QB64 Phoenix Edition v3.12.0 Released!

[Pete]

Anyone have a handle on what is messing up the ASCII display? In SCREEN 0, solid lines are dashed lines and ASCII characters like 254 do not display properly. I also noted the font irregularities previously mentioned, but in the created exe projects, not just the IDE. Something is certainly off in this release.

Pete

[MaSaCoder]

Greetings from Finland! :-)

I am also reporting a problem with displaying the text in the latest version!

I Hope this image and code clarify the matter:




SCREEN 12

CP1252 "lucon", 14

COLOR 9
LOCATE 5, 5: PRINT "This is an example text!"

COLOR 4
LOCATE 5, 50: PRINT "This is an example text!"


SUB CP1252 (Font$, FontSize)
    _FONT _LOADFONT("C:\Windows\Fonts\" + Font$ + ".ttf", FontSize, "MONOSPACE")
    RESTORE Microsoft_windows_cp1252
    FOR ASCIIcode = 128 TO 255
        READ UNIcode
        _MAPUNICODE UNIcode TO ASCIIcode
    NEXT ASCIIcode
    Microsoft_windows_cp1252: 'Windows Western languages with Latin alphabet
    DATA 8364,0,8218,402,8222,8230,8224,8225,710,8240,352,8249,338,0,381,0
    DATA 0,8216,8217,8220,8221,8226,8211,8212,732,8482,353,8250,339,0,382,376
    DATA 160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175
    DATA 176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191
    DATA 192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207
    DATA 208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223
    DATA 224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239
    DATA 240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255
END SUB


Without "SCREEN 12", the text is displayed normally. 

Although v.3.12 is a bit unclear all the time.

[TerryRitchie]

MY poor eyes might not be able to tell the difference normally, but you can certainly see the change if you place both pictures side-by-side!

Code: (Select All)

Screen _NewImage(1280, 720, 32)



image1 = _LoadImage("z:\3.11.0.png", 32)

image2 = _LoadImage("z:\3.12.0.png", 32)

_PutImage (0, 0)-(639, 719), image2

_PutImage (640, 0)-(1279, 719), image1

Sleep

_PutImage (0, 0)-(638, 719), image1

_PutImage (640, 0)-(1278, 719), image2

---

What I'm more curious about at the moment, however, is how the heck did you generate two different size images?



I'd imagine you just used _SaveImage to generate those two images.  Am I right?

If so, why the heck is one 779 pixels tall while the other is 780?

I use two monitors. I had each version of QB64PE opened on each. I then took a screen shot and used an image editing program to cut the desired areas out. I just got lucky that the images were that close in size.

[Kernelpanic]

@MaSaCoder - This is simply due to the size of the output window.

[TerryRitchie]

I just had something strange happen. Code that was running normally for me suddenly started crashing. Loading different code in did the same thing. According to Task Manager the QB64PE IDE (v 3.12.0) was using over 256MB of RAM while sitting idle. Closing and then reopening the IDE corrected the issues with the IDE using around 86MB which is what I would expect.

I normally leave the IDE running for days (heck sometimes weeks) at a time and have never run into this before.

I'm watching the RAM usage right now for the IDE continuing to climb after the restart (which is normal). It seems to have settled down now at 87,084K.

I'll keep mindful of what I'm doing if the issue happens again to help give some clue as to why this would have happened?

Has anyone else seen high RAM usage coming from their IDE?

[bplus]

Terry are you still using Windows 7 or into Linux now?

[Pete]

I'm pretty sure Terry is still running Windows 3.1 on a laboratory squirrel. The poor little critter probably spun clean out of its wheel.

Pete

[Kernelpanic]

@Terry -  I normally leave the IDE running for days (heck sometimes weeks) at a time and have never run into this before.

@Terry - the system is running full, so to speak. I only know something like this from Linux freaks who wanted to show how great their system is.
Shut down the system at the end of each day, full: C:\Windows\System32\shutdown.exe /s /t 0

And if problems still persist afterward, you have gotten yourself into trouble.

[Pete]

@Terry - the system is running full, so to speak. I only know something like this from Linux freaks who wanted to show how great their system is.
Shut down the system at the end of each day, full: C:\Windows\System32\shutdown.exe /s /t 0

And if problems still persist afterward, you have gotten yourself into trouble.

Yeah Terry, give the squirrel a break! Even Windows 3.1 booted up faster then than Windows 11 boots up now... and that was on a 486!

Pete

-Bill Gates is responsible for millions of bugs... and now he wants you to eat them!

[SMcNeill]

@Pete You're gettold and need to take your memory-enhancing drugs again.  Win 3.1 would *NEVER* boot up; it wasn't an OS.  It ran under DOS.