View Full Version : Rush HUD 1920x1200 Screen
I need to run my Rush HUD on a 1920x1200 maximized screen. There is no other way for me to do it. Several people have 3 and 4 screens running. I would like to get just one. There was another poster in the release thread who also requested this.
It seems like it would simply use everything the small setting already uses, just at a larger size.
Will this option be put into the next build?
Patvs
02-10-2010, 09:23 PM
You want to play 1-table RUSH with a maximized screen, of 4-table RUSH on a 1920x1200 screen?
There is a minimum size for every table (otherwise the optical character recognition: OCR doesn't work).... YOU're right that technically everything should just work the same only at a larger size. The table-size that can be used with RUSH will be improved in the next updates.
I first want to say thank you to the development team and support team for all the work you are putting in to get this HUD working.
You want to play 1-table RUSH with a maximized screen, of 4-table RUSH on a 1920x1200 screen?
I need to play 1-table Rush with a 1920x1200 maximized screen. No multi-tabling for me at Rush (somtimes I do two tables though). I need the maximized screen in order for my HUD to fit on the window. (By the way, the 4-tablers just slow the game down b/c they are not using the quck fold button. The players who do not want to fold have to wait for them. Rush is all about the quick fold button, and the multi-talbers slow down the game b/c they do not use the quick fold button. EDIT: I understand that what I wrote about the 4-tablers is not true for all of them.)
I tried to play with a much smaller version of my HUD so that I could use the small windows as required, but there were some names misread at each table. Here are some of them:
"DR" shows as "1R" or ")R"
"bad" shows as "ad"
"z" at the end of a name becomes "z_"
I know that there are only a few people who want the 1980x1200 screen size support like I do, but if we START with the max screen support, then would the OCR screen-scrape be more accurate? If so, then the names would be read correctly.
After we get the max screen support, then the more difficult smaller screen reading could be done. But as it is right now, everyone has problems with the name recognition. So why not get a max screen to work, and then work on shrinking it down?
Again, thanks for all the work you guys are doing on this.
Veteran68
02-11-2010, 03:38 PM
I need to play 1-table Rush with a 1920x1200 maximized screen. No multi-tabling for me at Rush (somtimes I do two tables though). I need the maximized screen in order for my HUD to fit on the window. (By the way, the 4-tablers just slow the game down b/c they are not using the quck fold button. The players who do not want to fold have to wait for them. Rush is all about the quick fold button, and the multi-talbers slow down the game b/c they do not use the quick fold button.)
I'd have to disagree with you. I only played two sessions of Rush and hated it, but when I did I 4-tabled and always used the quick fold button. It's no different than using the auto-fold checkbox, which most multi-tablers are already accustomed to using.
Just my $0.02, but I too run 1920x1200 (actually x3, with two 24" and one 25.5" monitor) and can't imagine how much info you must have on your HUD if you need one table maximized to fit it all. Or do you just have the font jacked up super large? Having too many stats on the HUD somewhat defeats its purpose -- for most snap decisions you only need a handful of stats, I'd say at most a dozen or so. Anything requiring a bit more thought or analysis are in the popups or Player Stats window. I've seen a few folks showing these huge HUDS with 8 rows of condensed stats, and I have no idea how that can be practically applied. I play 4 tables per monitor, tiled, and they're not even scaled to full height -- maybe 450 high each. My cash HUD already has more than I use on a regular basis and it fits fine:
Short Name/Hands
VPIP/PFR/AG/ST/FST
CBET/FCBET/CR/FCR/WTSD/W$SD
If I need to drill into, say, a river cbet stat, I just click and instantly get a pop-up. But those stats alone seem to cover the majority of circumstances where I want enough quick info to make a decision.
Well, I know that I wait for multitablers. If you are fast, then fine. Sorry if I offended you.
I sometimes play 2 Rush tables, but not four. I know that I wait for many of the 4-tablers, and it is frustrating.
I am more frustrated, however, about the possibility of HEM not supporting a 1920x1200 screen. I simply need it.
Short Name/Hands
VPIP/PFR/AG/ST/FST
CBET/FCBET/CR/FCR/WTSD/W$SD
Looks nice. I could tell you all the stats on my HUD, but this screen is not big enough.:)
All those stats might sound like too much to you, but the way I have it arranged is actually quite elegant.:cool:
Patvs
02-11-2010, 06:55 PM
Post a screenshot of your HUD AJAX on a glorious 1920x1200 resolution maximized table!
Would love to see your HUD.
Here is a redacted version of one of the panels. I have removed much of the information.
<img src="http://imgur.com/MlWoD.jpg" alt="Hosted by imgur.com" />
When the 64 stat limit on the HUD is increased to about 128, I will then add additional stats to the bottom. I already know how the bottom portion will look.
The top part is still a work-in-progess as well. For example, I have open 4-bet at the top right, but I do not know if I will actually keep that stat there or just remove it, b/c I do not think it is really a stat that needs to be on the HUD.
There is no HUD out there that compares to the way that this one flows.
Patvs
02-11-2010, 11:24 PM
I'm confused...
This is one panel.. but your HUD has more panels?
"Redacted" version? You mean you censored your HUD.. and the pic.. is only a sneak peak?? What information did you remove?
The Minder
02-11-2010, 11:27 PM
No way... I wanna see a full screenshot. It would look like the sheet music for a concerto by Rachmaninoff... but in technicolor!
I'm confused...
This is one panel.. but your HUD has more panels?
Oh... no that's not what I meant. When I indicated "one panel," I meant I was showing one panel for a single opponent, as opposed to the entire HUD with all the panels for all of the opponents. I do not use multiple panels.
"Redacted" version? You mean you censored your HUD.. and the pic.. is only a sneak peak?? What information did you remove?
Yes, it is censored. However, I did show very significant pieces. The top, middle, and bottom parts that are shown are the main areas around which all of the other stats are organized. Also, the middle and bottom parts, which are shown, obey a rule as I look horizontally from left to right. That helps to create the flow of the HUD so that I do not get lost in the large pool of numbers. There are also visual hints to help guide my eyes around the panel.
In the thread that is titled "Rush HUD Fully Supported," in post # 75, Fozzy indicated that the Rush HUD might not ever work for 1920x1200. He wrote that it "does NOT work with the Rush HUD. I don't know if/when it ever will."
I understand that with the work being done right now, the widow size is getting larger. Whatever is being done to make the window larger, can't they just keep doing more of the same thing until it gets to 1920x1200?:confused:
If it is not possible to SCALE up the character recognition all the way to 1920x1200, then maybe it is possible to have a SETTING in Holdem Manager that works for smaller-range windows, and a SECOND SETTING that works for larger-range windows?:cool:
It would not be good if the work on this project stops before the screen size gets to where I need it to be. If you would, please find out anything you can about this. Please?:)
The Minder
02-12-2010, 03:12 AM
I would hate Rush to become all consuming as far as RVG resources go. Perhaps it's time to put the rest of Rush into uservoice.
I would hate Rush to become all consuming as far as RVG resources go. Perhaps it's time to put the rest of Rush into uservoice.
That is not the topic of this thread that I started. If you want to post in uservoice, then you can do it. Do not ask me to post in uservoice. If you do not like this thread, then why don't you post THAT.
Besides, you wrote that you had some interest/curiosity about my HUD:
No way... I wanna see a full screenshot. It would look like the sheet music for a concerto by Rachmaninoff... but in technicolor!
But after writing that, you now have turned on me.
I shared some of the concepts. As you can see, it is important that whatever work is done, that it includes support for 1920x1200. I have put significant work into my HUD, and I need it to be supported just like all the other HUDs are going to be supported.
Patvs,
I was very happy when I found out that there were enhancements made to the HUD to allow slightly larger tables to work better.
Do you know if it is possible to skip the medium-size tables and do just small tables and large tables? If so, then maybe that would be the easiest way to go.
I am very encouraged by the increase that was done, but at the same time I still have concerns. If it is difficult to get the screen to go from 750 wide up to 850 wide, then 1920x1200 is REALLY REALLY far away from where we are right now. That is why I say just skip the medium-size tables if that is the only way to get it done.
I have made my HUD a lot more compact than it was, and I took several of the stats out as well. So I now have less information in the HUD, but the screen is still too crowded.
Please find out if it makes any sense to just skip the medium size screens, b/c if there is a limit to how many sizes they are going to do, then it makes sense to do the large size screen that I need... right? I would think that they could just use all of the optical processing that already works for the small screens, with everything just bumped-up to a large size. And I would hope that they would do it this way, instead of building every screen size in between, and then end up stopping before they get to the largest screen.
Thanks,
Ajax
random_guy
02-13-2010, 07:00 AM
I play one table maximized in 1920x1200 not because I have a billion stats on my hud, but because thats the way I like it. I like a large readable table,
I have an idea, perhaps you could create a moveable overlay that we could just move to the proper position over players names, then you don't have to hardcode all kinds of crazy coordinates or anything...
I was also wondering why you guys can't just get the players names directly from the control?
...I was also wondering why you guys can't just get the players names directly from the control?
I was wondering the same thing too. The seating information is sent by Full Tilt, so why not just read it. My guess is that it might be encoded, and so HEM just simply cannot read it. I would be interested in finding out if that is the case.
The other idea that I had was to simply ask Full Tilt if, when they signal the application in regards to seating, they could also send an information packet to HEM. Either that, or just tell the HEM developers how to read the encoded packet that is already being sent.
...I like a large readable table...
I do too. Even if I had fewer stats, I would still use a large screen anyways.
...There is a minimum size for every table (otherwise the optical character recognition: OCR doesn't work)....
I just don't get it. If that is true, then OCR works even better at high resolution... :confused:... wait a minute... :confused:... wait a minute... :confused:... but then... :confused:... that means... but then that actually makes sense!:eek: OCR works better at high-resolution!:eek::eek:
Could you please release support for a table that is about 1,648 pixels wide? The 1920x1200 table would be even better, but just a width of 1,648 pixels would be a major improvement.
Patvs
02-13-2010, 11:03 AM
I was also wondering why you guys can't just get the players names directly from the control?
Now you know.. why the prefetching on Full Tilt doesn't work anymore.
We were able to get all the player info by reading a Full Tilt cache file, but that doesn't work anymore after one of their updates.
Veteran68
02-13-2010, 01:39 PM
I was also wondering why you guys can't just get the players names directly from the control?
I expect because there isn't a control to read -- that would be way too easy. I would imagine that FT and most poker clients render most of the table text and buttons on the fly as images. I know in the past I've played around with MS Spy++ while thinking about getting into the poker software development area, and not gotten anything really meaningful out of the poker clients I tried it on.
The poker client developers go out of their way in a constant effort to fight bot developers, data miners, etc., so I'm absolutely certain that reading data out of standard windows controls was one of the first leaks they plugged.
That's why AHK, TN, scanners, and most other software that interacts directly with poker clients are forced to resort to image processing and OCR to do so. The buttons on the table aren't really buttons, the text aren't in text controls, etc.
Could I please have a response to post #11, post #14, and post #17?
I still cannot use my HUD. 1,648 pixels wide is what I need (1920x1200 would be even better).
... can't imagine how much info you must have on your HUD if you need one table maximized to fit it all. Or do you just have the font jacked up super large?
No. I have it jacked up in the back, not the front.
Patvs
02-13-2010, 08:47 PM
No one is working on a 1,648 pixels wide RUSH HUD support.... nor will it ever be a priority to do so.
The main thing on our priority list is: multi currency support and a currency convertor. (friday 18th feb is our official release date for this) The silly RUSH has sidetracked us yet again. The priority with RUSH, to be quite honest, is #1 to have a working HUD... #2 that doesn't crash, #3 that is accurate (with the OCR), #4 that is fast, #5 that supports 4-tabling RUSH (and playing a mix or different RUSH + regular tables) and #6 simply kicks the PokerTracker 3's RUSH HUD butt.
Table sizing... plays a part in OCR accuracy, hmhud.exe updates (HUD reliability), etc. But table size itself is not a priority. Tough luck for those that want to play 1 table in 1920x1200 using a 64 stat HUD that doesn't fit on a smaller table.
The Minder
02-13-2010, 09:01 PM
cajones itt... aft!
No one is working on a 1,648 pixels wide RUSH HUD support.... nor will it ever be a priority to do so.
Table sizing... plays a part in OCR accuracy, hmhud.exe updates (HUD reliability), etc. But table size itself is not a priority. Tough luck for those that want to play 1 table in 1920x1200 using a 64 stat HUD that doesn't fit on a smaller table.
I do not understand why it needs to be a "priority" to get it to work. I never said that it needs to be a "priority."
.... YOU're right that technically everything should just work the same only at a larger size...
Based on what you wrote above, it seems like 1,648 pixles is not very different from the smaller screens.
...I am very encouraged by the increase that was done, but at the same time I still have concerns. If it is difficult to get the screen to go from 750 wide up to 850 wide, then 1920x1200 is REALLY REALLY far away from where we are right now. That is why I say just skip the medium-size tables if that is the only way to get it done...
As you can see, that is my concern however, that it MIGHT be too much work. That is why I started this thread, to find out if it IS too much work.
Then I was asked about my HUD, and so I went ahead and answered some questions. But the questions that I answered about my personal HUD sidetracked the thread. No big deal, I was willing to answer them. But that's not the point of the thread.
Patvs
02-13-2010, 10:26 PM
If we get it to work on a 1920x1200 size table.... it'll be a side effect of the other RUSH HUD things we're trying to improve. The size already improved with the last hmhud.exe update.
Patvs
02-13-2010, 10:31 PM
I do not understand why it needs to be a "priority" to get it to work. I never said that it needs to be a "priority."
You said:
I need to play 1-table Rush with a 1920x1200 maximized screen.
If we START with the max screen support.... [...]
After we get the max screen support, then the more difficult smaller screen reading could be done.
So you're basically pushing to put maximized screen support higher on the priority list. I would personally prefer a focus on the smaller size tables, even if that is more difficult (the smaller the better)
I just recently edited my last post.
I think there is a misunderstanding here:
So you're basically pushing to put maximized screen support higher on the priority list. I would personally prefer a focus on the smaller size tables, even if that is more difficult (the smaller the better)
No. That is not what I am saying. I am suggesting that they skip the MEDIUM size tables, not the SMALL tables:
Please find out if it makes any sense to just skip the medium size screens, b/c if there is a limit to how many sizes they are going to do, then it makes sense to do the large size screen that I need... right?
I am not suggesting that they lower the priority of smaller tables, nor would I ever suggest such a thing.
If you review the thread, you will see that this was my intent. If I was not clear, then I am sorry about that.
But about this part:
I would personally prefer a focus on the smaller size tables, even if that is more difficult (the smaller the better)
I do not follow the logic there.
You said:
I need to play 1-table Rush with a 1920x1200 maximized screen.
If we START with the max screen support.... [...]
After we get the max screen support, then the more difficult smaller screen reading could be done.
So you're basically pushing to put maximized screen support higher on the priority list. I would personally prefer a focus on the smaller size tables, even if that is more difficult (the smaller the better)
Where did you get that quote from? Did you chop-up different sentences that I wrote? When I look at post #26 that you wrote, there is no link to the original quote!
Patvs
02-13-2010, 11:14 PM
The quotes are all from post #3. But you keep ranting about the 1920x1200 support in every post.
#1 I need to run my Rush HUD on a 1920x1200 maximized screen.
#5 I am more frustrated, however, about the possibility of HEM not supporting a 1920x1200 screen. I simply need it.
etc.
I do not follow the logic there.
Most people want to play either 4 tables RUSH.... or 1-2 tables RUSH + 2 to 14 other NORMAL tables. They can't play that many tables on one monitor without overlap if the RUSH tables need to be a certain size. So, I personally think, RUSH HUD working on smaller tables is more important than working on a single big table. As you've stated yourself: "there are only a few people who want the 1980x1200 screen size support."
The quotes are all from post #3.
Okay, then keep the sentences together:
...I know that there are only a few people who want the 1980x1200 screen size support like I do, but if we START with the max screen support, then would the OCR screen-scrape be more accurate? If so, then the names would be read correctly.
After we get the max screen support, then the more difficult smaller screen reading could be done. But as it is right now, everyone has problems with the name recognition. So why not get a max screen to work, and then work on shrinking it down?...
I asked if it was EASIER to do the large table. I asked if the large table would work with NO ERRORS FOR EVERYONE. I thought I was clear, and if I did not make that clear, then I am sorry. But I really thought I was clear.
...you keep ranting about the 1920x1200 support in every post...I personally think, RUSH HUD working on smaller tables is more important than working on a single big table. As you've stated yourself: "there are only a few people who want the 1980x1200 screen size support."
I think they are both important. If I could run 4+ rush tables, or 14 normal tables, then I would. But I can't so I don't. I am not only unable to process the information, but the eye strain from the small tables is too much.
I am also color-blind. Now take a look at this post here:
http://forums.holdemmanager.com/holdem-vision/24610-colors-used-holdem-vision.html
When I mentioned this to Holdem Vision Support, they did not get defensive. They were understanding. And at no point did they say that I was trying to put color-change in front of the rest of the project.
I do not want to put the priority of the large table above the priority of the small table. I would just like to use my HUD just like everyone else is able to use theirs. I do not think that the two goals are in conflict in any way. It just so happens that the large table might be easier to build than the small table. And there is also the additional factor that I simply have too much eye strain when I look at the small tables.
I do not think the two goals are in conflict.
Patvs
02-14-2010, 12:14 PM
I understand you want larger size table support.
The only reason I got defensive is because you've stated this enough times in this thread. (and in this thread: http://forums.holdemmanager.com/releases/26165-rush-hud-fully-supported-15.html#post127622 )
We've acknowledged your wish.
And as Morny wrote "well continue to work on improving the hud for smaller/bigger tables however i'm not sure at this point how big or small its possible to get this working with."
So now you think that I have not only done something wrong in this thread, but in another thread as well. If that is the case, then why not voice it in that thread?
It is clear from reading THIS THREAD that I at no point indicated that the large table is more important than the small table. You say that I am trying to change the priority, and I say that anyone who gives this thread an honest read will see that I did not try to do that.
You also say that I indicated that the large table was more important than the small table, but I did not. However, there IS an instance in this thread where someone compared the importance of the two tables:
I personally think, RUSH HUD working on smaller tables is more important than working on a single big table.
I did not do it. You did it.
you've stated this enough times in this thread.
I have not simply made statements. I have asked a question. I would like an answer, and I would like for you to not read anyting into the question.
...if we START with the max screen support, then would the OCR screen-scrape be more accurate?
I asked if it was EASIER to do the large table. I asked if the large table would work with NO ERRORS FOR EVERYONE.
That is my question.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.