[DONE in 5.4.3.2 (Quick Navigator)] Alternative aspect ratios

Suggest and discuss new features here.
dag
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:59 am

[DONE in 5.4.3.2 (Quick Navigator)] Alternative aspect ratios

Postby dag » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:18 pm

So I got a Nexus 9 which I think is 4:3 and there's letterboxing in G-Stomper. I know this has been discussed before and I agree it is probably preferable to stretching and scaling to fill the screen if that messes up the layout, the aspect ratio of UI elements etc...

But. What about padding? I don't think I would mind some empty space inserted, for example on the main view, above the step sequencer section (under the four other sections). Or just under the step sequencer, or under the "toolbar".

Now you might ask, what would be the benefit of that? Well, on many other views, like the VA-Beast Synthesizer, it's using more than the available space and we have scrolling with a rack metaphor. If the app filled the screen, views that scroll would show more and need less scrolling.

On views with a "piano roll" sequencer grid, the grid could simply expand to use the available space, padding with empty space under surrounding controls. Now we see more of the grid and need to use the octave switch less.

Would this be difficult to implement? Is all of it difficult or only parts like expanding grids? Maybe the other parts could be added first, simply padding the grids for now?

The letterboxing isn't that bad and I can certainly live with it, but I was hoping that this idea of padding wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Even on views without grids or scrolling racks I think it wouldn't hurt to move the letterboxing to inside the application because you're less likely to hit something else if you miss your touch target.
User avatar
planet-h
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Alternative aspect ratios

Postby planet-h » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:44 am

dag wrote:So I got a Nexus 9 which I think is 4:3 and there's letterboxing in G-Stomper. I know this has been discussed before and I agree it is probably preferable to stretching and scaling to fill the screen if that messes up the layout, the aspect ratio of UI elements etc...

But. What about padding? I don't think I would mind some empty space inserted, for example on the main view, above the step sequencer section (under the four other sections). Or just under the step sequencer, or under the "toolbar".

Now you might ask, what would be the benefit of that? Well, on many other views, like the VA-Beast Synthesizer, it's using more than the available space and we have scrolling with a rack metaphor. If the app filled the screen, views that scroll would show more and need less scrolling.

On views with a "piano roll" sequencer grid, the grid could simply expand to use the available space, padding with empty space under surrounding controls. Now we see more of the grid and need to use the octave switch less.

Would this be difficult to implement? Is all of it difficult or only parts like expanding grids? Maybe the other parts could be added first, simply padding the grids for now?

The letterboxing isn't that bad and I can certainly live with it, but I was hoping that this idea of padding wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Even on views without grids or scrolling racks I think it wouldn't hurt to move the letterboxing to inside the application because you're less likely to hit something else if you miss your touch target.


Thanks for your message, dag.
Unfortunately this isn't possible without completely re-layouting the complete app. G-Stomper was built for a strict 16:9 ratio, and 95% of all its users actually have this ratio.

I agree, that there would be a benefit for the VA-Beast main view and for the Sampler Track Grid, since both use scrolling.
But the Poly Grid and Note Grid wouldn't benefit as well as all other views. The grid sequencers are already the very limit in many concerns, increasing their height (in fact adding more tonal height = more grid rows) would simply force it to crash.

Padding between the frames would be no option, since it would kill the originality of the layout.
Also, if you switch to portrait in the UI settings, you'll see that it's exactly the other way it that case, which makes it again more complicated.

As said, GSS is built for 16:9, changing it would be technically possible, but not without a huge (and I mean huge) effort.
This change was seriously considered in all its aspects back in Dec 2014, when the first 4:3 devices hit the market.

I wouldn't say "never", but for now it's put on hold.
dag
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:59 am

Re: Alternative aspect ratios

Postby dag » Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:32 am

Understood, thanks. :)
User avatar
planet-h
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Alternative aspect ratios

Postby planet-h » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:41 am

Good news for devices with exotic screen aspect ratios like 4:3 or 18:9.
As more and more screen aspect ratios popped up the last months, and it's a good time to reconsider the situation.

With the next update, the additional space (which is now shown as black bars) will be used for a new "quick view selector", which lets you access every screen by a single click.

Thanks again for your suggestion, Dag.

Return to “Feature Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests