<!--QuoteBegin-arealous+Jul 29 2005, 12:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (arealous @ Jul 29 2005, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mm, so far telling me the obvious doesnt help: IE the lower the res the bigger the things are, and that the higher the res, the smaller the things are. According to a source I will not name: "LMG bullets register better on higher resolution", can anyone back this up or knock this statement down? Also, yes the sensitivity of higher res is lower, but it isn't just that. The overall mousemovements feel more free on 800, and so far I've found that adjusting my sensitivity according still doesn't give my mouse the same feel as in the lower res. Keep on discussing, and thanks for the feedback so far. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the higher the resolution in Half-Life, the packet size you are sending becomes larger. Don't quote me on that becuase I might be wrong, but you will notice a higher latency from your GPU as it takes longer to draw the game on a higher resolution.
<!--QuoteBegin-arealous+Jul 30 2005, 01:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (arealous @ Jul 30 2005, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Darkfrost, there is no mandatory res requirement bud. In fact, many (although I cannot give a definitive answer to say "most") use 800 * 600 res in CPL games. Going against Renegade's statement; I believe it is also Half Life's natural resolution state. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, 800x600 is HL's "default natural resolution", but not the "best". 1024x768 is the largest and best resolution you can attain in HL without horizontal distortion ("skinny models").
I'm interested in what you people have in your computers. I have a Radeon 9800 Pro and run NS at 1280*960 32bpp fps_max set to 85, monitor's max refresh rate. The game plays flawlessly, never drops lower than 85 fps, no matter how much action there is.
<!--QuoteBegin-mono mono+Aug 2 2005, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mono mono @ Aug 2 2005, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 800x600 is ideal for Natural Selection; besides, Half-Life is intended to be played @ 800x600! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> no no, 1024x768 is ideal, 800x600 was intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-R e n e g a d e+Aug 4 2005, 02:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (R e n e g a d e @ Aug 4 2005, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-mono mono+Aug 2 2005, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mono mono @ Aug 2 2005, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 800x600 is ideal for Natural Selection; besides, Half-Life is intended to be played @ 800x600! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> no no, 1024x768 is ideal, 800x600 was intended. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why is 1024 x 768 ideal?
because I play with it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> j/k
<!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For the HL engine there is no better resolution than 1024x768. 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, how am I to be trusted over the cliche that larger = better?
1) back in '00, when Nvidia TNT2 was all the rage (no pun intended), I was proud to boast of my owning one 2) My friend and I decided to see just how far it could go 3) I set CS to run on the highest resses available 1024x768 and (1152x7?? and 1280x1024) 4) I noticed that, 1024x768 was vastly greater than 800x600 (my default), yet for some strange reason 1152 and 1280 was not better than 1024 (it did not follow the trend) 5) at first I thought it was just a matter of getting used ot it, but then I realized the models were distanctly compressed horizontally, the models had become "skinny" 6) after fealing "cheated" out of a higher res. I did extensive research on CS variables, settings, and pro configurations 7) I found out the HL engine (much like the q3 engines) was intended to run without distortion to a max of 1024x768 (which made sense why all the CPL pros used that resolution). Much like how many games can be run at widescreen resolutions, however if not supported, will look distorted. 8) It gave the maximum amount of viewable area without the distortion.
However, I encourage you to *not* believe me and try it for yourself. If you truly rid your mind of bias (it may be harder the longer you've been playing) you will notice the slight pixelation at 640 and 800 and the distortion in the models at higher resolutions than 1024. Try it!
I found a test somewhere back in my CS days that proved that there was no difference between resolutions except for the pixelation - maybe they fixed it in a patch? I'll try to dig the url up tomorrow.
I've been trying some different resolutions out, and noticed something strange. Does the bullet/bite register get worse at higher resolutions or is it just me? I noticed that sometimes it takes a few more shots than normal to kill an alien at 1024x768. I usually use 800x600.
Oh, and btw... never forget the impact the screen has. The higher the updaterate and the lower the response time of the screen the better it will feel to run your game. Sometimes I think that's the reason some people claim they need a new graphics card, their screen sucks.
Am I the only person to play at 1600x1200? It's nice having the GUI all tiny and out of the way, and I average 99 fps with around 60 fps in heavy firefights (Damn ATI card).
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletInTehHead+Aug 7 2005, 04:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletInTehHead @ Aug 7 2005, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Am I the only person to play at 1600x1200? It's nice having the GUI all tiny and out of the way, and I average 99 fps with around 60 fps in heavy firefights (Damn ATI card). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> its tiny enough with 1024*768 imo, and i use knife's custom font so text doesnt block my view.
Comments
I think the higher the resolution in Half-Life, the packet size you are sending becomes larger. Don't quote me on that becuase I might be wrong, but you will notice a higher latency from your GPU as it takes longer to draw the game on a higher resolution.
in lower resolutons, your crosshair moves a visible pixel at a time. and in long range battles, you are aiming at 4 pixel skulks.
higher resolution will smooth out all the movements, and make your mouse be much better.
i use 1024x 720 because my computer sucks. and i want a decent fps
pwned.
and if for some reason developer is set to 0 then framerate gets totally choppy (100 fps).
Yes, 800x600 is HL's "default natural resolution", but not the "best". 1024x768 is the largest and best resolution you can attain in HL without horizontal distortion ("skinny models").
800x600;
fps_max 600;
developer 1;
85Hz
~100+ fps usually
no no, 1024x768 is ideal, 800x600 was intended.
no no, 1024x768 is ideal, 800x600 was intended. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is 1024 x 768 ideal?
<!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For the HL engine there is no better resolution than 1024x768.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, how am I to be trusted over the cliche that larger = better?
1) back in '00, when Nvidia TNT2 was all the rage (no pun intended), I was proud to boast of my owning one
2) My friend and I decided to see just how far it could go
3) I set CS to run on the highest resses available 1024x768 and (1152x7?? and 1280x1024)
4) I noticed that, 1024x768 was vastly greater than 800x600 (my default), yet for some strange reason 1152 and 1280 was not better than 1024 (it did not follow the trend)
5) at first I thought it was just a matter of getting used ot it, but then I realized the models were distanctly compressed horizontally, the models had become "skinny"
6) after fealing "cheated" out of a higher res. I did extensive research on CS variables, settings, and pro configurations
7) I found out the HL engine (much like the q3 engines) was intended to run without distortion to a max of 1024x768 (which made sense why all the CPL pros used that resolution). Much like how many games can be run at widescreen resolutions, however if not supported, will look distorted.
8) It gave the maximum amount of viewable area without the distortion.
However, I encourage you to *not* believe me and try it for yourself. If you truly rid your mind of bias (it may be harder the longer you've been playing) you will notice the slight pixelation at 640 and 800 and the distortion in the models at higher resolutions than 1024.
Try it!
GF3 Ti500. Ftw.
Oh, and btw... never forget the impact the screen has. The higher the updaterate and the lower the response time of the screen the better it will feel to run your game. Sometimes I think that's the reason some people claim they need a new graphics card, their screen sucks.
1280 x 760
I use it for all games, just more natural to me.
its tiny enough with 1024*768 imo, and i use knife's custom font so text doesnt block my view.
1280x1024
32bit (hi)
Dsp. Normal
Fps between 70 ~ 100 by rate config
GeFORCE Fx5700 le
tbh, try to shuttdown
antialiasing
vsync
and
anisotropic
^^