: TechEd, TechEdIn

    Read the article

  • Overload Avoidance

    - by mikef
    A little under a year ago, Matt Simmons wrote a rather reflective article about his terrifying brush with stress-induced ill health. SysAdmins and DBAs have always been prime victims of work-related stress, but I wonder if that predilection is perhaps getting worse, despite the best efforts of Matt and his trusty side-kick, HR. The constant pressure from share-holders and CFOs to 'streamline' the workforce is partially to blame, but the more recent culprit is technology itself. I can't deny that the rise of technologies like virtualization, PowerCLI, PowerShell, and a host of others has been a tremendous boon. As a result, individual IT professionals are now able to handle more and more tasks and manage increasingly large and complex environments. But, without a doubt, this is a two-edged sword; The reward for competence is invariably more work. Unfortunately, SysAdmins play such a pivotal role in modern business that it's easy to see how they can very quickly become swamped in conflicting demands coming from different directions. However, that doesn't justify the ridiculous hours many are asked (or volunteer) to devote to their work. Admirably though their commitment is, it isn't healthy for them, it sets a dangerous expectation, and eventually something will snap. There are times when everyone needs to step up to the plate outside of 'normal' work hours, but that time isn't all the time. Naturally, with all that lovely technology, you can automate more and more of those tricky tasks to keep on top of the workload, but you are still only human. Clever though you may be, there is a very real limit to how far technology can take you. I'm not suggesting that you avoid these technologies, or deliberately aim for mediocrity; I'm just saying that you need to be more than just technically skilled (and Wesley Nonapeptide riffs on and around this topic in his excellent 'Telepathic Robot Drones' blog post). You need to be able to manage expectations, not just Exchange. Specifically, that means your own expectations of what you are capable of, because those come before everyone else's. After all, how can you keep your work-life balance under control, if you're the one setting the bar way too high? Talking to your manager, or discussing issues with your users, is only going to be productive if you have some facts to work with. "Know Thyself" is the first law of managing work overload, and this is obviously a skill which people develop over time; the fact that veteran Sysadmins exist at all is testament to this. I'd just love to know how you get to that point. Personally, I'm using RescueTime to keep myself honest, but I'm open to recommendations for better methods. Do you track your own time, do you have an intuitive sense of what is possible, or do you just rely on someone else to handle that all for you? Cheers, Michael

    Read the article

  • Remote connect into macbook pro at a different resolution

    - by user60277
    Hello, I have a Dell laptop with Windows 7 on it. Its resolution is 1920x1080. I want to connect to a macbook pro at that resolution. The macbook pro has a resolution of 1440x900 so when I VNC into it, I can only see 1440x900 box with black borders on full resolution. The macbook pro can drive resolutions of 2560x1440. What program do I use to connect to the macbook at full (1920x1080) resolution. I can use remote desktop and connect from the dell laptop to another dell laptop that has a 1440x900 max. resolution. However in case of Remote desktop connection I can expand the window to be 1920x1080. I'm using TightVNC viewer on Windows. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Remote connect into macbook pro at a different resolution

    - by user60277
    Hello, I have a Dell laptop with Windows 7 on it. Its resolution is 1920x1080. I want to connect to a macbook pro at that resolution. The macbook pro has a resolution of 1440x900 so when I VNC into it, I can only see 1440x900 box with black borders on full resolution. The macbook pro can drive resolutions of 2560x1440. What program do I use to connect to the macbook at full (1920x1080) resolution. I can use remote desktop and connect from the dell laptop to another dell laptop that has a 1440x900 max. resolution. However in case of Remote desktop connection I can expand the window to be 1920x1080. I'm using TightVNC viewer on Windows. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >