Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: RandomTiger on October 15, 2002, 10:30:29 am
-
Hi there, Im one of the coders working on the DX8 upgrade for FS2. I just realised that we havent bothered keeping support for
640x480 and I was wondering if anyone actually gives a damn.
-
at the current moment, I do need it. I'm getting my PC upgraded (or actually, a completely new PC) in a month or so, but so far, I'm still running 640x480.
And there are others.
-
OK, well since you didnt vote I voted for you :)
I will put it onto the todo list then, the more votes it gets the higher priority it will get.
-
i always play in lo-res, because I hate doing everything for MODs twice. Anyway, I think you should drop lo-res for the DX8 upgrade. If a person can't handle hi-res for fs2, ( Correct me if I'm wrong ) but they might not be able to even run DX8. I think you should just screw lo-res, and go for hi-res.:D
-
I cannot run FS2 at 640x480 at all for some reason even if I wanted to; it seems to simply crash to windows. Actually, I personally would like to see all menus in 1024x768 at all times, with the resolution setting only affecting in-game stuff.
-
That would require you switch devices which would be ugly.
-
My computer could handle 1024*768, but my old monitor can only go up to 800*600, so no high-res for me. :( If there is no 640*480 support in the fs2_open, I'll be an extremely unhappy camper.
-
Dont worry people, Im currently looking into it and it looks to be quite easy so I'll just chuck it in now. First time I've ever seen FS2 in that mode, very compact.
Your totally right, we have to provide for you low spec people.
-
Originally posted by Hades
i always play in lo-res, because I hate doing everything for MODs twice. Anyway, I think you should drop lo-res for the DX8 upgrade. If a person can't handle hi-res for fs2, ( Correct me if I'm wrong ) but they might not be able to even run DX8. I think you should just screw lo-res, and go for hi-res.:D
what about the ppl who either a) like low res or b) peaple that there pcs crash and have to use a win 95 with voodoo(me right now) and yes windows 95 will work with dx8 so don't slam my low res man :(
-
OK, well I've got it working, but if you want to be sure you'll have to join the tester list and test it yourself.
-
That would require you switch devices which would be ugly.
Well, what I was thinking was to have it so that all menu stuff is displayed in a strictly 2D mode, which is what many other games out there seem to use. Currently I think the game also renders the menu stuff as 3D components (this can be seen in the antialiased menus).
-
It is being rendered in 2D through D3D as a pre transformed and pre lit poly.
The antialiasing problem is due to the fact it uses texture sections. This is something I intend the DX team will sort out for you while we are in there. Mmmm... nice edges. :wink:
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Dont worry people, Im currently looking into it and it looks to be quite easy so I'll just chuck it in now. First time I've ever seen FS2 in that mode, very compact.
Your totally right, we have to provide for you low spec people.
...
OK, well I've got it working, but if you want to be sure you'll have to join the tester list and test it yourself.
*sheaths intimidating weaponry*
Ah, very good. Thank you, RandomTiger! :)
-
FS2 looks better in lo-res, and you hardly notice! I showed it to a mate and he thought it was at least 800*600! anyway, in 1024*768, everything is spread out all over teh frelling place and it looks ugly.
-
(http://www.ijbrooks.demon.co.uk/tom/bigwtf.gif)
-
Erm, just one tiny question:
Since you're subdividing the screen into power-of-two tiles, how hard would it be to get support in for an arbitrary 4x3 aspect-ratio resolution, instead of the hard-coded ones?
Granted, the 2d might look worse, since it's streched (Though, technically, I believe that if you use the D3D_NEAREST texture filter for 2d stuff, since the aspect ratio is the same, it should look identical), but I'd like to run FS2 at 1600x1200 on my AthlonXP 1700+ & GeForce4 Ti 4200. Since (correct me if I'm wrong) you're giving floating-point coordinates for the drawing stuff, they should be scaled by the gfx card anyway.
-
I've thought about that and its something I may look into further.
But the location of the all the 2D stuff is absolute intergers which is an arse.
Probably more likely to happen is dropping use of texture sections so us GF4 (and whatever other cards can do it) can use anti aliasing which makes it look like its at a higher res effectively.
-
so how will the interface be drawn? D3DLOCKEDRECT?
-
Either as one big texture or as it is but switching off the anti - aliasing in the halls to stop it showing up the edges.
Even todays rubbish cards seem to support 1024x1024 textures min. Might be the best choice considering not all cards supporting AA will be capable of switching.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of th VBB
FS2 looks better in lo-res, and you hardly notice! I showed it to a mate and he thought it was at least 800*600! anyway, in 1024*768, everything is spread out all over teh frelling place and it looks ugly.
Either:
1. Your video card is a POS.
2. You haven't used the reghack that enable 512x512 textures.
3. Your monitor is a POS.
1024x768 looks fantastic on my GF3. Hell, I could run it at 32-bit mode just fine on an old K6-2 350 with only a 16MB TNT1!
-
Could someone lock this thread please?
-
I'm no admin, but I see no reason why this topic should be closed. Nobody's doing anything wrong.
-
It not relevent anymore, I've implemented low res in DX8.
-
Yeah, but we can still have people alk about their hi-res problems. Its funny sometimes, people doing the most obvious things wrong.
So, will DX8 be implemented in the next source code release?
EDIT: Not that anybody so far has done anything stupid:D
-
Originally posted by Hades
So, will DX8 be implemented in the next source code release?
If its finished when the next release happens, when ever that is, which is probably when DX8 is finsihed.
So when will DX8 be finsihed? Unknown. :wtf:
Hmmm....
-
Originally posted by MD-2389
Either:
1. Your video card is a POS.
2. You haven't used the reghack that enable 512x512 textures.
3. Your monitor is a POS.
1024x768 looks fantastic on my GF3. Hell, I could run it at 32-bit mode just fine on an old K6-2 350 with only a 16MB TNT1!
I was talkin'bout the interface and the HUD, not actual ingame action.
-
nevermind
-
i don't think anyone should need to run a three year old game on 640x480, unless they got there computer from the salvation army :rolleyes:
-
i do ;)_
-
Originally posted by Carl
i don't think anyone should need to run a three year old game on 640x480, unless they got there computer from the salvation army :rolleyes:
I have this old monitor that has been kicking around forever, and is still going strong, and only goes up to 800*600, and I like it, so :p
;):)
-
Either way it doesnt matter because I've now added low res functionality, could someone please close this thread, its totally pointless now.
-
Originally posted by Carl
i don't think anyone should need to run a three year old game on 640x480, unless they got there computer from the salvation army :rolleyes:
I got my trusty V3 specifically for FS2 and Descent 3. Don't feel like spending money I can't afford on upgrading it in order to play FS2. :) It can do 1024x768 now that I got the high res vp installed, but I'm not sure it could do it well and it doesn't look so good on a 15' monitor. (1024x768 is the optimum resolution for 17' monitors, 640x480 is for 14' monitors. As I understand the idea, the same text in 640x480 on a 14' should look the same size on a 17' monitor in 1024x678. The latter would have more overall space though.)
-
I use a 14' monitor and wouldnt think of using anything less than 1024x768
-
Ohh man, I think I would die if I had to revert back to a 14" monitor. I lurb my CTX 17" monitor. :)