Mozboz wrote:

DABICCO wrote:

fine but atleast lock making projects (not viewing) behind being a “scratcher” rather than “new scratcher”

And why? What's the advantage?

DABICCO wrote:

fine but atleast lock making projects (not viewing) behind being a “scratcher” rather than “new scratcher”

sonic__fan wrote:

DABICCO wrote:

fine but atleast lock making projects (not viewing) behind being a “scratcher” rather than “new scratcher”

Why?

change screen size by x: () y: ()

change ( v) by x: () y: ()

LucasMario77777 wrote:

We Need These Blocks

change screen size by x: () y: ()

change ( v) by x: () y: ()

The Screen Size Could be A Dropdown Including:
Screen Size (just change the size)
Screen Position (could work like a camera)

1THEKINGBOB3 wrote:

DABICCO wrote:

Hi everyone! Just wanted to drop in and say hello. I still stand by my original opinion on this topic, but it’s always interesting to see how the discussion evolves. Wishing you all the best!

DABICCO wrote:

DABICCO wrote:

Once again, this form has been going on since 2013.
Here are, once again, my opinions on this;

A few years ago, I made a post here, explaining how this would be a horrible idea. And I stand with what my original post had written, it would be chaos!
If scratch were to convert all projects to 16:9, everything would break and look bad, as all projects were built with 4:3 in mind. Even if scratch team were to make it a toggleable option, people would still soon begin to migrate entirely to 16:9, and overall begin to prefer it. Leaving the poor 4:3 projects into dust as the child creators either don't want to, or don't know how to convert them into a 16:9 project. This would inevitably make everyone switch to 16:9 and 4:3 being removed in a later update due to inactivity.
Adding on, 4:3 is clean, simple and neat. The point of teaching programming to children on scratch is to have it be clean, simple, neat and easy to understand. A toggle would be confusing for younger kids, as they wouldn't know why their teachers screen is in 16:9 but theirs are in 4:3. So they'd all get confused and switch to the FAR inferior, Scratch JR, or even worse, the paid Tynker. Deserting the entire scratch website for probably indefinitely. (thanks to TheSmartGuy1234 for that)
Finally, have you ever heard of project storage limit? Projects can store only 50mb of code and 10mb of assets (sprites, costumes, music, etc), so unless they higher this limit (very unlikely) 16:9 would be incredibly awful for the 10mb asset storage limit, as you would need more space to draw your sprites, and thus, more storage usage.
People definitely have mixed feelings about this topic, and I respect your personal opinions on this matter, but my opinion is sealed indefinitely, as I am (most likely) leaving this discussion forever. Thank you for reading.

when green flag clicked
say [Thank you for reading!] for (2) secs

Because of these bunch of messages I'm some sort of celebrity to this forum.

I still, to this day, stand my opinion, however.

This wouldnt impact the storage in a massive way.
Second of all, children are not that brainless that they dont understand the concept of a toggle. If their on scratch, they know it.
Third of all, do you think that OP said that everything would be fullscreen, no, he meant a toggle.
fourth of all, i like your pfp.

LucasMario77777 wrote:

We Need These Blocks

change screen size by x: () y: ()

change ( v) by x: () y: ()

The Screen Size Could be A Dropdown Including:
Screen Size (just change the size)
Screen Position (could work like a camera)

mumu245 wrote:

The stage dynamically resizing during the project would be very laggy. It should be a per-project option.

bemanddae wrote:

mumu245 wrote:

The stage dynamically resizing during the project would be very laggy. It should be a per-project option.

So that old scratch projects don't break when it HYPOTHETICALLY were to release, it would be an option, which could give a way to make a “Custom” aspect ratio (ex: 1:2, 1:3,) with presets to make it easier. (ex: 4:3 (CURRENT), 16:9, 16:10,)

VerySmartDummy wrote:

you can use turbowarp for this

VerySmartDummy wrote:

you can use turbowarp for this