Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Antares on October 12, 2003, 09:19:44 pm
-
Is there currently a version of FS_Open that will run FS2 in 640x480 resolution? My graphics card--one of the second-rate Intel integrated graphics controller kind--has real difficulty running FS2 in high resolution, as seems to be the FS_Open default.
Or, at least, it was the default the last time I downloaded the open source, which was some time ago. When I tried to run the launcher available at the time, I received a "cannot create device" error that would pop up no matter what mode I tried to play in, be it DX8 or not. Prior to that, I found I could use the .exe without the launcher (albeit in high resolution, which made play very sluggish). This, however, no longer worked either, since the launcher settings had saved themselves to the registry and kept giving me the same error. I'm no good at editing registry values, so I decided to start from scratch, uninstalling the open source as well as FS2.
When I tried to restart my computer, it wouldn't boot back up. Even when I used the "last good startup" in the XP setup, nothing would happen. I'd get the XP "Loading screen", and then everything would go black.
Congratulations, FSSCP. You killed my computer. ;)
All this was several months ago, of course, and doing an XP reinstall/repair fixed the problem--whatever it was--but it's not an experience I'd care to endure again. If I can't play FS_Open in a resolution that won't make my computer crawl (and preferably, if I can't set it up without a launcher that will make XP explode), then I'm afraid I can't play it at all. I really want to get the most out of the FSPort and Inferno, and I appreciate the work you guys are doing... but is there anything you can do in the way of lower resolution?
-
Hmmmmmmm... I think you'll find it's that integrated graphics card that's giving you so much grief. I cannot see SCP getting on with that at all :(
I'd recommend upgrading you graphics card if it's possible, you might have to get hands on with the motherboard to disable your onboard one though.
Good luck!
Flipside :D
-
640x480 is already in FS_Open
-
Yeah, because most Mboards with integrated video chips don't have an AGP slot.
If that is the case, you can get a PCI graphics card instead.
-
Geforce FX 5200 comes in PCI flavor.:)
-
FX PCI? Hmm... that seems to defeat the point a little...
-
What point?
-
i'd like to see more resolution options like most games have.
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x1024
-
Doesn't defeat any point seeing how badly the 5200 seems to perform anyways. =(
It's always funny seeing the lowest end of a card from the previous generation costing more than a newer one (ti4200 vs fx5200).
-
Hey! My FSO even has 1600x1200 resolution. I don't know if it works, because I rely on only 640x480. :D
-
[q]Hey! My FSO even has 1600x1200 resolution. I don't know if it works, because I rely on only 640x480.[/q]
It won't, it'll just kick back with an initialisation error.
-
OK. I mentioned I never tried it. Because my monitor cannot handle a resolution like that. :p
And what about 800x600? :nervous:
-
Integrated graphics in general should not be used on a game like this. They're fine for 2D stuff though.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I'd recommend upgrading you graphics card if it's possible, you might have to get hands on with the motherboard to disable your onboard one though.
Good luck!
Flipside :D
nope, just find the integrated chip in device manager and remove the device after you slap in your new card...
then just reboot....
-
Originally posted by Drew
nope, just find the integrated chip in device manager and remove the device after you slap in your new card...
then just reboot....
That most likely will not work...the hardware still exists and Windows will either automatically install a driver for it or attempt to install a driver for it.
Either you will need to change a jumper setting on the board (a physical switch that controls settings) or...you will need to go into the motherboard BIOS (press DEL at start) and disable the video card. That is assuming that your board even lets you do such a thing.
Again, removing the driver via the device manager serves no real purpose in terms of disabling the hardware itself. That has to be done at a much lower level than the OS. Not that its bad advice, its a good idea to remove any trace of it from Windows in any case.
-
i dont know but i think u can do it in bios (like disabling onboard sound)
anyway in windows cant u set your primary display adapter from 2 or more?
-
If you have problems with the launcher e-mail me.
I dont have time to search through forums to find problems.
If you want it fixed make the effort to contact me directly and use the text caps generator to give me your system info.
I admit in the past I've made some code mistakes but theres no way the launcher caused a total OS system failure like that. You maight want to run scandisk or something.
As far as the mode stuff goes, I've done some research in this area. You would be surprised how little difference it makes. Perhaps thats just cos I have a small monitor.
It will probably get done at some point. If not by me, by some other driven individual. Everyone is slogging it out on HT&L or other things that will probably have a great benifit.
-
My brother once had a similar problem on his old P133 back in the Win95 days. Every time he tried to reinstall his OS, even with an intact complete DOS install, it would crash during the Windows setup. He too replaced his power supply with a 300W unit (which was saying alot in those days) and that still did nothing. He eventually fixed the problem by replacing one of his memory modules. He had 4x8MB 72pin (ya, the old days) and it turned out that replacing one of them did the trick. He just had to find out which one was the bad apple. The same thing could be causing your difficulties.
Later!
-
Originally posted by Carl
i'd like to see more resolution options like most games have.
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x1024
Have a shot at 1280x1024 or higher (D3D only).
This is preview code just so you can take a peek at the difference (or lack in my case). You will need to use the new launcher provided and check the 'Allow non standard modes' box.
Dont complain about non crash bugs, its not finished.
http://mysite.freeserve.com/thomaswhittaker/c_code/freespace/fs2_open_r.rar
http://mysite.freeserve.com/thomaswhittaker/c_code/freespace/Launcher.rar
-
bump
-
There are many different resolutions in the Launcher the only ones that work are 640x480 and 1024x768.
I've asked the question about resolutions before and they told me that they would have to come up with new interface art.
So I've basically given up on the question.
Just stick to 1024x768 or 800x600 and crank up the anti-aliasing as far as your video card can take.
I have a 9000 Radeon and have got the anti-aliasing to 4x on 1024x768 and 6x on 800x600. Removes most of the jagged edges:)
-
Are you using the launcher and fs2_open exe from this thread?
-
downloading now. :)
-
This seems the best place for this:
I'm not sure if its my video card or not, I think I have on of those intergrated thingummys anyway, but both of the Direct3D settings are very laggy.
So instead I use OpenGL. It has no lag at all, and looks about the same as the Direct3D (I think). BUT! I always get these wierd square clouds around backgrounds, warpmaps suns etc.
Heres a pic, so you can see what I mean.
http://bludlust0.tripod.com/Files/Funny_clouds.JPG
Is this my video card? Something I can fix? Or am I just lucky?
Oops, the link doesn't work. Oh well, I'll explain it better. Each map, eg Warp, is surrounded by a perfectly square, cloudy image, like you get sometimes if you dont get that right shade of green in the interface stuff, only its not green.
There, that should be enough to confuse you! :ha:
-
1280x1024 is bad. I'm surprised it became a standard resolution. 1280x960, on the other hand, is much better.
The point is that 1280x1024 isn't a 4:3 aspect-ration resolution, which means pixels aren't exactly square, but rather rectangular.
-
Great stuff, this high resolution graphics. :yes:
Can't wait until the interface problems are sorted out - it must be a tedious job.
-
I hope you include support for some of the midrange resolutions. For my desktop I'm currently using 1152/864, as all the settings between that and 1280/1024 were not for the standard monitor shape.
Later!
-
Fry_Day:
When you click that 'allow' button you get all the modes DX8 allows above 640x480. No matter how silly the ratio is.
Trivial Psychic:
Run the launcher in DX8, I would be really interested to know what options you get. Use save D3D caps to textfile, send me that and that will have the whole list.
Bludlust:
DX8 is slower, we will hopefully sort that out as part of our htl update. As for the OGL problem, either find Phreak and tell him or but a bug in bugzilla. http://fs2source.warpcore.org/bugzilla/index.cgi
Ypoknons:
Thanks
-
My 17" TFT supports 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024.
The pixels in 1280x1024 ARE square. Of course, they're square in the other modes too, despite the obvious aspect ratio paradox in this case. I've no idea how Proview managed to bend space like that...
-
It's very simple. Your monitor's viewable area has a 4x3 aspect ratio. For pixels to be square, either the ratio between the number of horizontal pixels and vertical pixels must be equal to 4x3, or only a portion of the viewable are can be used (Think playing a widescreen movie on a regular TV). Otherwise, the pixels won't be exact squares, but rectangles. No going around it.
It's extremely noticeable in old mode 13h programs (Mode 13h is 320x200x256 colors), in which a function that draws a plain circle would generate an ellipse, and to draw what would appear as a circle, you had to draw an ellipse that took the strange aspect ration into account.
Monitors that support 1280x1024 generally support 1280x960, but drivers generally don't let windows use that resolution for the desktop.
Of course, the whole point is moot, considering the fact that D3D should not care one way or another (Even though the interface will look either ugly or slightly out-of-place, due to uneven scaling)
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Trivial Psychic:
Run the launcher in DX8, I would be really interested to know what options you get. Use save D3D caps to textfile, send me that and that will have the whole list.
Actually, I've got a version with the currently-unsupported resolutions, removed from the list, but the version I used before that had all resolutions listed. What I meant was, when the new interface graphics are made, both in and out of combat, that versions are made for the resolution I refured to and not just jumpt right from 1024/768 to 1280/1024. I didn't mention those other 1280/xxx resultions because of their differing screen proportions.
Later!
-
Regardless of resolution, all my screen modes fill the screen. No idea how.
And the four I mentioned are the only ones supported. The screen goes into lockup when I try to use 1280x960. Pity, really, since most games choose to support that one instead of 1280x1024 and so I have to use 1024x768, which due to the way in which TFTs handle resolutions that are not a factor of the maximum, looks crap.
-
I would try to make a 1600x1200 rather than 1280x1024
I know only few will be able to run it, but it's obvious that there aren't much differences between 1280 and the already present 1024, and a 1600x1200 will have more sense on the long run
-
Its all the same, if I do the work for one res it is done for all.
-
perfect:)
-
Originally posted by Carl
i'd like to see more resolution options like most games have.
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x1024
Ick, but think of redoing all that interface art... :ick
-
you can rescale it. it wouldn't look as nice though.
-
That's why some of us keep babbling about resize algorythms, *or downsize actually- or 2D vectorgraphics support for the interface.
...as well as support for video/ani resize as you would do with any video file you play on WMP.
-
Produce the interface graphics for highest resolution, then have the game resample them at lower resolution and save to an offscreen surface.
-
Im working on image stuff at the moment.
I hope to add that kind of scaling support you are talking about.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Produce the interface graphics for highest resolution, then have the game resample them at lower resolution and save to an offscreen surface.
It was already suggested some time ago...
Though the idea itself is quite good.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Produce the interface graphics for highest resolution, then have the game resample them at lower resolution and save to an offscreen surface.
You willing to redo all the 1000 pcx and ani files needed to do this?
-
pish. just make the screen smaller with black borders.
-
And if you're using 1600x1200 half the screen would be black border!
-
OK, this was meant to make people happy not argue, please before making any more posts understand the following:
1. All modes are offered to you because it took one code change to do them all.
2. You can go at a high (or even lower) res and use the original data which is stretched (and looks Ok I reckon)
3. If I manage to complete my current work then you will be able to make a hi res 32 bit texture and if the user wants to run 16 bit at a lower texture deinition then the engine will scale it for them
Point three is not valid if you own a voodoo card (3 or worse)
-
I'm still kind of confused as to why the menu graphics need to have the same resolution as the ingame 3D graphics. Most games actually use different resolutions for the two and change them as needed while the game is running; FS2 is one of the very few games I have seen that has them locked together.
-
It's not menu graphics that are the problem, because the SCP COULD set the menu to always run at 640x480. The problem is the ingame cockpit graphics.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
It was already suggested some time ago...
Though the idea itself is quite good.
Let me guess .... The thread where it had been suggested sank down before any of the SCP guys could see it.
-
I can't believe that many people responded to this post. All I wanted to do was ask a simple graphics question, not get advice on installing a new video card or inciting a riot over various display modes. :eek2:
All of this is kinda moot anyway, as I downloaded FS_Open 3.5.5 (phreak's 10/04/03 build) and used RandomTiger's newest launcher. Everything worked fine, no apparent problems. There are a few glitches I noticed that I'll list here for completeness's sake, but certainly nothing that crippled my gameplay.
--Not a bug, a feature! :D The "shinemaps" are all visually stunning, and make it much easier to make out the silhouettes of the Terran and Vasudan vessels. By contrast, Shivan vessels are unfairly hard to see when not cast against another, more visible object, but when you see them in the proper lighting, they're quite impressive. I thought one ship had pretty funky-looking maps, but offhand, I can't remember which one it was; it might have been either the standard Amazon drone or the Erinyes, as I remember thinking that those ships didn't look quite as "decked-out" as many others. The GTI Arcadia and the GTD Orion, in particular, look marvelous. All sparkly and shiny and WHOOSH.
-- FS_Open seemed to crash an inordinate amount of the time on the fourth mission, "A Lion at the Door", for reasons unknown. I'm guessing that the presence of the Knossos might have been a contributing factor, as I only have 128 MB hard memory and 188 virtual, but I don't recall any problems in other missions where the Knossos was present. I crashed when I'd hit afterburners and go after the Mephisto freighter "Maul"; after two or three crashes, when I focused upon the cruiser Behemoth instead, there were no problems.
--Another feature. :D Enemy AI is insane. I'll never get over the "kickstand" maneuver of simply killing engines and firing from a stationary position, as a human player would do. The fighterbeams-eradicating-shields also takes a little getting used to.
--Whenever I try to access the Barracks in the Terran main hall, FS_Open crashes to desktop. I can remember this back from 3.5.3. I've never tested it in the Vasudan Main Hall.
--The "incoming missile" icon on the rim of your radar is gray. In the original game, it was a yellow-orange hue. This is such a small point of note, I wasn't sure if it was intentional or not.
--The old "telling one wing of fighters to ignore something causes all other fighters and capships to ignore it too" bug is still present.
--In the FS2 devdiary, there's a comment about how the Crystal of a Shivan Comm Node only seems to take damage when you fire around the "ends" of the Crystal. The devs claimed this bug was fixed, but every time I've played the game, both retail and Open, it's been present. Is this a render/texturing problem, or something in the source?
--Ship displays in the ship selection/loadout screen act wonky. The weapons displays still possess the nifty wire-frame-computer-texturing effect, but the ship displays have all been replaced by slowly-rotating models of the craft in question, like those seen in the tech room. In several missions, even these models don't appear, and the ship display is left totally blank.
A long-standing bug I've suffered ever since my initial purchase of the game has been missing tech room entries. The Terran and Vasudan sections seem complete, at first glance, but a huge chunk of the Shivan section is missing. Virtually all of the fighters and bombers are gone, there are no entries for either the Demon or the Moloch, and the Shivan Comm Node is gone as well. This is all after I've already completed the game, so there's nothing left I'm supposed to "discover". I suppose this could be a corrupted or incomplete file on the CD (I purchased my copy from what is now a GameStop outlet; it came with the original box and CD sleeves, but no manual, leading me to think it was a used copy), but if that was the case, wouldn't the ramifcations on the game be wider than a few missing tech entries?
Oddly enough, way back when I played Derelict, the mod installed full and complete tech room entries. Go figure.
Sorry for not reporting these little things through Bugzilla channels, but they seem fairly obvious to me, and I imagine that anyone with a fairly astute eye has probably reported them to the coders already.