Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => Feedback => General => Topic started by: Kev4000 on 29-07-2010, 08:07:20
-
Just a little poll for the fun of it, may have a minor impact somewhere down the line as to texture and hud resolutions.
-
Those HD resolutions must be freakin huge :o
-
My precious: 1920x1080 16:9 (full HD)
-
Right now, 1280 x 800 mainly.. also on a 1024 x 768, too.
-
Personally I play in a large variety of resolutions, nearly always in windowed mode, makes for instant alt-tabbing. Generally though its 1280x960, 1440x1080 (unlisted and uncommon), 1920x1200 (fullscreen), or 1920x1080 windowed.
-
1600 x 1200
Since I started playing in HD, I've needed to tweak it alot to get it right cuz it looks scewed in most other resolutions thanks for BF 1.5 and the DICE boys' impression of widescreen ::)
-
1680x1050 and 1366x768.
-
1680x1050 16:10.
-
I have a Samsung 24" monitor and I've set the desktop @ 1920 x 1080.
I just checked my FH2 settings and that is 1024 x 768 @60Hz.
The game looks and plays fine, should I changed the FH2 to 1920 x 1080 as well? Am I missing out? ???
-
I have a Samsung 24" monitor and I've set the desktop @ 1920 x 1080.
I just checked my FH2 settings and that is 1024 x 768 @60Hz.
The game looks and plays fine, should I changed the FH2 to 1920 x 1080 as well? Am I missing out? ???
Change to 1920x1080 at once! It may impact performance tho. Basically you're getting 1/5 the pixels you should be getting.
If you've set the resolution manually in the shortcut though, you'd still be getting full res (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably haven't)
-
Even if you get a performance hit at 1920X1080, you should still probably keep it to something that has the same aspect ratio as your monitor.
I play at 1680X1050, but I'm getting a new monitor this Friday so that will soon become 1920X1080 :).
-
1600X900 16:9
-
I play on 1280 x 1024
-
LG 20"WS, 1680x1050. Bought myself a new graph card. Palit GTS 250
-
1680x1050 for me. I don't forsee me playing on a larger resolution for a while.
-
I have a Samsung 24" monitor and I've set the desktop @ 1920 x 1080.
I just checked my FH2 settings and that is 1024 x 768 @60Hz.
The game looks and plays fine, should I changed the FH2 to 1920 x 1080 as well? Am I missing out? ???
Change to 1920x1080 at once! It may impact performance tho. Basically you're getting 1/5 the pixels you should be getting.
If you've set the resolution manually in the shortcut though, you'd still be getting full res (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably haven't)
Ok I just tested this. Eyes will take a while to readjust! 8)
Loading Screens and Menu looks a little stretched heightwise in comparison to 1024x768.
The rifles/pistols - woah! A LOT skinnier in aim view and lot smother detailed texture, like it. :)
Player names look tiny on screen! Nice!
Players look smaller at medium distances compared to before. Will probably affect my aiming heh
The Tanks. Hmmm they look strange, really tall and narrower, I get the impression of less immensness e.g. Panther looks huge in 1024x768.
Will take some adjusting to, STUG looks like a toy, mind I will check out some real pics to get a comparisson, as I think the STUG wasn't as huge in RL as it looked like in 1024x768 setting.
Performance should be ok, I have a good G.Card/Ram.etc
Yes even more detail and polish, glad i saw this thread!
-
I should probably upgrade from my 90's monitor to something that understands what HD is >_>", is it really worth it?
-
If your honestly using a monitor from the 90's, then yes. Most definetely.
-
Its only from 1997...
but its huge <3
Any company that makes monitors you guys can reccomend?
-
Any company that makes monitors you guys can reccomend?
I've made it a habit of turning off my monitor when I'm not using it. Unfortunately, Acer monitors take a couple seconds to start up, brandishing their logo across the black screen. This isn't unregistered Fraps, it's a monitor that I payed for. >:(
-
Usually I play on 1024x768@75Hz. Especially hardware-hungry games. Older games I play on 1152x864@75Hz. My Desktop resolution is 1152x864@75Hz. Higher resolutions would not make sense anyway, as I'm playing on a 17'' Samsung SyncMaster 700p plus from 1999.
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8296/samsung17700pplus.jpg)
-
that looks pretty advanced compared to mine, heh
-
I payed 700 DM. In those days you could get a no-name 17'' for 400 DM already. Of course it looked advanced. Even more important: it paid off by now and is very reliable. :)
-
I changed today to 1366x768 . It looks so beautiful !!! But yes the tanks look funny indeed :P
-
Ok I just tested this. Eyes will take a while to readjust! 8)
Loading Screens and Menu looks a little stretched heightwise in comparison to 1024x768.
The rifles/pistols - woah! A LOT skinnier in aim view and lot smother detailed texture, like it. :)
Player names look tiny on screen! Nice!
Players look smaller at medium distances compared to before. Will probably affect my aiming heh
The Tanks. Hmmm they look strange, really tall and narrower, I get the impression of less immensness e.g. Panther looks huge in 1024x768.
Will take some adjusting to, STUG looks like a toy, mind I will check out some real pics to get a comparisson, as I think the STUG wasn't as huge in RL as it looked like in 1024x768 setting.
Performance should be ok, I have a good G.Card/Ram.etc
Yes even more detail and polish, glad i saw this thread!
Your monitor is a widescreen? Did 1024x768 play with black bars on the sides? Take a screenshot of each setting, I have a feeling it may still not be optimal. HUD should be stretched, but never should the actual gameplay be.
-
Your monitor is a widescreen? Did 1024x768 play with black bars on the sides? Take a screenshot of each setting, I have a feeling it may still not be optimal. HUD should be stretched, but never should the actual gameplay be.
Yes Samsung Syncmaster Widescreen 24". No black bars @ 1024x768. Perhaps slightly streched HUD but hardly noticable.
Much more smooth detail with 1920 x 1080, but everything looks smaller than before. Will take screenies tomorrow...or watch this space.
-
I play in 1600x1200@100hz (22" Cathodic monitors still rule ! :P) or 1280x960@85hz depending on the computer I use.
P.S: Too bad, this is an invasion of the wide-crap screens. :-[
-
My desktop is set at 1680x1050 so I did the same for bf2/FH2 but I never managed to have a correct format (basicly rounds and squares for my minimaps and maps) outside this one (windowed) :
...FH2.exe" +menu 1 +fullscreen 0 +szx 1024 +szy 768
I just don't get all the twist and turns of the widescreen support for bf2 (although I've tried), and a lot of people seems to have the same issue if I believe what I see on youtube ... Could we have a sticky explaining one good time for all how to set your screen to enjoy the mod ? Please ?
-
..And what does 60Hz & 100Hz actually mean regarding the monitor?
-
It means the lower the refresh rate is, the less frames your monitor can display (whatever your computer's power is)
Exemple: You have a standard LCD monitor (60hz) and a very powerful computer that can run FH2 around 150fps. In the best case only 60fps will be displayed. ;)
-
1280x960 if I remember correctly.
Exemple: You have a standard LCD monitor (60hz) and a very powerful computer that can run FH2 around 150fps. In the best case only 60fps will be displayed. ;)
Wouldn't really matter in that situation because human eye can't tell the difference between 60 and 150 fps.
-
I play on 1280 x 1024
same here, explains why my videos quality for YTube ist scheisse.
-
Why should it affect YTube VonSmall?
Yesterday I got both FH2's resolution and the monitor's synchronised (Thanks to Kev's post) and Wooaahh...huge performance boost...I now have a constant 40fps whereas b4 I used to go down even to 18fps.
-
1280x960 if I remember correctly.
Exemple: You have a standard LCD monitor (60hz) and a very powerful computer that can run FH2 around 150fps. In the best case only 60fps will be displayed. ;)
Wouldn't really matter in that situation because human eye can't tell the difference between 60 and 150 fps.
Completely wrong. Movies being limited to 24 or 25 pictures per second doesn't mean you can't see more.
There's one easy proof of this: when you watch a cathodic screen set at 60hz, everybody can see the refresh sweeping (that is running 60 times per second). You need to raise to at least 80hz to see a "permanent" picture. And even then, I myself see a slight difference in display between 85 and 100hz refresh rate. :)
-
1024*768 @ 85 Hz here. Now, if I just got off my chair and bothered to build a new rig...
-
I play 1080x1024, can I play with higher? Because it's the highest I find under "graphics"
-
Why should it affect YTube VonSmall?
the movies I make for YTube are recorded at a lower resolution than most of you are used to, hence why people say to me, ffs sort your bag of shit graphics out.
-
So the higher the Hz the better? ??? I have my 24" Samsung @ 60Hz but I see in desktop properties I can go up to 120Hz ? Leave well alone.....or potch about with settings? :-\
-
So the higher the Hz the better? ??? I have my 24" Samsung @ 60Hz but I see in desktop properties I can go up to 120Hz ? Leave well alone.....or potch about with settings? :-\
Is it a LCD screen ? Then leave it at 60Hz.
-
AFAIK the only Samsung LCD with the 120hz feature is a 22", the SyncMaster 2233rz. If you do not have this model, then it is just an error in Windows settings, don't change it unless you want to get a black screen. :P
And yes, the higher Hz, the better. Most LCDs are basically crap for playing but those with the 120hz feature are the first ones to compete again with the CRTs in term of response time (even if they remain faulty on other points).
-
A right thanks I won't touch it then. ;)
-
1280x960 if I remember correctly.
Exemple: You have a standard LCD monitor (60hz) and a very powerful computer that can run FH2 around 150fps. In the best case only 60fps will be displayed. ;)
Wouldn't really matter in that situation because human eye can't tell the difference between 60 and 150 fps.
Completely wrong. Movies being limited to 24 or 25 pictures per second doesn't mean you can't see more.
There's one easy proof of this: when you watch a cathodic screen set at 60hz, everybody can see the refresh sweeping (that is running 60 times per second). You need to raise to at least 80hz to see a "permanent" picture. And even then, I myself see a slight difference in display between 85 and 100hz refresh rate. :)
Well I guess my sources were wrong on that thing. Though I recall that the frequency doesn't have to be very big before human eye stops seeing any difference.
-
..And what does 60Hz & 100Hz actually mean regarding the monitor?
The Hz frequency of a monitor is autonomous from the frame rate. It is an internal refresh rate of the picture on the monitor. Usually refresh rates for CRTs were sat to 60Hz. But when you use CRTs from 17'' onwards, you might notice the monitor picture itself is flickering a bit like on an old CRT-TV. You can note this if you stare at a point next to a screen while concentrating on the picture/screen. Low refresh rates might cause headaches then. If you raise the refresh rate from 60Hz to 75Hz now, the flickering will vanish, thus being more compfortable for your eyes, especially when sitting longer times in front of the screen.
The ability to have a high Hz refresh rate depends on the quality of the monitor. Quality CRTs can run resolutions of 1920x1440 at 100Hz, while others can only run such resolutions at 76Hz or even 60Hz. In general the Hz refresh rate of a CRT drops when raising the resolution, thus all CRTs can run 1024x768 at high refresh rates, while only to good ones are able to display high resolutions with high refresh rates.
TFT monitors generally run at 60Hz. Raising the refresh rate will give you a black screen /out-of-range error. You should keep running TFTs at 60 Hz unless stated otherwise. The system used here is different, unable to cause flickering.
In my case, running a high resolution with very low Hz refresh rates on my 17'' CRT, causes extrem eye cancer. *painfully rubs his eyes*
(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6440/omgqx.th.jpg) (http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6440/omgqx.jpg)
-
It's weired (or more likley I am! :P)
I have tried the 1680x1050 and the 1920x1080 and everything looks smooth and beautifully detailed. But on a 24" screen on these settings, FH2 almost feels like one of those military strategy games. Infantry a mere 50-100m away look like ants :-\
Not liking it, so gone back to 1024x768, yep things are slightly stretched, and I know I'm loosing out on uber details but I've played so long at this setting, It's home sweet home ;D
-
I'm rather accustomed 2 bigger resolutions because I like to see the "big picture". Maybe you see lines as infantry on 100m but you see 2 tanks to the left as clear as houses. Plus you can see a bigger angle then on lower resolutions. On 1280x1024 you can see 150° but on 1680.1050 you can see almost 180°,170° 4xmp.
-
God damn, some of you people really need to upgrade your systems. This isn't 2004 anymore.
-
Am I really the only one who said 'Other'? Is 1600x900 that weird? ::)
-
There..Alone no more
-
1680x1050 16:10
-
I play 1080x1024, can I play with higher? Because it's the highest I find under "graphics"
Help!
-
I play 1080x1024, can I play with higher? Because it's the highest I find under "graphics"
Help!
Maybe your monitor does not support resolutions of more than 1280*1024? IIRC BF2/FH2 only shows the display modes compatible with your hardware (as configured in Windows).
Also, as a suggestion for the devs, I would build on the assumption that relative share of users with 16:9 aspect ratio will only increase: as people buy new comps - whether laptops or desktops - those come nowadays with a 16:9 display. The odd 16:10 ratio seems to have been a passing fad.
-
I'm a convert 1980x1080 is best. :)
-
Well, the only real odd ratio for a computer is 16:9. This is well suited for TVs, to watch films, but on a computer that's just ridiculous.
The point is that screen makers saved 1/10 of the display matrix while selling the screen for the same price. And customers were fooled ... :-\
Hopefully professionnal screens may remain 3:4 or 16:10.
-
I was just stating what I observed, not saying I would prefer this development. I would love to stay in 4:3 ratio while doing "desktop work" (ie. writing, spreadsheets, presentations, image processing, even regular web browsing), but if I get a 19" 4:3 display (even or manage to find one in the first place), or a 21" 16:10 display at the same price as a 24" 16:9 (just checked the prices of a local retailer), I would still choose the biggest one as it has essentially the same amount of vertical pixels showing (typical example resolutions would be 1280*1024, 1650*1050 or maybe 1920*1200, and 1920*1080, respectively) but has still elbowroom for widescreen images.
Probably for this reason, the IT stores/departments I have recently visited have only had 16:9 models on display for consumers. (Another self-fulfilling prophecy: demand lowers prices and since only one type of panel is commonly supplied, Joe Public does not know to demand anything else...) Hopefully, the 2.40:1 ratio found in some very rare (as of now) TV sets (to fit the movie "standard" Cinemascope aka ratio between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1) is never adopted in the computer industry...
-
I just got a new monitor last week and from shopping around the I can confirm that the vast majority of the decent monitors were 1920X1080. I was kind of looking for a 1680x1050 one, which is what I had before, but the 16:9 aspect ratio really doesn't bother me.
-
Am I really the only one who said 'Other'? Is 1600x900 that weird? ::)
Up until the past couple years. Computer monitors seem to be making a switch over to 16:9 as well. Previously, 16:9 was used mostly for TVs which were either HD-ready or full HD.
-
It's weired (or more likley I am! :P)
I have tried the 1680x1050 and the 1920x1080 and everything looks smooth and beautifully detailed. But on a 24" screen on these settings, FH2 almost feels like one of those military strategy games. Infantry a mere 50-100m away look like ants :-\
Not liking it, so gone back to 1024x768, yep things are slightly stretched, and I know I'm loosing out on uber details but I've played so long at this setting, It's home sweet home ;D
I feel the same way.. i tried some other settings but everything was so sharp.. I´m used to the smoothness.. so I switched back.. thou it sometimes feel it gets me killed bcuz dissadv.? Can this be true???
-
It's weired (or more likley I am! :P)
I have tried the 1680x1050 and the 1920x1080 and everything looks smooth and beautifully detailed. But on a 24" screen on these settings, FH2 almost feels like one of those military strategy games. Infantry a mere 50-100m away look like ants :-\
Not liking it, so gone back to 1024x768, yep things are slightly stretched, and I know I'm loosing out on uber details but I've played so long at this setting, It's home sweet home ;D
I feel the same way.. i tried some other settings but everything was so sharp.. I´m used to the smoothness.. so I switched back.. thou it sometimes feel it gets me killed bcuz dissadv.? Can this be true???
I'm sticking with it. Looking back, although I didn't know any better at the time, the 1024x768 did give me an advantage with extreme range shots. Enemies were bigger on the horizon rifle sights bigger, so now I can no longer do that, disadvantage? Well my Extreme range days are over, but the close up eyecandy is worth the trade, as I'm a CQF player anyway. I'd say I was only at a disadvantage whilst my eyes n brain got used to teh change over a few days.....Brencarriers still look too small to me in 1920x 1280 though! ;D
-
Using 1024x768 when the monitor's native resolution is 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 is a crime against monitors, GPU's and games. :(
-
1280 x 1024...but I got me a new GFX card last week, so I might bump it up to 1600 x 1200.
-
Not exactly on topic but...questions from a tech n00b
Had some pains in one eye last few days, I gleaned from this thread that the lower the refresh rate/Hz the worse it is on the eyes? ( Yay/Nay?)
So I've just upped my desktop(* 24" monitor @ 1920x1080) to 70 Hz.
I have option the to go a lot higher, when should I start expecting screen problems (not noticed anything yet), haven't tried FH2 though at 70Hz ???
-
before you crank up the hz-rate make sure you install the designated driver for your monitor, and then crank it up slowly. CRT (old huge monitors) can run in high refresh rates while modern flat TFT monitors mostly support only 60hz.
anyways
@kev : if you are interested in stuff like switches from CRT to wide screen TFT in the last years etc, the steam hardware survey seems quite a good benchmark.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
i also watched this a bit and in the last 2 years the amount of 22'' and 24'' 1650x1080 16:10 screen increased rapidly.
also noticeable in this little survey here.
-
The refresh rate only applies to CRT monitors (the good old-fashioned vacuum tube), where the optimal would be 75+ Hz, and yes, the smaller the refresh rate, the more it strains your eyes.
However, LCD monitors do not have a refresh rate in the same sense (it's the frame rate instead, because a crystal continuously keeps the state it was last set in and does not flicker on and off, unlike CRT image) so you will not see a noticeable difference. Your eyes will not get less strained with higher frame rate on a CRT, but movement in the image might be smoother (assuming the application you use even reaches the said framerate). I assume you have a LCD monitor, because I have never heard of 1920x1080 CRT monitors...
-
I assume you have a LCD monitor, because I have never heard of 1920x1080 CRT monitors...
Yup. Thanks for clearing it up, it's a Samsung, factory set @ 60 Hz I beleive.
Will make no differance if I fiddle with Hz values then :)
-
I'm still playing on my trusted CRT. I play at 1024x768 on 85Hz.
I believe this is also the native resolution, where can I check that?
When I try oiut higher resolutions, I can't read shit anymore. I want to read chat messages, and I want to read who killed me. The higher I go, the closer I need to b to the screen. I'm just not used to that, so I understand Capten_C's problem at first. I just can't increase as much as he can ;)
-
1400x1050
-
In think 1024X768 on my crappy laptop. I upped it recently but it got a bit laggy and it looked weird in my eyes so I reverted it.
-
I'm still playing on my trusted CRT. I play at 1024x768 on 85Hz.
I believe this is also the native resolution, where can I check that?
CRT's don't have native resolution, they simply have a bewildering array of resolution/refresh rate combinations. They do have a maximum resolution, usually at a lower refresh rate than the "optimal" (because the monitor can only process a certain amount of pixels per second; the higher the refresh rate, the smaller the maximum resolution). I prefer the 1024*768@85 over 1152*864@70 or 1280*960@60 (which are available on my monitor) simply because it does not make my eyes bleed, unlike these higher resolutions with their tiny pixels and too low refresh rate.
However, at the lower end, all CRT monitors are perfectly capable of displaying in full screen size the good old retro resolutions 320*200 and 160*200 "natively", nearly all are also able to use the non-standard resolutions some emulators use (eg. 256*224 for some MAME games or 384*282 for "full-screen" C64 emulation). And all the time, even in these non-standard resolutions, one CRT pixel is one CRT pixel (of varying size) instead of scaling several pixels into one which the LCD displays are forced to do if run on non-native resolution. If the new resolution on a LCD display is not a "multiple" of the native resolution (eg. 1:2, 1:3, and so forth) the result (especially diagonal lines) may look distorted and details may be lost (eg. you suddenly must represent 2 pixels with 3), whereas on a CRT display no information is lost and the image will not be distorted as long as the monitor is capable of displaying the image.
-
CRT>LCD
I'm currently using a Dell P1110 with my good PC, and I'm watching a 20" Mitsubishi VX1120 on ebay for my old one (guy only wants 20 bucks for it and he's in the next suburb).
What would really make my day though, would be finding a Sony GDM-FW900 (24 inches of widescreen CRT awesomeness)... :)
-
Lots of explaining
Thanks for the info, man. :)
-
Got a new screen on Thursday. I now join the 1980x1080 16:9 Full HD group.
Most of the games I play look much prettier though the stretched menus and the minimap in BF2 is quite annoying. (And Crusader Kings gets stretched so much I can't play it anymore :'()
-
CRTs will reign king in competitive gaming for a long time to come. When I finally made the switch over to LCD, I found the input lag to be extremely annoying, nearly unbearable.
Sometimes I wonder if I should go pickup a 21" CRT monitor. They're relatively cheap nowadays, and I could need some 200Hz FH2 for the ultimate advantage :D
Some while ago, now my stepbrother stole it, I bought a Diamon Pro 21" CRT made in 1996, for 20$. That thing nukes your eyes pretty much. However, it had all sorts of inputs, and supported a resolution of up to 1920x1440. And High Definition was supposedly new in 2003 :P I'd love to get my hands on a 2005 21" CRT monitor. They're still much better in certain aspects, which LCDs will never live up to (sharpness and text not being one of them).
-
I still have my trusty 1680x1050, almost bought new screen with that fabled 1920x1080 HD stuff. But though I wouldn't really benefit that much and higher resolution might be strain on my GPU on some newer games.
@Kalkalash
If you have Deus Vult expansion you should be able to change resolution to any you want. Just edit the settings.txt in the folder where you have the game exe.
-
Playing at 1024x8xx because my chipset hates shaders and the original 1440x900 I played BF2 on just will not happen in Forgotten hope 2. Though I also had to set it to 61hz when I first installed it because my laptop is indie like that.
-
...Sometimes I wonder if I should go pickup a 21" CRT monitor. They're relatively cheap nowadays, and I could need some 200Hz FH2 for the ultimate advantage :D...
If you want one, I'd suggest getting one sooner rather than later. They're only gonna get harder to find the longer you leave it... ;)
-
What would really make my day though, would be finding a Sony GDM-FW900 (24 inches of widescreen CRT awesomeness)... :)
Aaaaaahhh, the Graal of the CRT family :D
Unfortunately that monitor could be found easily only in Northern America. :'(
CRTs will reign king in competitive gaming for a long time to come. When I finally made the switch over to LCD, I found the input lag to be extremely annoying, nearly unbearable.
Sometimes I wonder if I should go pickup a 21" CRT monitor. They're relatively cheap nowadays, and I could need some 200Hz FH2 for the ultimate advantage :D
Some while ago, now my stepbrother stole it, I bought a Diamon Pro 21" CRT made in 1996, for 20$. That thing nukes your eyes pretty much. However, it had all sorts of inputs, and supported a resolution of up to 1920x1440. And High Definition was supposedly new in 2003 :P I'd love to get my hands on a 2005 21" CRT monitor. They're still much better in certain aspects, which LCDs will never live up to (sharpness and text not being one of them).
The advice I would give you is:
1°) Don't take a screen built let's say, before 2000. If it doesn't feature the TCO 95/99 norms it emits an amount of radiations that may not be very good for eyes/health if you use it too often.
2°) The less time the monitor has been running before you get it, the better it is. Exemple: the first secondhand 22" I could get was actually a third hand, and had been running for 10 years in an engineering office. It died 6 months later.
3°) Regarding caracteristics, 22" Diamondtron screens are the best you can get for a low price. But some models (especially the most modern ones) are flawed, so you have to test them carefuly. The usual problem is that some display areas are blurred, especially the corners.
There are also some very unreliable models such as the Mitsubishi 22" and some Iiyama (the Vision Master Pro512 especially).
I personally owned two 22":
the Iiyama vision master pro 510, quite a good one but RIP, too old.
the Iiyama vision master pro 514, running perfectly for now (fingers crossed :-X ), but quite difficult to set up (the default geometry was quite weird and not easy at all to fix, and I need to run a deeply modified color profile with Powerstrip. Otherwise the display is Yellow/Green ;D)
Both screens bought for respectively 20 and 30€. :)
-
All this CRT talk makes me wanna put my old Maxdata 108080 22'' back on my Desk. FH2 with 2048 x 1536 :P
But with a terrible 160 Watts power usage, so I exchanged it for a Samsung P2450H 24'' 16:9 LCD.
Well, it´s ok and nice for snake pics and all, but of course the response is slower if you go from 100Hz (new pic every 10 ms) to 60Hz (new pic every 16,6 ms) :'(
-
All this CRT talk makes me wanna put my old Maxdata 108080 22'' back on my Desk. FH2 with 2048 x 1536 :P
But with a terrible 160 Watts power usage, so I exchanged it for a Samsung P2450H 24'' 16:9 LCD.
Well, it´s ok and nice for snake pics and all, but of course the response is slower if you go from 100Hz (new pic every 10 ms) to 60Hz (new pic every 16,6 ms) :'(
LCDs have an additional input lag beyond the Hz. Generally, the larger, the more. Commonly around 30ms, but sometimes as high as 60ms.
-
1900x1200 26"
I just changed from CRT to LCD a view month ago and it was such a big improvement. I will never change back though the old screen is now my side screen.
The CRT is a Iyama Vision Master Pro 454 19" which is a good monitor, but after 8 years of excessive use it has developed an green bias. I only saw that when I set up the new monitor beside it. Another problem of the CRTs is that they are more or less blurred. This strains the eyes and I have the suspicion that using a bad CRT before the Iyama cost me a lot of my visual acuity. What really anoyed me about the CRTs is that you always have to correct the picture after a change of the refresh frequency manualy over the buttons and you will still have distortions in the picture. And don't forget that a CRT takes a LOT of space on your desk especially a 22" CRT ::).
It is true that LCDs have an inputlag and when you move the view in a shooter the quality suffers because of slow pixels, but in summary I would never change my 26" LCD back to the 19" CRT although the CRT was twice as expensive than the LCD.
-
You know, the color problem isn't a problem at all. There are very few monitors with a perfect factory calibration (LCD or CRT), you actually need to do it yourself if you want a suitable result. ;)
-
where is 800x600 ?? xD
-
1920x1080 my monitor supports HD I don't use the HD on my pc though.
-
My monitor resolution is 1366x768.
-
So I've now joined the FullHD club, BF2/FH2 is set to 1920*1080, and I spy with my little eye that the minimap, voice chat, map screen, etc. all stretch uglily in the horizontal direction. Is this supposed to happen? Is it an engine thing, ie. that minimap is x % of screen width, or am I doing something wrong?
-
No, it's not you. I remember reading somewhere that it's due to the half-arsed way Dice added widescreen support in the BF2 1.5 patch... ::)
-
So it is impossible for the FH2 devs would be to "fix" the width of a map, compass, spawn menu, etc. to certain amount of pixels instead of a percentage? Considering that even the font in the text chat / kill messages is stretched, that seems unfortunately very likely :(
Oh well, at least the graphics themselves are not distorted. With the exception of the flashing red hit indicator on vehicles, it appears as an oval instead of circle.
-
No, it's not you. I remember reading somewhere that it's due to the half-arsed way Dice added widescreen support in the BF2 1.5 patch... ::)
Thats definitely the company we all know and love :P
-
So it is impossible for the FH2 devs would be to "fix" the width of a map, compass, spawn menu, etc. to certain amount of pixels instead of a percentage? Considering that even the font in the text chat / kill messages is stretched, that seems unfortunately very likely :(
Oh well, at least the graphics themselves are not distorted. With the exception of the flashing red hit indicator on vehicles, it appears as an oval instead of circle.
It could work, but rotating hud would still be screwed and would require a massive amount of work, which is why not even Dice did it.
But don't worry too much, it is annoying as hell in the beginning but you'll get used to it. After a couple weeks you won't even notice it anymore. Either that or play with black bars on the side.
You triggered my anti-Dice flame thrower:
Why didn't they code HUD as align to center, right and left?
-
My precious: 1920x1080 16:9 (full HD)
Aye, this one. It looks really neat :P Menu is bit odd (because of battlefield 2, blrr), but in-game looks perfect!
-
1920x1200 for me
I have had to revert back to 1024x768 4:3 for a short while....
it makes such a difference to my game play using a high res, right now I can't hit anything at all, except friendlies that is ::)
-
1920x1200 on a 17 inch laptop screen ... which has the added bonus of eliminating most jagged edges without having to use AA, which itself can increase blur, which then needs more processing tricks to counter, ad nauseum.
-
Got a Full HD screen now for a month, therefore a looooong time a (shitty) 1680x1050 screen... -.- ;)
-
I don't see much difference between Full HD and 1680x1050 in this game... Only more fps and bigger hit detector for my sight with lower resolution....