Question is in the title. The display for some reason reacts poorly to color changes in images on watch faces, and the pixel counts for anything beyond the smallest watch 6 model? 450 is the only option, and as far as I know, only the watch 5 45mm had that size.
basically, step 2 of creating a project doesn’t work, because we cannot set the correct width and height of our watch face. If it was too big, that wouldn’t be an issue, and a 512 pixel canvas would be pretty good for everyone at the moment if it must be one size.
watch face studio works as expected, minus some color discrepancies on:
galaxy watch 5 pro
galaxy watch 5 44mm
galaxy watch 4 44mm
galaxy watch 4 classic 46mm
and does not fully support the displays for:
galaxy watch 7 ultra
galaxy watch 7 44mm
galaxy watch 7 40mm
galaxy watch 6 classic 47mm
galaxy watch 6 classic 42mm
galaxy watch 5 42mm
galaxy watch 4 42mm
galaxy watch 4 classic 43mm
I won’t get into the tizen nonsense, but this is a shame.
watch face studio isn’t fully compatible with a single lineup, and has only ever been fully compatible with well under half of their own watches.
it’s honestly gross that samsung treats its devs like this.
so you know what? I’ve already ordered a return on my watch, and went from watch 6 to watch 4, because at least it downscales to something approximating what I want, and was the last classic watch to receive full support… even if my version is only partially supported.
If I can’t put a supported watch face on a supported smartwatch, using supported software, then it’s not actually supported- and why would I want that smartwatch at all?
As I understand it, watch face studio canvas size 450x450 units does not necessary relate to the pixel size of the watch display, as various models have different resolutions. You are free to insert higher resolution images in the watch face and scale them to the canvas size. The resource files are stored in original resolution in the final package file. The closer the screen size to the oversized image, the better benefit from that, while the smaller will simply downscale more, no matter what “support” you may expect for them. Otherwise, to get the best of each model, you would have to prepare your watch faces specifically for each resolution.
If there is trouble even with larger resolution resource files on watches with screen larger than 450x450, then I suspect there is some double computing first to downscale to 450 as the cap for the watchface size and then up to 480 as the actual display size.
That moire is not from taking the picture, I can see it clearly normally.
on the watch 6 it is less clear, and some of the lines, even some of the 2 pixel wide lines, are grey.
Because of this, neither display can properly represent the image, and both have a moire, and if you look closely, they both have the same patterns and faded lines, though the watch 6 is more extreme, as it’s getting the “full resolution moire”, or scaled down, then back up to original, minus the sharpness, on a sharper display. Because of this, I believe they are both downscaled to 450px, then scaled back up or down properly by the watch OS.
Targeting a device with a properly scaled image would be far superior than this solution, as this would still happen (to a lesser degree) if the mandatory scaling was larger, not smaller, than the largest available watch.
feel free to try making your own test on what you have. check the list above to see what you should expect.
It seems to be as I was afraid it would be, when people started to report this more than year ago.
Seems they did not address this meanwhile, which I do not understand. They prepare flagship device HW and developers SW tool, or watch firmware is not supporting it to the fullest.
Actually I can not test it, since I did not want new device with the silly wear OS and hoped Samsung would get rid of it later on, but it seems they are fully invested. Seeing this issue being still around makes me sad, that I was right back then.
I must apologize, when I mentioned canvas before, it was more of a logical assumption, how would it make sense for the max project resolution not being updated with new watches coming out with better resolution. When opening new project it still proudly states its size will be fitted to 450 pixels square. And while the old version at least had there the clickable field to pick resolution, even though there was only one, the newest one does not even try to suggest there could be an option someday.
Interesting. It’s not impossible that this could be improved in WFS. WFF itself does not seem to have the same limitation (see here). It would be enlightening to try setting the exact resolution for a watch and see if that avoids issues.
That said, rescaling is the Android Way. There are too many different form factors for an app to be expected to support all of them without scaling. My latest Wear OS app supports 53 different types of watches, few of which would have identical hardware. I wouldn’t want to have to produce 53 different sets of resources to support them all.
About WFF and WFS, I believe one of the very missing points is to have:
All supported Tags by WFF (Distance KM/Miles, Compass, HR is measuring?, ecc…+ all the included as external complications by the complications suite of amoledwatchfaces)
CONDITION not just in Opacity but also in COLORS (like HR > 100 then Red else Green)
TOGGLE switch ON/OFF for many Elements (like Analog hands/Digital Time, complications and so on…) with the goal to let users turn ON/OFF elements in Personalization Settings.
Canvas size (450, 480, …)
All the sub-optimal crap we are forced to achieve with multiple layers, at the expense of CPU unnecessary usage (aka battery usage) and MB resources in the watchface that can be achieved with Condition of properties
Yeah, from what I can tell, They’ve just completely dropped the ball. No true support for any Galaxy Watch 5+ in watch face studio…
After two consecutive generations without anything but basic maintenance updates, should we consider WFS dead, or approaching abandonware?
does it even support complications or code that involve the new sensors on the watch ultra or watch 7?
I will say, though, that toggling things is very easy. it’s just multiplying the value by 0 in the case you want. For me the tag system is actually quite sufficient to even make the entire watch face change design based on biometrics.
look at the warning here.
I guess WFS is straight up abandonware, and with it, ease of use for making watch faces.
if this is true, it’s basically over. People like us can make watch faces, but the average person? no. I made my first custom watch face in like an hour. It was easy, and cool, and had custom fonts. and now to do the same thing I need to get an IDE, sign up for all kinds of stuff, and know XML?
I think that basically means Samsung has lost the smartwatch race, if they can’t even fund a WYSIWYG editor for putting an image on a display with XML. If they can’t fund that, how are they funding $500 biometric trackers with GPS and LTE and geomagnetic sensors that fit in a shot glass, and work when the glass is full of saltwater?
they’re either disrespecting us, or financially failing. I can’t imagine any other reason not to produce a visual editor for what is essentially text that changes, or a few spinning or translating images.
I’m confused. How did you come to this conclusion? There is literally a link to Watch Face Studio on the page you linked to… which I would think would lead most people to believe it is alive and well since we just recently got a 1.7.9 beta release.
