Planning posts are all well and good, but what happens when you end up going in an entirely different direction?
I ended up creating a new class, MN::Window, that inherits from sf::RenderWindow but adds some useful members to determine resolution and pixel scale ratio.
Now, when I’m constructing the pathing graph, each cell is WindowWidth/20 by WindowHeight/15. I still have a 20×15 grid and an array of Vector2fs, but they’re static to save on memory. I can also access grid locations from anywhere in the program, so all objects in the world will use graph indices for positional values from now on.
Previously I had been developing Meander to run in a window at 800×600. Besides the issue with hard-coded window dimensions, it also created the problem that resizing it larger (to, say, 1920×1080) stretched the images out from a 4:3 ratio to 16:9. And no, they’re not the same. To fix this, I started targeting a 16:9 resolution by default. But what happens when I want the display to be smaller? I added a few members to MN::Window that help me solve this problem.
To display correctly on a lower resolution, all the sprites on the screen need to be scaled by a factor of WindowDimensions/OriginalDimensions. For example, a transition from 1920×1080 to 1366×768 works out to this:
1366.0f / 1920.0f == 0.7
768 / 1080 == 0.7
I’m no good at math. I may seem like it sometimes, but it’s all an act, I assure you. I don’t know if the scale ratio for any resolution of 16:9 will result in x === y. But just to be sure I’m going to leave both equations in.
This tells us that each sprite needs to display on the screen at 0.7 of its actual height and width. My sprite manager can take care of that each time the resolution changes.
Whew! Got that checked off the list. I made myself promise I wouldn’t play any video games until I’d finished. Time for a rest. :D