[spzattk]

Hi, I'm having a minor problem with fp2. When I put the game in 1400 x 900 resolution, the original background and targeting boxes (the box that appears around a ship when you target it) move around when I move the ship (not including nebula). For example, when I target a ship 2000m away, the box is in the middle, but when I move up, the box moves up too. It seems as if the targeting system isn't adapting to the change in resolution, and is acting like it's still at 640 x 480.

[fsphiladelphia]

Hi, I'm having a minor problem with fp2. When I put the game in 1400 x 900 resolution, the original background and targeting boxes (the box that appears around a ship when you target it) move around when I move the ship (not including nebula). For example, when I target a ship 2000m away, the box is in the middle, but when I move up, the box moves up too. It seems as if the targeting system isn't adapting to the change in resolution, and is acting like it's still at 640 x 480.

It must be asked, why are you putting the game in that resolution?

[spzattk]

With the original resolution, the game looks sort of blurry. With the higher resolution, the game looks more clear and crisp. It makes the graphics look much better in my opinion.

I was able to get the stars off, but the targeting boxes still move around. It's not really a problem though, because when I face the middle of the target box it centers around the ship anyway. It's only when I'm turning away from the ship. I'm just wondering if there's a way to make it target normally.

[fsphiladelphia]

Those are nice shots -- however, it is possible to get a very crisp looking game if you run it in 1024x768, 1280x1024, or even 1600x1200 -- all of which are standard resolutions that the game may handle better.  I don't know enough about the SCP or FSO to be able to say if the program has problems running in widescreen, but that may have something to do with the issues you are experiencing.

What antialiasing settings and anisotropic filtering settings do you have on?  That can make a large difference in the clear/crisp departments, also.

[Col. Fishguts]

The HUD is designed for 4:3 resolutions like 640x480 or 1024x768. If you use a different aspect ratio, the HUD gets squeezed and parts of it end up in the wrong place. Nothing you can do to fix that, unless the coders rework the HUD.

[Herra Tohtori]

With the original resolution, the game looks sort of blurry.

Well, if you run games on LCD monitor with non-native resolution (like, for example you have 1280x1024 monitor and try to run games at 1024x768), you get blurryness and sqeezing and all kinds of nasty stuff because the monitor's pixels are not aligned to the picture's pixels.

Some LCD monitors have multiple native resolutions, however. For example the monitors on my parents' PC's (dad's work PC and a family PC) can be used with both 1024x768 and 1280x1024 without mentioned problems.

CRT monitors are better in that regard, they basically don't have any particular native resolution... all resolutions should result in clear image, but obviously when resolution drops  enough the image has less detail (well duh)...

[Bob-san]

There are some hacks I hear that turn extra LCD space into black bars... it would be helpful on a 20" Wide LCD (1400x1050) to run it on 1280x1024 (turn the extra space black, keep it 4:3)

[Herra Tohtori]

1280:1024 = 5:4

1024:768 = 4:3


That's one of the things I have many times wondered... For decades, 4:3 ratio was used in monitors, but then the LCD technology became more popular and for some reason they are manufactured to 5:4 ratio.

Most likely that's because it was too expensive to make 1600*1200 resolution monitors and, more importantly, PC's that could deal with that kind of resolution until recently... but the manufacturers wanted to have higher resolution than 1024*768. Enter 1280*1024...

This difference in aspect ratios causes some problems with some games in itself, by the way. For example, if I recall correctly IL-2 Sturmovik series games don't even have 1280*1024 resolution setting available out-of box; you have to install third party add-on (Shturmovik Stab) to enable some hidden graphics modes, including higher shader levels and native TFT/LCD resolution 1280*1024. That add-on is kinda must to have anyways, though...

[CP5670]

Actually, 1280x1024 has been around long before LCDs became common. I first saw it in Descent 2, a 1996 game, and the manuals for most 4:3 CRTs actually list that as one of the standard resolutions instead of 1280x960. I've heard that it gained acceptable over 1280x960 because it was the highest resolution that would fit in the framebuffers on 4MB video cards, and weird aspect ratios were actually somewhat common in those days. I guess this resolution got carried over when LCDs started to be mass manufactured.

[fsphiladelphia]

I dig 1280 x 1024.  It's huge and easy on the eyes.

[Bob-san]

Only bad point is 1280x1024 maxes out at 60hz on most CRT monitors; I can't afford a LCD so I'm stuck with a 17" CRT.

[fsphiladelphia]

Only bad point is 1280x1024 maxes out at 60hz on most CRT monitors; I can't afford a LCD so I'm stuck with a 17" CRT.

I have windows set to 1280x1024 but my highest option is 75hz.  It looks sort of fuzzy/weird at that level, so I have it set to 72hz so I don't get a headache, have a seizure, or go blind.  19" lcd monitor.

[Bob-san]

CRTs flicker under 72hz... headache. LCDs should be fine with 60hz.

[fsphiladelphia]

CRTs flicker under 72hz... headache. LCDs should be fine with 60hz.

Yeah, agree, but it seems to be comfortable on the eyes at 72, so I'm just going to leave it for now.

[Bob-san]

Mine is set at 75hz. It works for me... when I do switch to 1280x1024 at 60hz it keeps the image pretty much centered. Also, 70hz seems to me to flicker, and 75hz is smooth on Ubuntu (72hz wouldn't work for me).

[CP5670]

Only bad point is 1280x1024 maxes out at 60hz on most CRT monitors; I can't afford a LCD so I'm stuck with a 17" CRT.

They get much better as you go up with the size. In the 21/22" range, there are many models with a 130khz horizontal scan rate that will do 120hz at 1280x960 and are still fairly easy to obtain used, along with a handful that do 140hz at that resolution.

[fsphiladelphia]

Great, so I can get much better monitor options for a mere, say, $500 or so?

 

Hell, I might as well start thinking about getting a new monitor.  I knocked this 19 incher off my desk shortly after buying it and it now has two 'dark' areas.  I think it is still under warranty (2 years?) so maybe they'll replace it?  Who knows.

Anyhow, I just ran the Doom 3 demo, and it played amazingly smooth with all the settings maxed out.  Apparently this 7600gt really is pretty decent paired up with the rest of my computer.  I'm trying the Quake 4 demo next.  I feel like I just bought and xbox 360!

[Herra Tohtori]

Have you tried any overclocking yet?

Since your GF7600GT is an eVGA card, it doesn't even void the warranty (as far as I know they allow overclocking and still keep the cards under warranty).

[fsphiladelphia]

Have you tried any overclocking yet?

Since your GF7600GT is an eVGA card, it doesn't even void the warranty (as far as I know they allow overclocking and still keep the cards under warranty).

I haven't, but if it's running the stuff I'm trying at the maximum settings without any slowdown, then I guess there's no reason so far.  I mean, even in the worst moments of FSO I'm still only dropping to 30fps.  I only bought it for FSO but it's doing so well so far I just keep wanting to try more stuff.

What's are the toughest things to run?

[Herra Tohtori]

Mmmh... I guess the biggest effect would be on memory bandwidth increase. There's no pixel pipelines unlockable in 7600GT, and the core can only do so much if the textures get bottlenecked to the memory.

I run my 7600GT on about 722/1740 MHZ for core and memory respectively, which is a huge increase from the default settings, which are on 650/1600 MHz on this card, but it's from XFX and it practically has factory built voltage mod and other fancy stuff...and I believe it is a positively flawed card to boot. Funny detail and a stroke of luck, the card is supposed to be an "XFX GeForce 7600 GT XXX-edition", but on XFX's pages they say that those cards are supposed to have frequencies of 590/1600 MHz. So I've got 60 MHz extra from the promised frequencies even on default settings, and as the card seems to be particularly good to overclock I really got worth my money on this one.

I believe stock 7600GT has frequencies of 560/1400 MHz per core and memory... so if you compare stock GF7600GT and my anomalous turbo-version, mine has about 24% memory bandwidth boost and about 29% core speed boost, assuming that core speed is directly proportionate to the core frequency and other variables remain the same. The effect might not be cumulative for FPS rates, but it does increase 3DMark results where 3D abilities are concerned. Don't remember the exact ratios, though.