Author Topic: 800x600  (Read 18335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LtNarol

  • Biased Banshee
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th
some offbrand $10 8-16mb card, dont have the box anymore and im too lazy to dig through CT for the number, but its either 8 or 16mb

 

Offline EdrickV

  • Valued
  • 29
    • http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers
Well, there's your problem. You might want to consider saving up for an upgrade. There are some seemingly decent cards at good prices:
(Not New) MSI MS-8817 Nvidia GeForce2 MX 32MB AGP Video Card - PULLED OEM Chipset 2x/4X Interface: AGP 256-bit Resolution of 2048x1536 @75Hz / 30 day
(Part - PMS8817)
 $ 18
From PriceWatch.com
Looks like a good deal since there are more expensive 16 MB cards after it. It's in the "Not Exactly New" catagory. Shipping would be $9.00, but all in all it's cheaper then a card in the store. (Probably not as good, but I'm sure it's better then what you've got.)
And, even if new resolutions are added, (and to me that's a big if) we're not going to take 640x480 or 1024x768 out. :) As for me, I'm still happy with my V3. It does what I want it to just fine.
Ground - "Let me help you out, you're clear to taxi any way you can, to any runway you see."

Mesh Gallery/Downloads:
http://members.aol.com/ArisKalzar/Gallery.html
Turreting 101:
http://members.aol.com/EdrickV/FS2/Turreting.html

http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers

 

Offline LtNarol

  • Biased Banshee
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th
anything more than $10 is over my budget, especially seeing as i only have about $15 and some of that needs to go to other things.

 
You can stick with 640*480 if you like.  This doesn't mean that resolutions smaller than 640*480 should be added.  It's really not worth the effort.  On the other hand, resolutions higher than 1024*768 can have beneficial effects.  At the very least, there's a lot more people who want higher resolutions than those who want lower resolutions.
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 
Yeah - case closed. The bottom line is no one who wants to program is gonna do this since there's not enough behind it and no real good reasons too.

 

Offline EdrickV

  • Valued
  • 29
    • http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol
anything more than $10 is over my budget, especially seeing as i only have about $15 and some of that needs to go to other things.


That's why I said you might want to save up. Don't know if you have a job or what, but you probably have some method of getting money and if you save a little bit you can accumulate money. (If you saved $1 every week for a whole year you'd have $52.) And there are always birthdays, Christmas, donations from friends, whatever. If I had a card that did FS2 as badly as yours seems to I'd try saving what money I could to, eventually, buy a better card when my money exceeded the price of a decent new/used card. :) (There are cards under $10 these days, but not likely any better then what you have.) But you may have other things you need more so your financial situation is yours to deal with. :)
Ground - "Let me help you out, you're clear to taxi any way you can, to any runway you see."

Mesh Gallery/Downloads:
http://members.aol.com/ArisKalzar/Gallery.html
Turreting 101:
http://members.aol.com/EdrickV/FS2/Turreting.html

http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers

 

Offline LtNarol

  • Biased Banshee
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th
ok, im not going to spend a month's worth of savings on a new card if its going to be obsolete within half a year, i dont have that kind of income.  As for reasons to go smaller, i can think of plenty of reasons, first of which smoother gameplay and second, system resources freed for other things, you wouldnt notice a difference between 640*480 and 500*375, nor would you notice much from 800*600 (if any at all)

 

Offline Redfang

  • 28
Well, I can't explain all that texture map and resolution thing (because I don't know too much about them, just something), but when I tried FS2 with 1024x768 it really looked much better than with 640x480. But my computer didn't handle it too well, and I'm not going to upgrade. But I guess I'm getting a new computer someday. :nod:
 
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I have a 1400mhz Athlon (TB) running at 1450mhz, 512mb DDR RAM and a Geforce3 (non-Ti) running at 250/575mhz; as can be seen, the stuff is somewhat outdated by now, but I have had a good experience with overclocking and FS2 averages around 150fps on 1024x768x32 and max details. I might upgrade this machine depending on how UT2k3 and U2 run. ;)

 
I guess that's not outdated. And with the overclocks it's even less outdated.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
has anyone thought about something like mip mapping, basicly just have a supar dupar high resolution map and as you get closer to an individual poly on LOD 0  you aply the high resolution map were the normal low res one was
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote
I guess that's not outdated. And with the overclocks it's even less outdated.


I guess I am a little bit crazy here; anything that is not absolutely top-of-the-line is outdated to me. :p :D

 

Offline Grey Wolf

How exactly do you overclock a computer anyway?
You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard Shaw

 

Offline Redfang

  • 28
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670


I guess I am a little bit crazy here

 
Not only in that thing... :D:p
 
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
How exactly do you overclock a computer anyway?

 
From the BIOS (processor, FSB, memory), and video cards with tweak programs.

 

Offline Grey Wolf

But where would I get the tweak programs (hint: post a link, if possible)?
You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard Shaw

 

Offline YodaSean

  • 27
  • i am so special
    • http://www.geocities.com/radioactiveyeti
Quote
Originally posted by EdrickV

As far as reducing resolution, Direct X, as far as I know, supports 640x480, 640x400, 320x240, 320x200. (And of course higher resolutions which are irrelivent to the matter at hand.)


Actually I think DirectX can support just about any resolution you want(as in something weird like 423*380)

 

Offline EdrickV

  • Valued
  • 29
    • http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers
Quote
Originally posted by YodaSean

Actually I think DirectX can support just about any resolution you want(as in something weird like 423*380)


I thought I read somewhere, maybe in the DX6 SDK I used to have, that there are only certain resolutions you can use, both because the monitor has to support it and because DirectX has to support it. But I haven't been able to find anything in MSDN to confirm or deny it and don't have any DirectX (or Open GL) fullscreen programs I could test odd resolutions with.
Ground - "Let me help you out, you're clear to taxi any way you can, to any runway you see."

Mesh Gallery/Downloads:
http://members.aol.com/ArisKalzar/Gallery.html
Turreting 101:
http://members.aol.com/EdrickV/FS2/Turreting.html

http://members.aol.com/HunterComputers

 

Offline YodaSean

  • 27
  • i am so special
    • http://www.geocities.com/radioactiveyeti
Oops!  Your right.  I just tested it and it seems directx can do any resolution, but your hardware has to support it.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
any res even something like
17X4364
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol

increasing it would be pointless as unless you have a 24inch monitor, you wouldnt notice a difference unless you hacked the fs2 registry to use maps at 1028*1028 or larger and rescale the maps

at 500 meters or more ingame, everything looks very detailed, when you get to 50 meters, it can use some work, but even then, a 1024*768 screen setting would do little good if the maps are 256*256 (which in case you didnt know, all capital ship maps are).  In fact, even most fighter and bomber maps are 256*256 or smaller, with very few exceptions.


LtNarol, you're not fully making sense here.  Comparing texture map resolution with screen resolution is comparing apples with electron microscopes, they're not anywhere near the same thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that a game at 1024x768 is wasting resources to gain absolutely no graphical detail at all unless the texture maps are at 1024x768, right?

Then consider this.  A flatshaded untextured polygonal based game.  By your logic, that game would only need a resolution of 1x1 to look the best, right?  After all, the effective "texture map resolution" of the polys is only 1x1.  However, we all know that that isn't true.  The higher the resolution the better, even (ESPECIALLY) in flatshaded untextured polygonal worlds.  The screen resolution is used to draw sharper lines with fewer jaggies.  The extra pixels are used to draw more details on ships farther away.  Anyway, I (and several others) could jabber about this all day, so I decided to load up Jedi Knight 2 (as that's what I have handy at the moment) and take a few screenies to show off what I'm talking about.

There are six shots.  The first set is at 640x480.  The second set is at 1024x768.  The third shot is at 1280x1024.  None of these shots have been tweaked or anything, I went ingame, snapped a shot, changed settings, snapped the next shot, etc..

The first shot in each case is with textures set to "Very High" resolution, the second shot in each set is with textures set to "Low" resolution.  Compare for yourself.  I think you'll see that even with textures set at "Low" the 1280x1024 shot shows more detail than the 640x480, simply because it can more accurately project the mathematical coordinates of vertices of 3d polygons onto the pseudo-2d surface of your monitor.











"It is the year 2000, but where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars! I don't see any flying cars. Why? Why? Why?" - [size=-2]Avery Brooks from an IBM commercial[/size]

 

Offline LtNarol

  • Biased Banshee
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th
consider this: you have a screen set to 1024*768, you think you have such high resolution, heres the thing: thats rendering somewhere like twice the number of pixels renderd for 640*480, if not tripple (did the math already, dont feel like finding my calculator right now, but its up there somewhere).  Now consider what you get: resize all the pixel maps by the same factor you sized up the screen, so you keep the same ratio and effects dont look incredably tiny.  At the same time, if you dont scale up the texture maps, what do you get when you close in on a ship?  no better quality.  the only thing that would benefit from 1024*768 is the backgrounds and a few effects, but they look fine already on most monitors, 640*480 is more than enough for that.  Now if you scale up all the maps, somewhere like 60-100 or so (correct me if im wrong on this), you're puting in a lot of time and bigger maps like that will cost memory when the engine renders them.  Keep in mind your goal: better resolution in game.  If you dont scale up the texture maps for the ships, you gain nothing.  look at it this way: 1024*768 does NOT increase the resolution on maps unless the maps them selves is higher, the only time you'll see the maps better is at great distances when the pixels merge more, but thats why they invented the lod.  Unless you have something larger than a 17inch screen, you wouldnt notice the changes if you just change the screen.  If you increase the maps, it'll look better at closer distances, but like i said, thats more memory ingame.

hope that made sense to you.

 

Offline Redfang

  • 28
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol
Unless you have something larger than a 17inch screen, you wouldnt notice the changes if you just change the screen.  If you increase the maps, it'll look better at closer distances, but like i said, thats more memory ingame.

hope that made sense to you.

 
Have you ever tried some bigger resolution than 640x480? I have a 15" screen (:doh: ), and I think I believe my own eyes, not you. :rolleyes: If I tried 640x480 vs. 1024x768 in FS2 and it looked so much better then why should I believe you?
 
Also, if the game is running at 200fps in 640x480, it still should be running enough fps in 1024x768, so why play at that resolution? And if you would be running in 640x480, the game would be usually processor limited. So if you'd add 4xAA or increase resolution you might experience no[/i] fps drop. But of course you need a good videocard. :nod: