PDA

View Full Version : What should be SH3 max-resolution ?



AKA44
03-06-2005, 01:46 AM

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 06:13 AM
Who the hell voted for 800x600?

LOL

bbmak1980
03-06-2005, 06:18 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif so you see i am right 1024 x 768 is too low

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bbmak1980:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif so you see i am right 1024 x 768 is too low <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think 800x600 is too low.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nieldo
03-06-2005, 06:20 AM
I voted 1600x1200

but this one make one difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif its 1024x768 and well, im afrade to say theres nothing we can do about it untill the game is in our hands http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dvdWildsau
03-06-2005, 10:35 AM
1 votet for 1024...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Alarrrmmmm
03-06-2005, 10:38 AM
800x600 some one onbviously voted that for a laugh. That resolution is pants, and should be laghed at, because its ****e. If sh3 even has the option for that, im going to laugh. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yarrick_
03-06-2005, 01:00 PM
Well, I will never buy a TFT, but what I simply do is changing my computer windows resolution if it has to cause conflict with games. I don't know people owning big TFT screens or TFT's indeed, and I can't see the reason to buy it. The best ones in my opinion are flat-screen CRT?S. TFT's are for people with narrow tables, he he he.
But, how you do justify a screen who makes you have to use a special resolution? I prefer to be able to choose!
I voted "above", but I think that it is not a must, but I said that because I meant "do the best you can", not you must do impossibles.
Which computer will run smoothly SH3 at 1600x1200? NASA's?

JTorgersson
03-06-2005, 01:15 PM
I was very sceptical myself of TFT's and gaming so I postponed getting a new screen last fall untill this January when it more or less throw in the towel forcing me to get a new screen.
I bought a 17" Samsung SyncMaster 710T monitor and I can run every game I wish in 1024,1154 or 1280 (max res of screen) with no blurr. Games tested are; IL-2 series, Operation Flashpoint Resistance, Splinter Cell Chaos theory demo, Ghost Recon series, HalfLife 2, LOMAC, Sid Meiers Pirates! and KotOR II and as said, no blurr that makes it look crappy. The screen have a knifesharp picture and it cost me about 540 USD which isn't all that much.

ivoloos
03-06-2005, 01:21 PM
I voted 1024*768
At the moment, that resolution is still working fine for me. In games, that is of course.

bbmak1980
03-06-2005, 01:21 PM
so guys you see that the most people would like a higher resolution so i am right!

goodnight

Jose.MaC
03-06-2005, 01:42 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You've a point, Yarrick!

Actually, playing at 1280x1024 is a pain in the lower back! You can do some maths to check why:

A. 1.024x768 = 786.432 pixels to care about
B. 1.280x1.024 = 1.310.720 pixels to care about (67% more than previous)
C. 1.600x1.200 = 1.920.000 pixels to care about (244% more than the first and just a 46% more than the previous)

You must use x1,32 factor to get the refresh rate of a CRT, and x bit/8x3 to get the numbers with your deep of colour in 3D. So for 16 bits and 60 refresh per second:

A. 373.712.486 Hz = 374 MHz
B. 622.854.144 Hz = 623 MHz
C. 912.384.000 Hz = 912 MHz

And for 32 bits:

A. 747.424.973 Hz = 747 MHz
B. 1.245.708.288 Hz = 1.246 MHz
C. 1.824.768.000 Hz = 1.825 MHz

So I guess you need a very very good card to play it as long as you just use a TFT with a low refresh rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you try to play it with a CRT at 120 frames per second, you may be obliged to drop to no more than 1280x1024!

Pr0metheus 1962
03-06-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You've a point, Yarrick!

Actually, playing at 1280x1024 is a pain in the lower back! You can do some maths to check why:

...So I guess you need a very very good card to play it as long as you just use a TFT with a low refresh rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you try to play it with a CRT at 120 frames per second, you may be obliged to drop to no more than 1280x1024! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the only flaw with that logic is that it's very short-sighted. Sure, anything over 1280x1024 is going to put an unbearable load on even a high-end computer right now, but we're likely to be playing this game in 2 years, and the real hardcore U-Boat fans will still be playing this game 5 to 10 years down the road. In 2 years time, 1280x1024 will seem as outdated as 800x600 does today, and in 5 years it will seem ridiculously so, kinda like playing a 600x480 game right now. In 5 years, if we're stuck with 1024x768 as our max resolution, with no new sub sim on the horizon, and with graphics cards easily able to get good refresh rates at 1600x1200 and above, we'll feel somewhat foolish.

We can't just consider the present. We have to consider the gap between this game and the next great sub game that's going to knock SH3 off its pedestal, and that game isn't likely to arrive soon.

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You've a point, Yarrick!

Actually, playing at 1280x1024 is a pain in the lower back! You can do some maths to check why:

...So I guess you need a very very good card to play it as long as you just use a TFT with a low refresh rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you try to play it with a CRT at 120 frames per second, you may be obliged to drop to no more than 1280x1024! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the only flaw with that logic is that it's very short-sighted. Sure, anything over 1280x1024 is going to put an unbearable load on even a high-end computer right now, but we're likely to be playing this game in 2 years, and the real hardcore U-Boat fans will still be playing this game 5 to 10 years down the road. In 2 years time, 1280x1024 will seem as outdated as 800x600 does today, and in 5 years it will seem ridiculously so, kinda like playing a 600x480 game right now. In 5 years, if we're stuck with 1024x768 as our max resolution, with no new sub sim on the horizon, and with graphics cards easily able to get good refresh rates at 1600x1200 and above, we'll feel somewhat foolish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, by then we will all be using 32xFSAA and 64xAF. LOL

Pr0metheus 1962
03-06-2005, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
Of course, by then we will all be using 32xFSAA and 64xAF. LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? What language is that? Is 64xAF some kind of New York sandwich? I think you slipped into 'Geek Speak' for a second there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
Of course, by then we will all be using 32xFSAA and 64xAF. LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? What language is that? Is 64xAF some kind of New York sandwich? I think you slipped into 'Geek Speak' for a second there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Doh!

64x Aniosotropic Filtering.

32x Full Scene Anti-Aliasing.

Pr0metheus 1962
03-06-2005, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
64x Aniosotropic Filtering.

32x Full Scene Anti-Aliasing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once we get to 1600x1200, there should be no need for anti-aliasing. It would slow the computer down unnecessarily, because the pixel size would be smaller than the eye's ability to distinguish individual pixels (unless one had a very large screen). As for anisotropic filtering, give it a couple of years, and computers will be able to take it in stride. These things will be like 256 colours were a few years ago - everyone will get them automatically and they'll forget that there used to be a time when they were optional and required massive computer speeds in order to implement.

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
64x Aniosotropic Filtering.

32x Full Scene Anti-Aliasing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once we get to 1600x1200, there should be no need for anti-aliasing. It would slow the computer down unnecessarily, because the pixel size would be smaller than the eye's ability to distinguish individual pixels (unless one had a very large screen). As for anisotropic filtering, give it a couple of years, and computers will be able to take it in stride. These things will be like 256 colours were a few years ago - everyone will get them automatically and they'll forget that there used to be a time when they were optional and required massive computer speeds in order to implement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah.

Shortly, the 512mb cards are going to be coming out as well. The next two years will be pretty interesting with regards to gaming performance.

At 1600x1200 I still run at least 4xFSAA and 8xAF on my games. There are still jaggies at that resolution but they are of course quite diminished. You can usually notice them if you zoom out far enough (a good example would be FS2004).

hauitsme
03-06-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
Who the hell voted for 800x600?

LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your's truly! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/adore-me.gif
Actually, I voted almost immediately after the thread was started.
Ask a ridiculous question, get a ridiculous answer. If this whole subject had been brought up LONG ago, I would've treated it seriously. Kinda late to do anything (even b*tching) about it now!! This should have been dealt with by you 'LCD' whiners months and months ago. As you can tell, I DON'T USE A LCD FOR GAMING. For everything else, it's great.

JG27_Arklight
03-06-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
Who the hell voted for 800x600?

LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your's truly! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/adore-me.gif
Actually, I voted almost immediately after the thread was started.
Ask a ridiculous question, get a ridiculous answer. If this whole subject had been brought up __LONG__ ago, I would've treated it seriously. Kinda late to do anything (even b*tching) about it now!! This should have been dealt with by you 'LCD' whiners months and months ago. As you can tell, I DON'T USE A LCD FOR GAMING. For everything else, it's great. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL

I should have known.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I don't have an LCD. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif