Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I support that, but it goes the other way. While I would > have done the direction you chose, our opinions are not > terribly important. We know about software development. > > My wife, mostly a non-programmer, would use 2.5 for that. > (the reciprocal -- she views the problem as her having > made a stamp that is 2.5 times too large) Well, it doesn't matter much. Both options are OK by me. >> (In higher resolutions we may want to change the scaling so >> the image stays physically the same size. E.g. for 1280×960 >> resolution a stamp with width 250 would by default get >> rendered with width 250*.4*1280/640 = 200 instead of 100.) > > I did this, but as a function of the square root. > > As the screen gets larger, you want two conflicting > things to happen: > > 1. you can put more objects on the screen > 2. you get more-detailed objects Yes, the square root sounds like a good compromise. > I split the difference. So if the object is 100x100 on a > 500x300 canvas, it'll ideally be 141x141 on a 1000x600 > canvas. The code will find the nearest integer ratio to > this, currently 3/2, resulting in a 150x150 stamp size. I'm not sure I like this. If we have several stamps (e.g. the fruit stamps) they should scale by the *same* amount, not by an integer ratio. If I have understood things correctly, your code means that an apple may look larger than a banana when scaled. -- Karl Ove Hufthammer _______________________________________________ Tuxpaint-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tux4kids.net/mailman/listinfo/tuxpaint-dev
