Best Resolution To Use?
arealous
Join Date: 2005-03-28 Member: 46709Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-03-28 Member: 46709Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Currently at 800x600</div> I use 800x600 on my 19 inch flat crt monitor. I have been using this for a long time because it is what I was used to in competitive CS and many other FPS games I played a long time ago. However, I find many people use 1024x768 or above, is there any reason to this? I turned my res up to 1024 for awhile, and I seemed to do well with it at first, but later I just noticed I was uncomfortable with it and playing badly. At this point, I am no longer comfortable with either and am testing which one I play better at. What is the reason you all use your specific resolution, or perhaps did you just randomly choose what looked best? Thanks for the feedback in advance.
Kung Fu Dugong
Kung Fu Dugong
Comments
[edit]
17" monitor
And that is why you are not a professional gamer Jmms. Noob.
also, can anyone confirm it's easier to hit targets at lower resolutions then higher ones
And that is why you are not a professional gamer Jmms. Noob. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
too bad they use 8x6 for the increased refresh rate, assmunch
your screen res has nothing to do with registration, and 800x600 probably feels better to you due to a higher refresh rate
The reason for using 800x600 is that i get a higher refreshrate, which is good since i use vsync. <3 constant 120 fps.
your screen res has nothing to do with registration, and 800x600 probably feels better to you due to a higher refresh rate <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
QTF.
Whether or not you make the hit is determined by the server not the client I believe. If you put a a low texture quality in 16 bit color you can still keep the excellent accuracy provided from more pixels to draw the shapes. For super efficency but ok accuracy 1024 X 768 or 800 x 600 works well for most older cards. There's a point though where if you ahev an insanely great card that lowering the resolution and texture quality won't have that signifigant of a bonus to fps speed. If you want a very high resolution with very fast fps you could make everything flatshaded... but that borders on cheating (ex: the old CS aimbot cheats where the models were flatshaded bright red and blue and the dll hook autoaim-like moved the mouse onto the color)
So the short answer is it depends on your system's graphics card and what you feel works the best. It's just trial and error finding what's your particular optimal setting.
PS: Mouse sensitivity and FOV can also play a role in accuracy, but that's a whole other huge discussion.
I don't notice much of a difference between 85Hz and 75Hz... And that's what I run at.
Even though Half-Life isn't based on per-pixel-hit, it certainly should help to play at a higher resolution, as you can make out things farther in the distance easier and with more clarity. Also, when you move your crosshairs, they move less at a higher resolution.
<b>ultranewb</b>, good point.
That's about sensitivity, if I'm not mistaken. It changes with the resolution, so 10 at one resolution will feel, and be, quite different from 10 at another.
Real proffessional gamers get their entire systems bought for them, every 6 months to a year, with the top of the range stuff in them.
And the CPL uses 1024x768 @ 32bpp in half-life.
Edit - If you had to buy your system, unfortunately your not pro, in any way, even if you like to think you are.
I don't notice much of a difference between 85Hz and 75Hz... And that's what I run at.
Even though Half-Life isn't based on per-pixel-hit, it certainly should help to play at a higher resolution, as you can make out things farther in the distance easier and with more clarity. Also, when you move your crosshairs, they move less at a higher resolution.
<b>ultranewb</b>, good point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're forgetting that NS maps rarely have long distances so it makes sence to keep a lower resolution. This also means that your performance is better (as alreadystated) and your mouse will cover the distance on your screen faster and <i>with more control</i>, increasing accuracy (and I'm not talking about sensitivity here).
Drawbacks are that the HUD and in-game text is bigger so obscures more of your vision.
For CS 800x600 is perfect (lower if you know your game well enough to always be facing an enemy), but for NS I'd recommend higher if your graphics card won't take too much of a hit.
I don't get a constant 100 fps (usually around 70), but it's a good balance between size and speed.
Real proffessional gamers get their entire systems bought for them, every 6 months to a year, with the top of the range stuff in them.
And the CPL uses 1024x768 @ 32bpp in half-life.
Edit - If you had to buy your system, unfortunately your not pro, in any way, even if you like to think you are. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
everything you said is false
CPL allows users to choose what resolution they use, and CPL-level players don't always have top-of-the-line equipment and components, and they don't have "computers bought for them"
Real proffessional gamers get their entire systems bought for them, every 6 months to a year, with the top of the range stuff in them.
And the CPL uses 1024x768 @ 32bpp in half-life.
Edit - If you had to buy your system, unfortunately your not pro, in any way, even if you like to think you are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
everything you said is false
CPL allows users to choose what resolution they use, and CPL-level players don't always have top-of-the-line equipment and components, and they don't have "computers bought for them" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that so? That must why in the CPL GUI (which has the configs that must be used and only remaping keys are allowed) they give a registry patch, that forces half-life into 1024x768 and 32bpp.
All the players in a CPL, must have the same system, it is a level playing field, no player is "restricted" by their hardware due to this.
They do not even allow a USB mouse to be forced to 500hz.
fps_max 100 in game as well
=/
Anything less tends to pixelate, anything more distorts horizontally. This is because of a lack of support HL was given for higher resolutions (most likely, 1024x768 was the optimum at the time).
However, this does not apply to all games, as most new games (including HL2) have the trend that higher resolution = better view.
Real proffessional gamers get their entire systems bought for them, every 6 months to a year, with the top of the range stuff in them.
And the CPL uses 1024x768 @ 32bpp in half-life.
Edit - If you had to buy your system, unfortunately your not pro, in any way, even if you like to think you are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
everything you said is false
CPL allows users to choose what resolution they use, and CPL-level players don't always have top-of-the-line equipment and components, and they don't have "computers bought for them" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that so? That must why in the CPL GUI (which has the configs that must be used and only remaping keys are allowed) they give a registry patch, that forces half-life into 1024x768 and 32bpp.
All the players in a CPL, must have the same system, it is a level playing field, no player is "restricted" by their hardware due to this.
They do not even allow a USB mouse to be forced to 500hz. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can <b>definitely</b> change your resolution at CPL