WinUAE 1.6.0 beta series (was 1.5.4)

[Toni Wilen]

I guess aspect ratio stuff is acceptable now? (you have few hours!)

It is not meant to be perfect yet (because it even wasn't supposed to be in 1.6..), just good enough.

[aidenn]

It's fine for me. At least with PAL. I won't cry if perfect NTSC won't make it. This is the greatest WinUAE release ever anyway.

[Ed Cruse]

Latest update. It works! With NTSC or PAL machine, NTSC circles on NTSC dipslay modes and PAL circles on PAL modes are all round, FS and Auto-Scale. I don't really understand but to do this KAR has to be enabled and set to TV, but I can live with that. Also to do this the Aspect-Ratio setting must be set to your actual monitor's aspect ratio. It you have 5:4 monitor you must select 5:4.

By the way, I also confirmed all the aspect-ratio settings do exactly what they are supposed to do, compensate for your monitor, they are very accurate.

[hexaae]

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

I guess aspect ratio stuff is acceptable now? (you have few hours!)

It is not meant to be perfect yet (because it even wasn't supposed to be in 1.6..), just good enough.

NTSC in FS + KAR:VGA now looks exactly as it was previous beta in KAR:TV (a bit squashed) and vice-versa now KAR:TV looks like previous KAR:VGA.
They seem inverted only in NTSC. Is this "as expected"?

[Ed Cruse]

Originally Posted by aidenn

I don't get it. When you use a 5:4 monitor you should select a 5:4 resolution like 1280x1024, then nothing gets stretched and everything is exactly the way it is on 4:3 monitors (with a little more vertical space). And in WinUAE you compensate by selecting 5:4 AS WELL as a 5:4 resolution, then you also get the same thing as 4:3 owners.

I have a 5:4 monitor, I'm using a 5:4 resolution and his screenshots look as they should (first three round, fourth squashed). There's nothing like "as accurately as I could", it's exactly the same when viewing screenshots. WinUAE is a different tale, but since 1280x1024 is much bigger than Amiga's native display, the difference after scaling is almost exactly close to zero.

Of course, you can also select 4:3 resolutions on a 5:4 monitor, but you have to disable hardware and driver stretching, so that you'll get black borders on top and bottom. Then it's no difference with 4:3 monitors.

The reason is you want the aspect ratio of the Amiga display to measure with a tape measaure 4:3. With full screen, filters on and setting themselves automatically, WinUAE always stretches Amiga display to full size of what ever the windows resolution mode is. Then the monitor will stretch what ever windows display mode to full monitor size. If you disable Aspect-Ratio then the Amiga display will fill the entire monitor screen. If you have a 5:4 monitor and measure the Amiga display with a tape measure it will have an aspect ratio 5:4, everything will be stretched. If you selct 5:4 Aspect-Ratio then the display will be squished down vertically and the measured aspect ratio will be 4:3.

You have to make the distinction between pixel aspect ratio and physical aspect ratio, the physcial aspect ratio of the Amiga display is what really counts.

[hrmes]

Everything looks fine here too.

Originally Posted by Ed Cruse

I don't really understand but to do this KAR has to be enabled and set to TV, but I can live with that. Also to do this the Aspect-Ratio setting must be set to your actual monitor's aspect ratio. It you have 5:4 monitor you must select 5:4.

It's simple really. The monitor aspect ratio setting enforces the 4/3 aspect ratio on your particular monitor, and the KAR setting if set to "TV" enforces the PAL/NTSC pixel ratio.

[aidenn]

Originally Posted by Ed Cruse

The reason is you want the aspect ratio of the Amiga display to measure with a tape measaure 4:3. With full screen, filters on and setting themselves automatically, WinUAE always stretches Amiga display to full size of what ever the windows resolution mode is. Then the monitor will stretch what ever windows display mode to full monitor size. If you disable Aspect-Ratio then the Amiga display will fill the entire monitor screen. If you have a 5:4 monitor and measure the Amiga display with a tape measure it will have an aspect ratio 5:4, everything will be stretched. If you selct 5:4 Aspect-Ratio then the display will be squished down vertically and the measured aspect ratio will be 4:3.

You have to make the distinction between pixel aspect ratio and physical aspect ratio, the physcial aspect ratio of the Amiga display is what really counts.

I was talking mainly about Windows, not Amiga. You say the screenshots were stretched on your display (that is, first three stretched, fourth kinda-round), that should not happen, 5:4 or no 5:4.

And I'm well aware of the pixel aspect ratio, actually, that's what I wrote in my post too, only in different words. 5:4 and 4:3 will display the screenshots under Windows exacly the same because their pixel ratio is the same. For WinUAE and Amiga display, the physical ratio is different and that's why we have to compensate with KAR 5:4. I stated it all. But mostly I was talking about the screenshots and your talking about them being not the same on a 5:4 monitor under Windows, which is not true.

By the way, Toni, what about the black borders?

[Toni Wilen]

NTSC in FS + KAR:VGA now looks exactly as it was previous beta in KAR:TV (a bit squashed) and vice-versa now KAR:TV looks like previous KAR:VGA.
They seem inverted only in NTSC. Is this "as expected"?

It is expected. Now both works identically. (was inverted previously. of course there is no guarantee it is correct..)

By the way, Toni, what about the black borders?

Later.

[Ed Cruse]

Originally Posted by aidenn

I was talking mainly about Windows, not Amiga. You say the screenshots were stretched on your display (that is, first three stretched, fourth kinda-round), that should not happen, 5:4 or no 5:4.

And I'm well aware of the pixel aspect ratio, actually, that's what I wrote in my post too, only in different words. 5:4 and 4:3 will display the screenshots under Windows exacly the same because their pixel ratio is the same. For WinUAE and Amiga display, the physical ratio is different and that's why we have to compensate with KAR 5:4. I stated it all. But mostly I was talking about the screenshots and your talking about them being not the same on a 5:4 monitor under Windows, which is not true.

By the way, Toni, what about the black borders?

My monitor displays all Windows display modes frame to frame, in other words full size. It doesn't matter whether it's 1280x1024 or 1024x768 or even 640x480. Therefore everything on my 1280x1024 5:4 lcd monitor is always stretched compared to my CRT 4:3 monitor. It would be like taking a 4:3 crt monitor and magicaly stretching vertically the crt until it was 5:4. Everything displayed on that monitor would be stretched.

[Ed Cruse]

Originally Posted by Ed Cruse

My monitor displays all Windows display modes frame to frame, in other words full size. It doesn't matter whether it's 1280x1024 or 1024x768 or even 640x480. Therefore everything on my 1280x1024 5:4 lcd monitor is always stretched compared to my CRT 4:3 monitor. It would be like taking a 4:3 crt monitor and magicaly stretching vertically the crt until it was 5:4. Everything displayed on that monitor would be stretched.

I thought about it some more and you are correct. LCD monitors have square pixel so if you use a LCD monitor at it's native resolution a circle with an aspect ratio of one should always look round. I believe that's what you where trying to say.

I run windows at 1024x768 on my 1280x1024 monitor, 1024x768 has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio and when displayed on a 4:3 monitor has square pixels, on a 5:4 monitor has stretched pixels. To view the screenshots all I had to do was change to 1280x1024 but it never occured to me. I run at 1024x768 because 1280x1024 is like reading a book at arms length, difficult.

[aidenn]

Originally Posted by Ed Cruse

I thought about it some more and you are correct. LCD monitors have square pixel so if you use a LCD monitor at it's native resolution a circle with an aspect ratio of one should always look round. I believe that's what you where trying to say.

I run windows at 1024x768 on my 1280x1024 monitor, 1024x768 has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio and when displayed on a 4:3 monitor has square pixels, on a 5:4 monitor has stretched pixels. To view the screenshots all I had to do was change to 1280x1024 but it never occured to me. I run at 1024x768 because 1280x1024 is like reading a book at arms length, difficult.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant all along.

Also, you can disable stretching. Some monitors can do aspect-correct scaling (with black borders on top and bottom), but even if they don't - your gfx card should be able to (at least nvidias can). Then you'll get 1024x768 scaled properly without stretching. If you want pixel-perfect (native) 4:3, use 1280x960 with that option. Using non-native resolutions on LCD is kind of pointless. If everything is too small - change the DPI (it will make everything bigger) and not the resolution.

[Xorlac]

Tony:

I'm not sure if this is the black border bug people are talking about, but if you load up workbench 1.2/1.3, etc and drag the menu bar down there's some serious flickering on redraw and the visible real estate of the screen shrinks and centers toward the top of the screen.

Tested with null/direct3d filters in fullscreen+VS, but may be there on other ones too.