Bigger Stage Size (ca. 960 x 720 or more)

CakeAxxa

PrincessPanda_test_ wrote:
No support, might not be acceptable on some computers and possibly could break projects.

i get now 3 comments with “ruin projects”

CakeAxxa wrote:
da-4th-account wrote:
No support. This could ruin other old projects.
nope
CakeAxxa wrote:
TheHockeyist wrote:
Indifferent. I can see why it might be helpful, but what if it breaks current projects? What would happen if you tried to change the size of the stage when editing the project?
you can change under edit. it wont will break nothing…

Last edited by CakeAxxa (Aug. 15, 2015 14:53:49)

Zekrom01

CakeAxxa wrote:
iamunknown2 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
No support for the bigger size. Support for scrolling.
why?
With a bigger stage size it would probably lag older or really slow computers and like Blank1234 and CGRises said:
Blank1234 wrote:
average netbook screen size: 840X480. this format wouldn't be able to work well with netbooks

no support
CGRises wrote:
Scroll. No support. Period.
netbooks dont must use it and it wont lag? my pc is awesome + my internet
And just cause your PC is fast doesn't mean other computers will lag with the bigger size stage…
if your pc isnt awesome you dont must use it only dont touch the bigger stages size
What if the guy using a netbook wants to play a really awesome project that uses that feature?
he can use zoom? or scratch will warn ( if you register you can select, computer or netbook. If netbook scratch will warn.)

Still, it would break projects if your using a netbook.
And can ya be specific on the warning

Owengren

Blank1234 wrote:
average netbook screen size: 840X480. this format wouldn't be able to work well with netbooks

no support

Owengren

I wonder if in 2.1 or higher, the backdrop has a scroll bar.
Like this script:

scroll to x:() y:()

define scroll to x:(x) y:(y)
go to x: (x) y: (y)

Ok, I think it would work.

sithsiri

Superdoggy wrote:
Okay, total, 100% support.

If this came with “Screenwidth” and “Screenheight” values, then we could simply set the stage size to fullscreen. Also, with a bit of math, you can pretty much support every screen resolution.

To avoid breaking projects, the stage size should probably have a default at 480 by 360, which could be changed by a block.

What he said!

Econinja

iamunknown2 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
Zekrom01 wrote:
No support for the bigger size. Support for scrolling.
why?
With a bigger stage size it would probably lag older or really slow computers and like Blank1234 and CGRises said:
Blank1234 wrote:
average netbook screen size: 840X480. this format wouldn't be able to work well with netbooks

no support
CGRises wrote:
Scroll. No support. Period.
netbooks dont must use it and it wont lag? my pc is awesome + my internet
And just cause your PC is fast doesn't mean other computers will lag with the bigger size stage…
if your pc isnt awesome you dont must use it only dont touch the bigger stages size
What if the guy using a netbook wants to play a really awesome project that uses that feature?

Exactly. That's why I don't support.

cs4802664

uhh… you can just make the sprite smaller so it look bigger

change size by ()

and its gonna make the stage look bigger too

Last edited by cs4802664 (May 5, 2020 05:01:31)

NxNmultiply

Support for at least any possible resolution from 1×1 to 640×480. This would allow both adding space where projects need it, and removing space where projects don't need it.

vikas1971

But the current aspect ratio is no good. It doesn't reflect any typical usage scenario. Not a mobile UI, not the the typical desktop or laptop screen. A default 900x600 stage would be much better. I don't understand this design decision at all. It really limits the usefullness of Scratch.

Limbo-Gene

You guys ever used the Microsoft PowerPoint? In the past for that application, there was an option that enabled the presentation to be conducted in a 4:3 ratio or 16:9.

Scratch could hypothetically introduce this feature into Scratch.

A lot of computers, laptops, tablets and mobile devices have begun phasing out the old square resolution within the past fifteen years, and I believe it is time for Scratch to make the change as well. In the past, the platform was reliant on Adobe Flash… but since that's out the window, it's overall more beneficial for people of all ages to begin using the new dimensions. It doesn't have to be necessarily 1080p quality kind of content, but at least 720x480. People with poorer connections or equipment could be compensated for by providing an option to render the project in SD or “HD”. (still technically SD, but slightly bigger)

Scratch is all about inspiring the next generation of computer engineers; we set an example and create an environment that can help prepare for what the world is using rather than relying on a legacy standard. More ranges of options doesn't convolute the original purpose of the program; but simply provides a compromise for both people advanced and beginners.

NanoPIex

Znapi wrote:
I don't think allowing us to set the stage size is a good idea. In general, it is bad practice to rely on where your app(or webpage) is drawing to(a window, or, in scratch, the stage) to be a certain number of pixels wide and tall, because there are lots of different screen sizes/resolutions(some screens even have bigger or smaller pixels than others), like @Blank1234 is pointing out. Giving us control over stage size in Scratch would enforce this bad habit.

Instead, people make up coordinate systems to represent the space they are drawing to(like Scratch's 480x360 one), and scale everything to the size of the user's monitor/window/stage size.

If you want your project to be displayed at a higher resolution, you have use fullscreen and draw your costumes in vector, or draw them bigger in bitmap mode(2 times bigger?) and set the sprite size to 50% or something, depending on how much bigger your bitmaps are.

No support due to the above. Also, if the stage were enlarged anymore, there wouldn`t be any room for coding.

Limbo-Gene

NanoPIex wrote:
Znapi wrote:
I don't think allowing us to set the stage size is a good idea. In general, it is bad practice to rely on where your app(or webpage) is drawing to(a window, or, in scratch, the stage) to be a certain number of pixels wide and tall, because there are lots of different screen sizes/resolutions(some screens even have bigger or smaller pixels than others), like @Blank1234 is pointing out. Giving us control over stage size in Scratch would enforce this bad habit.

Instead, people make up coordinate systems to represent the space they are drawing to(like Scratch's 480x360 one), and scale everything to the size of the user's monitor/window/stage size.

If you want your project to be displayed at a higher resolution, you have use fullscreen and draw your costumes in vector, or draw them bigger in bitmap mode(2 times bigger?) and set the sprite size to 50% or something, depending on how much bigger your bitmaps are.
No support due to the above. Also, if the stage were enlarged anymore, there wouldn`t be any room for coding.

Then, there should be an option that removes the stage entirely where you can just code—it's not much of a loss here if you're spending lots of time coding a single sprite. If anything, you can just have it so the stage opens in a separate window… simple Alt+Tab can get you between windows fairly quick on any laptop/desktop operating system. Gives you all the space you need, and you get more space without worrying.

Quexiz

Maybe if the set stage size is too big for a computer's screen, it could just go down to fit it?
And also, for the people saying that projects using big stages wouldn't be compatible with smaller computers, look at smartphones! Only a low percentage of games on scratch are mobile-compatible - this feature is going to be useful, but it's not going to be used so much that compatibility becomes a problem.

Cupcake19880

i think i agree because then you could set the size to any size you want and it would nit break the other projects

CST1229

Fun Fact: Bitmap images' max resolution are actually 960x720, although Scratch doubles the resolution of imported images and halves the sizes while rendering.

dertermenter

I think the current stage size is fine. If you need it bigger, use scrolling.

the2000

CST1229 wrote:
Fun Fact: Bitmap images' max resolution are actually 960x720, although Scratch doubles the resolution of imported images and halves the sizes while rendering.

There's also a suggestion to fix that annoying quirk.

mybearworld

I support.
I support.
I support.

It would make sense to have more space. Why don't we just do 16:9 (like 1280:720)?

Last edited by mybearworld (March 9, 2021 14:45:58)

mybearworld

cs4802664 wrote:
uhh… you can just make the sprite smaller so it look bigger
change size by ()
and its gonna make the stage look bigger too

No, they mean that the stage should ACTUALLY be bigger.

]

Blank1234 wrote:
average netbook screen size: 840X480. this format wouldn't be able to work well with netbooks

no support

Why not make an option to make it smaller?
Like from 1280:720 to 640:360, or like suggested 960:720 to 480:360?

azhua0730

goldfish678 wrote:
CakeAxxa wrote:
ChocolatePi wrote:
Instead of a set bigger stage size, why not just be able to change the location of the stage? :)
What do you mean? Cakeaxxa
he means that you're able to drag the stage around so you can change the layout and differ the x and y limits of objects, although i can see that you just want a bigger stage

also please put [/color] tags down after you color something, it's really annoying when someone goes to quote you and has all their text in green

Maybe you can do this:
You could make scratch stages more like a decimal at full screen because one pixel is VISIBLE in the current stage

Discuss Scratch