Arima Look, I was experiencing this for 2 months, so you have to trust me with sincerity. I'm going to respond, so do not take it as offense.

We know that everything you say is an excuse to not have interest about it because you do not know how to solve the problem of others,

What the...

I have no idea where this is coming from, as it is completely false, and actually I do take offense to it, especially after all the effort I've put into the community. I DON'T say things as an excuse to not have interest in things because I don't know how to solve them. That's ridiculous, and frankly insulting for you to not only tell me a complete lie about my motivations as if you know what's going on in my head better than I do, but also for you to put words in other people's mouths because you've decided that since you think something everyone else thinks it too. Maybe that reveals something about how much you think others want the feature you're asking for, when ignoring the evidence that pretty much the entire game industry goes to great lengths to avoid having to use it.

Perhaps you could consider your misinterpretation of my intent due to communication difficulties of the language barrier? I often have difficulty understanding what you meant from what you wrote. Tone and intent is often hard to discern over the internet, and as such you should generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, I'm sorry to hear some of my posts have come off that way to you, and assure you that was not my intent. If I'm arguing against a point, it it is because I disagree, not because I don't want to admit I don't know the solution. I even mention in the post on this very page another method which I and others agree is better.

I responded to this thread because you seemed to be under some impressions which are incorrect, like console game developers only rendering at one resolution and stretching fit for all screens, which simply isn't true. Maybe it has been done before, but I have seen a LOT of games and can't recall even single time a 'pro' game used it aside from pc games allowing the user to select a resolution with an incorrect aspect ratio from a list and games made before the widescreen era, when there were no widescreens to program for.

this is your personal opinion against the client's needs, we do what they want and expect to see the results as things go, if you say, is very unprofessional for this style I'm afraid you are wrong.

I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong - obviously it is a matter of opinion rather than a fact, but I have heard people complain about the look many times before in other places when they had their monitor resolutions set wrong and can't recall any games intentionally using the technique, which leads me to believe it's the popular opinion in both the dev comunity and user base that most people don't like it. I respect your having a different opinion, but I disagree with it. I'm not the only one who does, and I was trying to bring that to your attention as you don't seem to be aware of it. Maybe I've seen a skewed sample of opinions, but I really don't think so.

This is game design and sometimes we just limited.

I didn't think you were as limited in this situation as you thought you were, which is why I brought up common methods other developers use that you might not have been aware of, and asked why you didn't want to use them.

You didn't mentioned on resolutions for phones.

The method I described works on everything, phones included.

No need to be presumptuous to say so even if you published a game with multi-resolutions, I see you have no experience in that.

No need for you to be presumptuous assuming I have no experience working with multiple resolutions/aspect ratios on mobile because I haven't released anything publically. I've gotten multi-resolution and aspect ratio support working fine in two games, even though you haven't seen either of them.

What you say about can not render a resolution for TV is true, but is different because HTML5 would not need to manipulate to change video resolutions from operating system you are using current resolution, it should work at any resolution.

It's exactly the same problem for computers, except worse, as there are far more different resolutions and aspect ratios of monitors and mobile devices than TVs. System resolution vs actual device resolution is mostly irrelevant - you still have a variety of aspect ratios in both situations.

There is a demo Fullscreen example does not show the true fullscreen it still has black spaces, is a hindrance to the experience. Not a movie work, is a work of video game. Because videos can not be drawn via programming. Someone teach me to full screen without black spaces and the sprites must be shown outside the exact layout of window design.

Next time you want to get someone to explain something they're describing in more detail, here's a tip: ask them to do so instead of assuming the reason they didn't explain it step by step is because they don't know how.

I don't understand what you meant by "the sprites must be shown outside the exact layout of window design." Regardless, here's the method I use. Either:

Full screen in browser set to scale.

Window size set to 2048x1536. This covers up to ipad size 'natively.'

Layout size set to at least 2048x1536, unbounded scrolling set to on.

Black rectangles covering any area outside the aspect ratio that I want them to see for those who try extreme aspect ratios by resizing the window.

Content designed for 16:9, expecting the sides of which to get cropped off at 4:3.

Or

Alternately, you could instead do the opposite and use a 16:9 ratio for the window size which would result in more area being shown on 4:3 monitors at the top and bottom of the screen (the area which would otherwise be black in letterbox mode), therefore making all content at 4:3 expecting those top and bottom areas to be cut off on 16:9 monitors.

Let me show you an example you said stretching is not very professional, they look at that and judge for you.

There are some images that can be stretched that don't look bad afterwards, but in most cases I still dislike the look.

From a high-level perspective, depending on which is more important, maintaining a consistent aspect ratio, or ensuring that no one to see more than someone else just because doing lot wider screen or workshop.

This is another problem that pro developers have to deal with. In Starcraft 2, one of the designers talked about how they had to make it so that those with widescreen monitors would simply be able to see more of the battlefield, and therefore have a bit of a competitive edge over people with 4:3 monitors. That's high level pro gaming we're talking about them building here, with competitions for heaps of cash involved, and they still wouldn't stretch the screen.

With html5 though, in a resizeable window the user can use extreme aspect ratios and see way off the side of the screen as a result. You can stop people from seeing further by my suggestion above of putting black rectangles over anything past the area you want them to see if someone tries to do so.

Creating Project with each different to specificed platforms would be big waste of time,

I'm not implying you should make different projects for different resolutions - you can make 1 project adjust itself automatically to any current resolution at runtime.

I'm going to ask you to support the idea to solve the problem of others and demonstrates C2 is useful after all, on the contrary would be useless and despised!

If you still really want to do it that way even after everything I and others have said to you, fine. I understand how people can want things I don't, but I'm not going to argue for in favor for this just because you want it, as I think having it there would encourage others to use it, when it's an approach that I don't think should be used because there is, in my opinion, a better method. That was the whole purpose of my post - to tell you the feature you're asking for is unnessecary because a better method exists. If you disagree, fine. That's what a forum is for, discussion.

Don't forget about low resolution may take advantages all of them render the game and let the GPU doing the process. It helps boosting the FPS and save memory in most cases.

I like the idea of being able to lower the resolution to improve the fps, I've even argued for it before. However, I still maintain that it looks far better if done proportionally, and there are ways to deal with the difficulties that result from doing so that are better than stretching the image.

I'm afraid I also don't understand why you want to display your game this way. If you set up your game right, it will show everything at a 16:9 ratio and crop off the sides at 4:3. It looks far, far better this way than stretching the canvas out of proportion and it works on all aspect ratios, even if it takes some extra work to set it up. Why don't you want you use this method?

Also, console game makers have to deal with different aspect ratios too. They don't just render at one resolution for all TVs. In fact, I'm pretty sure console manufacturers wouldn't even allow it if someone tried. The ps3 for example has a setting in the video options to select 4:3 or 16:9, and devs have to make the game's HUD and such work with both, as it's very unprofessional looking to stretch the image like that, which is why they don't do it and render at a different resolution instead (also, the resolutions console games render for widescreen content at is actually generally something more like 1024x720/1152x720 from what I've read. Regardless of what they use, they still keep the image proportional).

If you really don't want to deal with it at all, you can do what final fantasy dimensions and such do, having it in full screen letterbox mode and having black or colored bars at the top and bottom of the screen, since people are often used to that from movies (even 16:9 screens have black bars often because movie content often uses a wider aspect ratio than 16:9).

It's not the same as running it natively, but I use splashtop 2 remote desktop and using C2 through it works pretty well.

I have to admit it always find it weird having to add the "2" when talking about Construct to someone

If CC is here to stay around, C2 could be something like Construct Live or Construct Universal

It's probably hard to change the name now tho :p

As I just said on the previous page, they already did that, that's why it's called construct classic and not just construct.

The ship is drawn every frame either way though? Even if it just sits still, it's still redrawn.

What Ashley is saying, is that when no objects are moving/changing in any way, even though the image remains on the screen, the game/GPU isn't actually drawing anything, it's just letting the previously drawn image linger, which means less work and often higher fps. It's possible touching the screen could be causing it to redraw the screen.

Try adding a sprite that does nothing but rotate every tick, then try the test again. What happens?

With such fundamental differences in underlying code, functionality and output it may be worth considering a greater separation of the two versions by having different names.

Actually, they already did that, construct was renamed to construct classic for that exact reason.

C2 can make almost any 2d game you've ever seen, including the ones with gorgeous graphics you saw made in CC, as long as it was all 2d (short of ones that use sprite distortion, but based on what Ashley has said that feature is likely going to be implemented in C2 later). C2 actually renders faster than CC does!

https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-games-faster-than-native

Ok, so if I said "the colors are not pleasing to the eye", would that be more constructive? I think not. It is the same information said differently.

If you said that it would be more polite. Constructive criticism is about making someone aware of ways they could improve their work in a positive manner, rather than tearing them down, like as I mentioned in my example of recommending googling color theory. Telling someone flat out that their work looks like vomit is an unnessecary insult which there is nothing to be gained from, and doesn't encourage or help the person to improve.

From what I've read (I'm no expert on it, though), 'true' fullscreen boosts fps a bit because somehow the graphics card can skip some steps/ignore every other application and throw the rendered image directly to the monitor - with a fullscreen borderless window it still has to check if any other windows are overlapping it, ui elements, os stuff, etc - some also theorize that the graphics card could be drawing the desktop and then the window on top of it, meaning it hits the pixel fill rate and such (I'm honestly not sure of the real reasons, again, I'm no expert and what I've read could be wrong as they were from people theorizing/discussing it on the internet, so the specific reasons could be incorrect).

However, it's not a placebo effect, as I've seen it on my computer as well, playing the new XCOM with a fullscreen borderless window results in a choppy framerate, and using the 'actual' fullscreen setting makes it much, much smoother - easily perceptibly so. It could just be the difference of tipping it a bit over the point where it can't handle 60fps, but it shows that it can make a noticeable effect, and we're talking about low-end laptops here where it's likely to be a problem.

I don't know if it's possible or not, but it would be helpful if it is.

Edit: From gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/107028/is-there-a-difference-between-running-games-in-windowed-or-fullscreen-mode

"When an application runs in fullscreen mode, it runs in "exclusive mode". That means it has full and direct control over the screen output.

But when it runs in window mode, it needs to send its output to the window manager (windows explorer) which then manages where on the screen that output is drawn. This takes some additional performance. The performance penalty, however, is greatly reduced in newer version of windows."

That might explain why it's an issue on my machine, as it's running vista. In newer versions of windows it might be imperceptible.

That's not true full screen mode though, it's just a borderless window that takes up the whole screen.

If not, they should definitely add it as a feature.