Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Spoon on April 23, 2011, 07:01:44 pm
-
According to steam, 1920 x 1080, 1680 x 1050 and 1280 x 1024 are the most popular.
-
And its showing in the poll already, after 3 votes.
-
1024x768 in retail
1280x960 in FSO
Responded with 'other'.
Incidentally, for 1280-width, you put in the 16:9 ratio and the 5:4 ratio but not the 4:3 ratio?
-
1024x768 in retail
1280x960 in FSO
Responded with 'other'.
Incidentally, for 1280-width, you put in the 16:9 ratio and the 5:4 ratio but not the 4:3 ratio?
Poll edited for your convenience :p
-
1024x768, but that was last time I ran it... 3.5. something?? I can't even remember. Now it would be 1440x900 dual screen desktop and 1280x800 laptop.
-
1440 x 900 on my high end desktop
EDIT: 1440 x 900 is also the native resolution of my monitor.
-
My laptop runs it quite nicely at 1920 x 1080. It's also the native resolution of the monitor it's linked too, so yeah.
-
Woohoo 1920x1200!
-
I run 1280x800 well enough, and with the hud fix FS is truly beautiful.
-
1280x720, because stuff I watch just happens to be 720p.
-
3840*1024
wihtin 2 weeks i'll run 5760*1080
Can't wait to play freespace with it :D
-
1280x960 here, since that's what I run this ol' hunk of CRT at. :p
-
1600x900, my Laptops native res.
-
I run it at 1440x900 keeping it clearly smaller than my actual true reso since i always stick with windowed mode.
-
Other - 1400x1050, 4:3 on a 1680x1050 screen. Don't like the distortion of interface otherwise.
-
1024x600...
Crappy crapbook is crappy...
I even go as far as 640x480 when running laggy mods like WIH.
-
1920x1080
-
1366 x 768 native for my External Samsung 32" TV :D
-
640x480. My PC dates back to 2005 and can't handle both MediaVPs and proper resolution without dropping to five frames per second. Since I have to get rid of one, I choose the latter.
-
1080p and averaging 70fps on Delenda Est :pimp:
-
I have a 1440x900 LCD and a 1600x1200 CRT. I only run FS2_Open on the CRT.
-
went 1024x768 but a quick check shows i must have bumped it to 1280x1024 at some point which is the highest resolution the launcher will let me set, so probably a technology limitation
-
1440x900. My monitor has a tendency to ***** when I don't run things at that res.
-
1080p. Shame my graphics card isn't really strong enough to support that resolution for any other game on this laptop.
-
Speaking of resolutions, I find it amusing that the self-listed "native" resolution of my CRT is 1280x1024, despite it being a standard 4:3 screen. I even measured the screen dimensions myself to confirm it. :p
-
Although I have 1680x1050 LCD, I'm running FSO at 1280x800, the smallest it can go with that aspect ratio.
I noticed there's no real improvement in visuals on a smaller resolution, but preformance does improve.
It gets annoying when error checking though (any error that pops up causes FSO to minimize, which in turn causes the display to return to the native resolution, which takes a while).
-
1280x720, and occasionally 1600x900.
-
And its showing in the poll already, after 3 votes.
:lol:
oh, and 1920x1200.
-
Although I have 1680x1050 LCD, I'm running FSO at 1280x800, the smallest it can go with that aspect ratio.
I noticed there's no real improvement in visuals on a smaller resolution, but performance does improve.
It gets annoying when error checking though (any error that pops up causes FSO to minimize, which in turn causes the display to return to the native resolution, which takes a while).
Try 'Run in window' in the Launcher's Dev Tool flags, that'll help.
-
I use the 1388x768 when the mission I'm playing doesn't make my computer mad. Else, I use 1024x768 windowed to have better performance (I think about some Blue Planet missions above all ^^)
My graphic card isn't very powerful, and my dream is to run freespace open with ALL graphic options activated :nod: it's so wonderful with normal maps, 3d shockwaves and advanced graphics... :(
-
1600 x 1200 here (for single player), on a screen recovered from a trashcan :lol: so the remanence effect is a little bit strong, that's an old screen...
And 1440 x 900 on the LCD screen of the laptop I use for Internet and multiplayer.
-
1388x768...?
You don't mean 1366x768 by any chance?
-
If I had seen this poll before this morning, I would have voted 1024x768, but now that I'm using the latest nightly build, which features a widescreen HUD, I now play FS2 at 1280x800 - the maximum resolution my MacBook is capable of.
/me has voted.
-
5760x1200. It is glorious.
-
5760x1200. It is glorious.
Pictures pls.
-
He's most likely using three 1920x1200 monitors.
I imagine it caused streching problems untill recently, but it's a possible, if expensive and performance hungry solution.
There was something that allowed multi munitor support in FSO (eyefinity, perhaps?), it pops up on the SCP board from time to time.
-
He's most likely using three 1920x1200 monitors.
I imagine it caused streching problems untill recently, but it's a possible, if expensive and performance hungry solution.
There was something that allowed multi munitor support in FSO (eyefinity, perhaps?), it pops up on the SCP board from time to time.
Yes, I am. The two side monitors are rather distorted, but they're meant to be used as peripheral vision, not looked at directly, so it doesn't matter as much as you might think. Both eyefinity and NVSurround (which I use) work in FSO; what they do is model all three monitors as one giant one.
And a screenie of Delenda Est:
(http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss133/starslayer67/screen0009.png)
-
1680x1050 My monitor's native res.
-
1280*1024 My stupid integrated card maximum resolution available , The text in command briefing on a mission I am doing , looks awfull x :confused: :confused:
-
I am running on nVidia FX 5200, so 1280*1024. I may be the lover of old technology but i like 4:3 much more than 16:9. Prehaps because i often read something on the computer and i have larger portion of the text, i dunno.
-
I've heard from a pro gamer friend of mine that 4:3 is better to play FPSes on than 16:9 (even if the 16:9 is hor+). Not sure why though.
-
Superstition.
Also, since the common 4:3 resolutions are far less pixel-intensive than widescreen ones, you can get a few extra FPS out of the engine.
-
Well, at the same diagonal display size 4:3 has more pixels than 16:9 or 16:10. Although you don't really see 4:3 displays larger than 20/21".
I still use 2048x1536 on a CRT. Note that FSO doesn't stress modern video cards at all, and you might as well use the highest resolution you have available. I have used this since 2005 and don't think I have ever seen a speed improvement with a new video card.
-
Well, at the same diagonal display size 4:3 has more pixels than 16:9 or 16:10. Although you don't really see 4:3 displays larger than 20/21".
I still use 2048x1536 on a CRT. Note that FSO doesn't stress modern video cards at all
War in Heaven :(
Definitely got a few extra FPS on Delenda Est when I upgraded.
-
There are certainly framerate drops in some places but they are hardly ever caused by a GPU limitation. The FSO engine has some weird bottleneck, apparently related to the collision detection, that makes the game tank in certain situations on any hardware. I think even my CPU upgrades over time haven't helped much with this.
-
While that is true, putting a lot of the War in Heaven ships onscreen at one time does seem to choke the GPU - upgrading got me a noticeable FPS increase on the bigger missions.
I agree about that bottleneck, though, it's intensely frustrating.
-
Well, it's like this. With optimal assets (optimal in this case meaning low texture count, good subdivision), FSO is CPU-bound due to being single-threaded. As assets get less well optimized (like the Karuna in WiH), the bottleneck moves to your GPU, or more accurately speaking, the texture memory transfer.
-
Fortunately, Swifty seems to be working on collision code improvements and BP is upgrading it's assets to be much better optimized.