I'm coding in raw C, using win32.
I want to change at runtime the position of a control (a button) to properly keep its relative position inside the parent dialog, which is resizable.
I defined both the dialog and the button via a resource script, where dimensions are in dialog base units.
To change the size at runtime I have to deal with the SetWindowPos function, which accepts values in pixels so, to maintain the original proportions, I need to convert in pixels the original distance (in dialog base units).
I've tried to use the value returned from the GetDialogBaseUnits funcion and follow the "conversion procedure" (which is, substantially, a multiplication and a division) reported in the reference page, using the MulDiv function but what I get is a wrong value...
In particular I obtain: LOWORD(GetDialogBaseUnits()) = 8 and HIWORD(GetDialogBaseUnits()) = 16 which, used in MulDiv, produce sizes in dialog base units which are exactly the half of the pixel ones (and this is wrong, in my system).
How I can properly perform this conversion?
Not with GetDialogBaseUnits().
If you have a dialog box, you can do this easily: use the MapDialogRect() function.
If you have a regular window, you'll have to do the calculations manually. I've asked a question related to it here and wrote a tool for testing possible calculations. The different calculations are close enough to be equally visually useful; don't stress too hard.
Related
I have a set of pages that look like this:
I have the content in grids with * Heights and Widths so the grid correctly scales when the entire window resizes. I would like the text to resize with the grid. Basically I would like the user to resize from this:
To this:
(preserving white space)
One way to do this would be to wrap the TextBlock in a ViewBox with margins on the right and bottom (for Grid.Row="3") to account for white space. But because I have several pages with different lengths and line counts I would have to set the margin specifically for each page otherwise the text sizes would differ on each page. Is there a better way to do this??
I don't think there is a better way to do this. There are different ways. But, I think it isn't just a matter of opinion that they would not be better.
Ways I can think of.
Render your text offscreen, rendertargetbitmap that so you've got a picture. Change your textblocks on screen to images and stretch them.
Or
Work out the size your text wants to be. Then do some calculation comes up with a different fontsize which is "better". This is a lot easier to write a description of than do.
In my opinion.
A viewbox is easier to implement. Way less error prone than calculations. Will give at least as good results as rendering to a picture.
I just want to add one more solution to the ones suggested by Andy, which is more of a scientific approach and takes a bit of practice to master.
Suppose you have to find a function F, which maps one or more variables to a desired single value. In your case that would be a function F, which takes aspect ratio of the window as input and outputs an appropriate font size.
How can you find such a function?
Well... you don't need to do any math yourself!
First, you need some data to begin with:
1. Resize the window randomly
2. Calculate aspect ration (X)
3. Pick an appropriate font size that looks good enough (Y)
4. Repeat the measurement 7 to 10 times (sorry data scientists)
5. Enter the data in Excel - one column for X and another one for Y
6. Insert a scatter chart
7. Choose the best trendline for your data, but avoid the polynomial one
8. Display the trendline equation and use the expression in your code
Now I should mention the pros and cons of this regression technique.
Pros:
1. It can solve a wide range of tricky problems:
"I use this 3rd party control, but when the text is too long it overlaps the title bar. How to trim it so it doesn't go beyond the top border?. Deadline is coming!"
2. Even if it doesn't solve the problem perfectly, the results are often acceptable
3. It takes minutes to try out unlike spending a day refreshing your math skills
Cons:
1. The biggest problem is that to keep it simple, you often lower the number of
variables by assuming some of them to be constant. In this post I've assumed that
the font family won't change for example, neither the font weight.
2. If any of the assumptions does not hold the final result could be even worse
This technique is fragile, but powerful. Use it as your last weapon and never leave magic expression like
fontSize = (int)(0.76 + 1.2 * aspectRation) without documenting how it came to be.
I'm performing some geographical computations in a grid with squares (i.e. regions). I'm using Delphi, but the logic could probably be applied to C++ too. Let me first explain what I want to do.
The following image is a portion of my grid, which is represented by a two-dimensional array Square that denotes the centre point in each square, and the "movement through the layers":
The green square has an X and Y coordinate of 2, so that is Square[2,2]. The actual coordinates are stored in Square[2,2].Latitude and Square[2,2].Longitude as wel as extra information in e.g. Square[2,2].Info that I use for computations.
Now comes the purpose: I need to do some computations on the surrounding areas. How many of the surrounding areas can be called "neighbours", depends on how many "layers" I have defined. In the image above, I used two of these "layers". That means that when starting from the green cell, I go around it once (blue arrows) and then again in the second layer (red arrows).
Now comes the problem: if I would have started in Square[1,1] (green square) instead of Square[2,2] as in the image below, the second layer (in red) would try to access data on the left side and at the bottom that does not exist (i.e. in the "-1" column and row). See the image below. This problem occurs at all borders of course.
I probably can make exceptions with IF-statements for every scenario, but I was wondering if there are common programming "tricks" that can handle such situations where you try to access data does not exist.
For example, I imagine it would be very handy if I can follow the pattern of the arrows depicted in the first image to access all the neighbouring squares every single time, even if there are non-existing squares. So, looking at the first image, after Square[3,0] you'd go to something like Square[3,-1] etc. and then eventually come back into the "feasible" zone in Square[0,3].
To visit neighborhood, you can use some kind of BFS (breadth-first search).
But for sparse structure (like the last picture shows) it is worth to use some data structure to organize cells in a good way. Perhaps kd-tree is suitable - you add all existing cells in the tree and make range search around given cell to get other cells in its vicinity.
Also look at another spatial data structures (see list at the bottom of kd-tree page).
Using gdk_screen_get_monitor_geometry, I can get the total area in pixels and the relative position of each monitor, even when there are two or more used as a single screen.
However, I want to get the usable area (that is, excluding panels) of each monitor. The only thing I have found is _NET_WORKAREA, but that is one giant area stretching across all monitors. Depending on the resolution and arrangement, there may be panels inside this area.
How can I get the actual usable area of each monitor? Ideally, using only Gtk/Gdk, nothing X11-specific.
The following approach is a bit convoluted, but it is what I'd use. It should be robust even when there is complex interaction between the window manager and GTK+ when a window is mapped -- for example, when some of the panels are automatically hidden.
The basic idea is to create a transparent decorationless maximized window for each screen, obtain its geometry (size and position) when it gets mapped (for example, using a map-event callback), and immediately destroy them. That gets you the usable area within each screen. You can then use your existing gdk_screen_get_monitor_geometry() approach to determine how the usable area is split between monitors, if any.
In detail:
Use gdk_display_get_default() to get the default display, then gdk_display_get_n_screens() to find out how many screens it has.
Create a new window for each screen using gtk_window_new(), moving the windows to their respective screens using gtk_window_set_screen(). Undecorate the windows using gtk_window_set_decorated(,FALSE), maximuze them using gtk_window_maximize(,TRUE), and make them transparent using gtk_window_set_opacity(,0.0). Connect the map-event signal to a callback handler (using g_signal_connect()). Show the window using gtk_widget_show().
The signal handler needs to call gtk_window_get_position() and/or gtk_window_get_size() to get the position and/or size of the newly-mapped window, and then destroy the window using gtk_widget_destroy().
Note that in practice, you only need one window. I would personally use a simple loop. I suspect that due to window manager oddities/bugs, it is much more robust to create a new window for each screen, rather than just move the same window between screens. It turns out it is easier, too, as you can use a single simple callback function to obtain the usable area for each screen.
Like I said, this is quite convoluted. On the other hand, a standard application should not care about the screen sizes; it should simply do what the user or window manager asks. Because of that, I would not be surprised if there are no better facilities to find out this information. Screen size may change at any point, for example if the user rotates their display, or changes the display resolution.
in the end I ended up using xlib directly, various "tricks" like the one suggested above ended up eventually failing in the long run often with odd corner cases and never followed the KISS principle.
The solution I used is in the X-Tile code base.
Hey, I'm working on a map editor for my game, and I'm trying to convert the mouse position to a position in the game world, the view is set up using gluPerspective
A good place to start would be the function gluUnProject, which takes mouse coordinates and calculates object space coordinates. Take a look at http://nehe.gamedev.net/data/articles/article.asp?article=13 for a basic tutorial.
UPDATE:
You must enable depth buffering for the code in that article to work. The Z value for mouse coordinates is determined based on the value in the depth buffer at that point.
In your initialization code, make sure you do the following:
glEnable(GL_DEPTH);
A point on the screen represents an entire line (an infinite set of points) in 3D space.
Most people with questions similar to yours are really trying to select an object by clicking on it. If that's what you're after, OpenGL offers a selection mode that's generally more effective than trying to convert the screen coordinate into real-world coordinates.
Using selection mode is (usually) pretty simple: you start with gluPickMatrix, which you use to specify a small box around the click point. You then draw your scene in selection mode. When you're done, instead of actually drawing anything, it gives you back records of what would have been drawn in the box you specified. If memory serves, those are arranged in Z order, so the first one in the list is what would have displayed front-most (i.e., the one you usually want).
You know how System.Drawing.Rectangle was replaced by System.Windows.Int32Rect? (As far as non-floating-point shapes are concerned ...)
Is there a similar new object for an integer point or size? If not, I'll just use System.Drawing - but that kinda seems like a minor mix of two platforms that ought not to me mixed.
Anyway, what do you think about this?
The drawing primitives in WPF store all measurements/locations values in doubles - apparently all except Int32Rect, as you pointed out. The reasoning behind this design is due to how WPF is not bound directly from pixel-to-display - it uses "device independent pixels" (DIPs) which can be scaled for whatever device on which it is being rendered. This gives WPF the ability to scale and translate everything that it is displaying very easily.
As for System.Windows.Int32Rect, the only place I see it being used inside the API is for capturing and cropping pixels. This makes sense - when doing a screen capture, you're wanting to get exactly the pixels that are currently displayed on the device.