You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
One alternative Alan mentioned is that we could align on pixel boundary at the compositing level.
Still, I think we can have better logic for the logical grid than we do now. If there's no overlap between displays, it'd be appropriate to have the grid be the output's physical grid. Overlap makes things trickier, but we also don't need to optimize for that.
Still, I think we can have better logic for the logical grid than we do now. If there's no overlap between displays, it'd be appropriate to have the grid be the output's physical grid. Overlap makes things trickier, but we also don't need to optimize for that.
I don't think it is just about overlapping displays. Adjacent displays with different pixel density are also better handled by a logical grid.
I agree we could do better, just not that switching to a physical grid is a panacea
These are two screenshots of the same surface at
--display-scale 1.5
, except one of them is moved 1 "unit" on both axes.You should easily see the second one is blurred.
The problem is that it's aligned on half-pixel (or rather, on "logical" pixel that's a square of 1.5 pixels).
You can also see this with
--display-scale 10
and trying to move a window - you'll only be able to move it in 10px increments.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: