<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 11/05/2010 02:26 PM, Filippos Karapetis wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=H_mvaO7qLXOKyTowb6De32crrXG0w9WzXcojG@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">Anyway since this thread (and the SCI
undithering discussion on the<br>
forums) seems to have caused to make some rushed changes to
our code<br>
(like first disable undithering and adding that checkbox
without prior<br>
discussion, then re-enabling undithering by default and now
disabling it<br>
again), I would like to propose that before we actually change
anything<br>
in this area we should make some design and talk about it.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The current state should now reflect the consensus on this
matter. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Right, it reflects what was said on -devel *so far*, then again
consider that m_kiewitz, who seems to be a major supporter of the
"enable undithering by default" idea hasn't even replied so far.
Thus I think it's rushed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=H_mvaO7qLXOKyTowb6De32crrXG0w9WzXcojG@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>As for rushed changes... </div>
<div>with the current state of the options dialog, this is an
acceptable solution, until we come</div>
<div>up with a redesign and something better. Few people tinker
with the render mode, so</div>
<div>hiding major features in a pulldown few people change seems
like a bad design to me.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well here you see the problem, you think B is a bad idea, thus your
idea A is acceptable (for you). While I think A just clutters the
option dialogs even more and I think it's already cluttered enough
to add more options without any prior discussion.<br>
<br>
And now I dislike it even more because of the generalization, which
you say later on was just made because Strangereke wanted to add (as
in he doesn't know when he will do it, whether he will really do it)
the same feature to Hugo. Making changes for the future, where we do
not know too much about, which affect the GUI experience that much,
is a bad design IMHO.<br>
<br>
We now have that "Disable EGA dithering" checkbox, with the tooltip
"Disable dithering in EGA games" and in the README the config option
still says: "Remove dithering artifacts from EGA games" . On the
other hand we already have the Render mode box, which features this
tooltip: "Special dithering modes supported by some games", so that
seems the most natural place to me.<br>
<br>
Furthermore now that we shortly had that sci_undither setting as
global setting that might have cluttered the config files of users
which used that specific baily build (or custom build) with a now
useless config option in case the fiddled with the setting.<br>
<br>
Apart I couldn't say that I find any documentation where it says
which engines support the checkbox you added. I know that I can't
say we document that for say the Mixed MIDI/AdLib mode, but then
again because we have made that mistake in the past, doesn't really
give any reason to make it again. That should rather make us want to
add proper documentation for that too.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=H_mvaO7qLXOKyTowb6De32crrXG0w9WzXcojG@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">After all, this is what daily
<div>builds are for... to view a new feature and tweak it
accordingly. There's nothing final until</div>
<div>a stable version is released.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I disagree that daily builds are for rushed design changes that we
might fix or not fix depending on whether one person complains when
using a daily build or not (at least it sounds like you say that
this is the idea behind it).<br>
</body>
</html>