Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Screen Resolutions
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338200 is a reply to message #337798] |
Mon, 30 June 2008 11:15   |
 |
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
The HFOV stays the same between widescreen and "square" displays. UI being messed up is far less important than the stretched ingame display that occurs because of it
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338211 is a reply to message #337798] |
Mon, 30 June 2008 12:54 |
 |
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Technically, it gets stretched in the other direction (tall-wise) on a 5:4 ratio too (ala, 1280x1024 LCDs) making things skinnier than normal instead of fatter than normal, but it's far less noticeable because the difference is smaller between 5:4 and 4:3 than it is between 8:5 (16:10) and 4:3. Renegade was made for 4:3 and will look stretched horizontally or vertically (depending on the ratio) at anything but what it was made for.
To make it look normal for widescreen, you have to increase the FOV, which in my opinion is an advantage. Comparing higher-end hardware as an advantage is not the same as increasing how much you can see around you due to having a wider monitor. Having higher hardware lets the game run faster (what can't run Renegade fast today anyway?) and prettier, but changing the way the game works to allow those with a capable monitor to see more than others/more than what is intended is unfair. I agree it must be annoying stretched, but if the only fix is to change the FOV which gives them an advantage, I don't think it's the right solution. If it stretches it enough to be that noticeable, there must be alot of FOV that needs to be added to make it normal.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
[Updated on: Mon, 30 June 2008 12:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338218 is a reply to message #337798] |
Mon, 30 June 2008 13:21 |
|
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Yeah, but then that would be a disadvantage to those with widescreen monitors, no?
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338253 is a reply to message #338211] |
Mon, 30 June 2008 17:54 |
|
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Chuck Norris wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 15:54 |
Technically, it gets stretched in the other direction (tall-wise) on a 5:4 ratio too (ala, 1280x1024 LCDs) making things skinnier than normal instead of fatter than normal, but it's far less noticeable because the difference is smaller between 5:4 and 4:3 than it is between 8:5 (16:10) and 4:3. Renegade was made for 4:3 and will look stretched horizontally or vertically (depending on the ratio) at anything but what it was made for.
To make it look normal for widescreen, you have to increase the FOV, which in my opinion is an advantage. Comparing higher-end hardware as an advantage is not the same as increasing how much you can see around you due to having a wider monitor. Having higher hardware lets the game run faster (what can't run Renegade fast today anyway?) and prettier, but changing the way the game works to allow those with a capable monitor to see more than others/more than what is intended is unfair. I agree it must be annoying stretched, but if the only fix is to change the FOV which gives them an advantage, I don't think it's the right solution. If it stretches it enough to be that noticeable, there must be alot of FOV that needs to be added to make it normal.
|
Valve certainly doesn't think so. All Source 2007 based games now have a FOV slider to allow users to set their own FOV.
Neither does Epic, they have a console variable that allows setting of the FOV also.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338260 is a reply to message #338253] |
Mon, 30 June 2008 18:37 |
|
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
An option letting the user change the HFOV does not equal making the HFOV wider for widescreen resolutions.
I admit, this is a problem with no easy solution. Leave it as is and it's stretched (or you can have to play without the whole screen and it'll look correct), or increase the HFOV and it's an obvious advantage to those with widescreen monitors. Personally, I prefer the first, but I have no widescreen monitor, so I'll admit slight bias, but even if I did, I'd go with the option of running it 4:3, because even though "it's not taking up my whole monitor!", it wasn't intended to run at 16:10 but rather 4:3. By changing that, you're changing what it was designed for and it creates an imbalance. IF you're going to make true widescreen support, then at least do what they (Valve and Epic Games) did and implemented it as a choice for HFOV instead of giving users an advantage or disadvantage by locking it to be based upon something like their monitor.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
[Updated on: Mon, 30 June 2008 18:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338376 is a reply to message #338272] |
Tue, 01 July 2008 13:11 |
 |
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| KristyGirl wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 04:56 |
Let me get this straight, valve made Half Life and Half Life 2 and Epic Games made Unreal Tournment, correct?
|
Correct.
Also, to the person that said that hardware doesn't count as a advantage, I must say that it is not true.
Try to run renegade at the lowest of the lowest options. Now go play Under for ex. When you drive out of your (GDI) base, there should be an arti at the other side of the field. Normally you (CLEARLY) see what way the turret is pointing, even from that distance.
But with these settings, that's not the case. It'll look like a rectangular box, with the name "Mobile Artillery" under it...
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338462 is a reply to message #338376] |
Tue, 01 July 2008 22:43 |
|
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one.
Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338493 is a reply to message #338462] |
Wed, 02 July 2008 05:03 |
|
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 |
Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one.
Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range.
|
Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops.
And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times.
Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them...
Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases.
what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit.
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338545 is a reply to message #338493] |
Wed, 02 July 2008 11:06 |
|
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 |
| Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 |
Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one.
Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range.
|
Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops.
And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times.
Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them...
Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases.
what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit.
|
Let's have UT3 as an example. It defaults to 90 hfov for 4:3 displays. For 16:10 displays, it's around supposed to be around 100.38 to match the 4:3 display without stretching.
| Chuck Norris wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 21:37 |
An option letting the user change the HFOV does not equal making the HFOV wider for widescreen resolutions.
I admit, this is a problem with no easy solution. Leave it as is and it's stretched (or you can have to play without the whole screen and it'll look correct), or increase the HFOV and it's an obvious advantage to those with widescreen monitors. Personally, I prefer the first, but I have no widescreen monitor, so I'll admit slight bias, but even if I did, I'd go with the option of running it 4:3, because even though "it's not taking up my whole monitor!", it wasn't intended to run at 16:10 but rather 4:3. By changing that, you're changing what it was designed for and it creates an imbalance. IF you're going to make true widescreen support, then at least do what they (Valve and Epic Games) did and implemented it as a choice for HFOV instead of giving users an advantage or disadvantage by locking it to be based upon something like their monitor.
|
Except that most monitors stretch to fill the available area when running at lower resolutions. So it's a choice of being rendered incorrectly, or being stretched. Either choice would result in horrible quality because I have a widescreen monitor. Much fun, eh?
[Updated on: Wed, 02 July 2008 11:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338566 is a reply to message #338493] |
Wed, 02 July 2008 12:55 |
|
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 |
Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops.
And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times.
|
I don't have the 865 graphics, and my monitor, being a CRT, doesn't have a native resolution (nor is it set to 1024x768). I've tried Renegade on a computer that did have those graphics though. It defaults to all high but you should turn the particles down one notch as, for example, the added effect of flames spreading onto things will slow it down at the highest setting, but at high, even those graphics can play the game reasonably. The GeForce4 MX (GeForce2 level) defaults to high and runs good at high as well. If I remember right, Renegade's requirements were back in the era where they just listed the RAM your video card needed and that it needed T&L and that's basically it. They didn't list the GPU power needed but, for example, an ATi Rage (we're talking pre-Radeon era) would not play the game much more than a slideshow despite meeting that requirement. Yes, it's an advantage of having a constant 60FPS versus an average of 40-50 that drops a bit, but actually seeing something more than the game was designed for is something else, which brings me to this, which is what you questioned at the end of your post.
If it's only an increase of 10, then I guess it's no big deal then. I was thinking we were talking about quite an addition of view (110-115+) here. If you stop and look at the numbers though, 8:5 (16:10) and 8:6 (4:3), it only seems marginally shorter (wider), but they SEEM much wider physically, which is why I thought it'd need a big change.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 July 2008 12:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #338626 is a reply to message #338545] |
Wed, 02 July 2008 16:47 |
|
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Saberhawk wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 20:06 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 |
| Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 |
Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one.
Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range.
|
Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops.
And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times.
Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them...
Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases.
what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit.
|
Let's have UT3 as an example. It defaults to 90 hfov for 4:3 displays. For 16:10 displays, it's around supposed to be around 100.38 to match the 4:3 display without stretching.
|
As far as I know, that doesn't give much of an advantage, and certainly not more than having a better computer overall. Even today there are enough people that get (massive) framedrops when there is a "large" seige... While I don't have much troubles with that with my 7800GTX.
Is that fair? No.
Is it tolerably unfair? Yes.
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #339858 is a reply to message #338705] |
Tue, 08 July 2008 22:18 |
 |
renohol
Messages: 149
Registered: July 2007
Location: PST
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I'm very glad you brought this up because I've always played Renegade at its native 800x600, I believe, and always thought that changing it would cause more LAG...would going 1024X768, my windows resolution, cause lag or would it bring our "crisper" graphics, or what should I do? I play on a 10 year old 17inch regular CRT monitor by the way.
Thanks in advance...renohol
u du da thinkin' and i'll do da drinkin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #339860 is a reply to message #339859] |
Tue, 08 July 2008 22:36 |
|
renohol
Messages: 149
Registered: July 2007
Location: PST
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 22:26 |
graphics card?
|
I actually got duped into buying a computer with and on board chip 3 yrs ago, a radeon xpress 200 which seems to be as good or if not better than my old GF2 64.
u du da thinkin' and i'll do da drinkin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Screen Resolutions [message #339874 is a reply to message #339867] |
Tue, 08 July 2008 23:41 |
|
renohol
Messages: 149
Registered: July 2007
Location: PST
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 23:16 |
Yea you should be alright setting it to 1000x768 I have a crappy intel graphics card and use that res lol.
EDIT: Ram and Processor?
|
Ok, Ive got an AMD 3200+ processer and oly 384MB of RAM since 128MB are reserved for the on board graphic chip.
u du da thinkin' and i'll do da drinkin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Feb 12 23:52:07 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02193 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
