PDA

View Full Version : Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how do I make things smaller?


PW[_2_]
September 24th 07, 04:43 AM
Hi,

I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.

Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
don't have room on my desk to set up both).

WinXP
eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
2GB RAM
Yada, yada, yada

Thanks,

-pw

Mr.E Solved!
September 24th 07, 04:57 AM
PW wrote:
Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor

Yes.

Paul
September 24th 07, 05:36 AM
PW wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>
> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
> don't have room on my desk to set up both).
>
> WinXP
> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
> 2GB RAM
> Yada, yada, yada
>
> Thanks,
>
> -pw

They mention running at 1920x1080 here.
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/command-conquer-3-tiberium-wars/777472p1.html

Paul

RF
September 24th 07, 12:13 PM
"PW" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>
> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
> don't have room on my desk to set up both).
>
> WinXP
> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
> 2GB RAM
> Yada, yada, yada
>
> Thanks,
>
> -pw

3D rendered games are not like the games of old that used fixed size sprites
and such to draw the characters/enemies/whatever. Those usually don't get
smaller or bigger nowadays, just more or less detailed when you change the
resolution. That does depend on the game too, of course, but I haven't run
into a game like that recently. Some things like UI elements may remain a
fixed pixel size, however. So when you change resolution those take up less
space on the screen instead of getting bigger and showing more information.
Like the map screen. In C&C they probably did that so players with bigger
monitors wouldn't have an advantage over ones with smaller monitors.

RF

Skybuck Flying
September 24th 07, 02:21 PM
Wouldn't be too smart.

Giving people with widescreen an adventage is a good way to stimulate people
to buy these bigger monitors.

Gameplay experience is better if more is visible on the screen.

Bye,
Skybuck.

gamefixer
September 24th 07, 03:12 PM
On Sep 23, 9:57 pm, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
> PW wrote:
>
> Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor
>
> Yes.

What? This is a joke right? CRT monitor?? Pull out the VCR and the 8
track player while your at it.

To the OP: check out www.widescreengamingforum.com before you go back
to a CRT. There might be some useful info there.

Matt

Mr.E Solved!
September 24th 07, 04:00 PM
gamefixer wrote:

> On Sep 23, 9:57 pm, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
>> PW wrote:
>>
>> Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor
>>
>> Yes.
>
> What? This is a joke right? CRT monitor??

Matt you have demonstrated in prior posts you know not of what you
speak, this is further proof.


> Pull out the VCR and the 8
> track player while your at it.

Strawman. Fail.


> To the OP: check out www.widescreengamingforum.com before you go back
> to a CRT. There might be some useful info there.
>
> Matt

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98338

24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.

Benjamin Gawert
September 24th 07, 08:32 PM
* Mr.E Solved!:

> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98338
>
> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.

Can't confirm that, and I have been using 24" Widescreen CRTs for over 9
years (until 2000 I had the Sony W900, then from 2000 to 2005 I had the
FW900). Of course reaction times are way faster than any TFT but that's
it basically. The FW900 is extremely fragile when it comes to RGB
convergence, and it's alsmost impossible to get 100% perfect convergence
over the whole screen area. Especially in the corners are divergences.
At that time it was one of the best CRTs but still it wasn't perfect,
and at that time I played most games on my SGI 1600SW Widescreen TFT
which definitely *was* perfect. I later got rid of the FW900 completely
in favour of a Dell 2005FPW. Despite it's smaller screen size gaming was
much more fun with it than with the bulky FW900.

The predecessor W900 was even worse, more like a fishglass. The W900 was
primarily made for moving content and less for static applications like
DTP, image editing, word processing or something like that. The FW900
was better, though, but still not very good for static applications.

Besides that, production of these beasts stopped around 2001 or so. I'd
not recommend anyone to waste money on a over 6 year old CRT which
probably already has several thousand operating hours on it's tube. And
at the quality of todays TFTs there hardly is any reason to waste money
on such dinosaurs.

Benjamin

gamefixer
September 24th 07, 09:27 PM
On Sep 24, 9:00 am, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
> gamefixer wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 9:57 pm, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
> >> PW wrote:
>
> >> Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > What? This is a joke right? CRT monitor??
>
> Matt you have demonstrated in prior posts you know not of what you
> speak, this is further proof.
>
> > Pull out the VCR and the 8
> > track player while your at it.
>
> Strawman. Fail.
>
> > To the OP: check outwww.widescreengamingforum.combefore you go back
> > to a CRT. There might be some useful info there.
>
> > Matt
>
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98338
>
> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.

Oh my god, please... LCD's have come so far over the last several
years. If we were talking about early 2000/2001/2002 models then I'd
agree with you but the fact is that many of the widescreen LCD's that
are produced these days are more then fast enough for games. They may
not produce 100% blacks or hit all the colors in the scale but a
widescreen LCD is a very good choice for gamers and daily computer
use. Not too mention the deskspace you get back.

I dont understand the Strawman comment...

Oh, thanks for the attack.

Matt

ShutEye
September 24th 07, 10:47 PM
> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.
>
> Oh my god, please... LCD's have come so far over the last several
> years. If we were talking about early 2000/2001/2002 models then I'd
> agree with you but the fact is that many of the widescreen LCD's that
> are produced these days are more then fast enough for games. They may
> not produce 100% blacks or hit all the colors in the scale but a
> widescreen LCD is a very good choice for gamers and daily computer
> use. Not too mention the deskspace you get back.

"They may not produce 100% blacks
or hit all the colors in the scale but ..."

LOL!
But they're still better than CRT?

deimos[_2_]
September 24th 07, 11:29 PM
ShutEye wrote:
>> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.
>>
>> Oh my god, please... LCD's have come so far over the last several
>> years. If we were talking about early 2000/2001/2002 models then I'd
>> agree with you but the fact is that many of the widescreen LCD's that
>> are produced these days are more then fast enough for games. They may
>> not produce 100% blacks or hit all the colors in the scale but a
>> widescreen LCD is a very good choice for gamers and daily computer
>> use. Not too mention the deskspace you get back.
>
> "They may not produce 100% blacks
> or hit all the colors in the scale but ..."
>
> LOL!
> But they're still better than CRT?
>
>

More vibrant colors.

No D-A conversion on DVI.

Often very much sharper image (no shadow mask, no convergence).

Low power consumption.

As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).

Very much easier on the eyes, little eye strain.

Inexpensive for larger displays and multi-monitors. Easy to replace.

Easy to transport.

S-IPS panels are media production quality and have greater than S-RGB gamut.


I have a good quality CRT setting right next to me, but I don't use it
as my main display. Over time all CRT's will degrade and unless you're
an electronics technician skilled at recalibrating the tube, then it
goes blurry and dim. LCD's suffer only bulb failure over time, but have
a very high MTBF on all other components (greater than the life
expectancy of the display).

deimos[_2_]
September 24th 07, 11:33 PM
PW wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>
> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
> don't have room on my desk to set up both).
>
> WinXP
> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
> 2GB RAM
> Yada, yada, yada
>
> Thanks,
>
> -pw

Interace elements may be rendered to polygons that scale with the
resolution. Unlike previous fixed pixel size C&C games, the game has a
camera with a pre-determined FOV, perspective, and depth. To see the
units as small and more of the map, the camera would have to move
further away from the playfield in coordinate space. Your display only
affects image quality and the resolving power of the game elements.

Keep in mind that textures are generally made with certain pixel sizes
in mind and beyond a certain point, there really isn't much more detail
to be had, just clearer edges and filtering. This includes UI elements.

PW[_2_]
September 24th 07, 11:52 PM
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:33:56 -0500, deimos <[email protected]> wrote:

>PW wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
>> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
>> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
>> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
>> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>>
>> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
>> don't have room on my desk to set up both).
>>
>> WinXP
>> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
>> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
>> 2GB RAM
>> Yada, yada, yada
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -pw
>
>Interace elements may be rendered to polygons that scale with the
>resolution. Unlike previous fixed pixel size C&C games, the game has a
>camera with a pre-determined FOV, perspective, and depth. To see the
>units as small and more of the map, the camera would have to move
>further away from the playfield in coordinate space. Your display only
>affects image quality and the resolving power of the game elements.
>
>Keep in mind that textures are generally made with certain pixel sizes
>in mind and beyond a certain point, there really isn't much more detail
>to be had, just clearer edges and filtering. This includes UI elements.

Thanks everyone!

-pw

gamefixer
September 25th 07, 12:39 AM
> LOL!
> But they're still better than CRT?

Yup, I think so.

None of us have the exact same eyesight. I like sharp images with deep
colors, two things that quality LCD's are very good at reproducing.
I've had my fair share of CRT's and was very happy with them while
they lasted.

Matt

gamefixer
September 25th 07, 12:43 AM
> More vibrant colors.
>
>
> Often very much sharper image (no shadow mask, no convergence).

2 of the many reasons that I prefer LCD's over CRT's.

Matt

ShutEye
September 25th 07, 06:16 AM
>> "They may not produce 100% blacks
>> or hit all the colors in the scale but ..."
>>
>> LOL!
>> But they're still better than CRT?
>
> More vibrant colors.

?

> No D-A conversion on DVI.

True.

> Often very much sharper image (no shadow mask, no convergence).

Not my experience - especially not when swithcing from the navtive res. of
the LCD!

> Low power consumption.

True. This doesn't make it better though.

> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).

True. This doesn't make it better though.

> Very much easier on the eyes, little eye strain.

That's true!

> Inexpensive for larger displays and multi-monitors. Easy to replace.

True. This doe ... oh NM :)

> Easy to transport.

Read above.

> S-IPS panels are media production quality and have greater than S-RGB
> gamut.

?

> I have a good quality CRT setting right next to me, but I don't use it as
> my main display. Over time all CRT's will degrade and unless you're an
> electronics technician skilled at recalibrating the tube, then it goes
> blurry and dim. LCD's suffer only bulb failure over time, but have a very
> high MTBF on all other components (greater than the life expectancy of the
> display).

LCD backlight will wear off with time, that's my experience anyway.

I've a LCD as main screen as well you know :)

ShutEye
September 25th 07, 06:17 AM
>> LOL!
>> But they're still better than CRT?
>
> Yup, I think so.
>
> None of us have the exact same eyesight. I like sharp images with deep
> colors, two things that quality LCD's are very good at reproducing.
> I've had my fair share of CRT's and was very happy with them while
> they lasted.

Yeah, well it's religion I guess :)
I've a LCD as main screen just in case you've wondered.

Paul
September 25th 07, 06:26 AM
deimos wrote:
> ShutEye wrote:
>>> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.
>>>
>>> Oh my god, please... LCD's have come so far over the last several
>>> years. If we were talking about early 2000/2001/2002 models then I'd
>>> agree with you but the fact is that many of the widescreen LCD's that
>>> are produced these days are more then fast enough for games. They may
>>> not produce 100% blacks or hit all the colors in the scale but a
>>> widescreen LCD is a very good choice for gamers and daily computer
>>> use. Not too mention the deskspace you get back.
>>
>> "They may not produce 100% blacks
>> or hit all the colors in the scale but ..."
>>
>> LOL!
>> But they're still better than CRT?
>>
>>
>
> More vibrant colors.
>
> No D-A conversion on DVI.
>
> Often very much sharper image (no shadow mask, no convergence).
>
> Low power consumption.
>
> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).
>
> Very much easier on the eyes, little eye strain.
>
> Inexpensive for larger displays and multi-monitors. Easy to replace.
>
> Easy to transport.
>
> S-IPS panels are media production quality and have greater than S-RGB
> gamut.
>
>
> I have a good quality CRT setting right next to me, but I don't use it
> as my main display. Over time all CRT's will degrade and unless you're
> an electronics technician skilled at recalibrating the tube, then it
> goes blurry and dim. LCD's suffer only bulb failure over time, but have
> a very high MTBF on all other components (greater than the life
> expectancy of the display).

Like one of these XL20 for $1660. 114% Colour Gamut. LED backlight. 1600 x 1200
Still needs work though, according to one review.

http://www.samsung.com/ca/products/monitor/lcd_highresolution/ls20edbebxaa.asp

This is what the backlight array looks like inside.

http://monitor.syncsight.com/upload/Code_Management/SF/CCFL%20vs%20LED/img_CCFL%20vs%20LED_02.jpg

Paul

gamefixer
September 25th 07, 07:16 AM
On Sep 24, 11:17 pm, "ShutEye" > wrote:
> >> LOL!
> >> But they're still better than CRT?
>
> > Yup, I think so.
>
> > None of us have the exact same eyesight. I like sharp images with deep
> > colors, two things that quality LCD's are very good at reproducing.
> > I've had my fair share of CRT's and was very happy with them while
> > they lasted.
>
> Yeah, well it's religion I guess :)
> I've a LCD as main screen just in case you've wondered.

Very true. I had pretty similar situations while I was a car stereo
installer. Things that sounded right to me were off to others, same
thing went the other way too. Out of the 7 of us in the shop only 4 or
so could agree on any given system.

Its all a matter of taste when it comes down to it.

Matt

Ed M.
September 25th 07, 01:00 PM
"Paul" > wrote in message ...
> PW wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
>> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
>> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
>> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
>> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>>
>> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
>> don't have room on my desk to set up both). WinXP
>> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
>> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
>> 2GB RAM
>> Yada, yada, yada
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -pw
>
> They mention running at 1920x1080 here.
> http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/command-conquer-3-tiberium-wars/777472p1.html
>
> Paul

My Samsung 244T 24" runs at 1920x1200 native, so that seems close.

Ed

DRS
September 25th 07, 04:56 PM
"ShutEye" > wrote in message

[...]

>> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).
>
> True. This doesn't make it better though.

It might be technically true but it's misleading. You're not comparing
apples with apples. Speed of pixel state switching isn't the only issue
with motion blur (often wrongly called ghosting). Speed of pixel decay is
also important. If the speed a pixel switched states was all that mattered
then any LCD faster than 25ms would be the equal of a CRT but they aren't.
The combination of pixel state switching speed, pixel decay rate and the
human eye mean that in this particular respect CRTs still beat LCDs hands
down.

ShutEye
September 26th 07, 10:40 AM
>>> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).
>>
>> True. This doesn't make it better though.
>
> It might be technically true but it's misleading. You're not comparing
> apples with apples. Speed of pixel state switching isn't the only issue
> with motion blur (often wrongly called ghosting). Speed of pixel decay is
> also important. If the speed a pixel switched states was all that
> mattered then any LCD faster than 25ms would be the equal of a CRT but
> they aren't. The combination of pixel state switching speed, pixel decay
> rate and the human eye mean that in this particular respect CRTs still
> beat LCDs hands down.

Should've wrote "true enough" :)
I can't SEE any difference.

Mr.E Solved!
September 27th 07, 09:17 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> * Mr.E Solved!:
>
>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98338
>>
>> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.
>
> Can't confirm that, and I have been using 24" Widescreen CRTs for over 9
> years (until 2000 I had the Sony W900, then from 2000 to 2005 I had the
> FW900). Of course reaction times are way faster than any TFT but that's
> it basically. The FW900 is extremely fragile when it comes to RGB
> convergence, and it's alsmost impossible to get 100% perfect convergence
> over the whole screen area. Especially in the corners are divergences.
> At that time it was one of the best CRTs but still it wasn't perfect,
> and at that time I played most games on my SGI 1600SW Widescreen TFT
> which definitely *was* perfect. I later got rid of the FW900 completely
> in favour of a Dell 2005FPW. Despite it's smaller screen size gaming was
> much more fun with it than with the bulky FW900.
>
> The predecessor W900 was even worse, more like a fishglass. The W900 was
> primarily made for moving content and less for static applications like
> DTP, image editing, word processing or something like that. The FW900
> was better, though, but still not very good for static applications.
>
> Besides that, production of these beasts stopped around 2001 or so. I'd
> not recommend anyone to waste money on a over 6 year old CRT which
> probably already has several thousand operating hours on it's tube. And
> at the quality of todays TFTs there hardly is any reason to waste money
> on such dinosaurs.
>
> Benjamin

I had no idea you were a gamer of distinction Benjamin. I am pleased you
made this point right away: "reaction times are way faster than any TFT
but that's it (electrically - Mr.E) basically". Since we both know how
critical that is to fps gaming.

One argument against CRTs used to be the lack of widescreen, now it
seems to be : Bulk (which has nothing to do with picture quality),
cachet (also nothing to do with picture quality), and convergence errors
which can be a drag unless set properly, and only then so with text in
the corners of the screen....which can happen often with games so it
does need to be checked.

You can buy the FW900 for short money across today, shipping is nearly
half again the cost of the display!

Benjamin Gawert
September 28th 07, 08:10 AM
* Mr.E Solved!:

> I had no idea you were a gamer of distinction Benjamin. I am pleased you
> made this point right away: "reaction times are way faster than any TFT
> but that's it (electrically - Mr.E) basically". Since we both know how
> critical that is to fps gaming.

Well, I know this is something being discussed, but personally, I think
the whole reaction times thing is just overestimated. Sure, when looking
at the first gegeration TFTs with >25ms screen lag was an issue, but
todays TFTs with 12ms or less should be fast enough for 3D games.

> One argument against CRTs used to be the lack of widescreen, now it
> seems to be : Bulk (which has nothing to do with picture quality),
> cachet (also nothing to do with picture quality), and convergence errors
> which can be a drag unless set properly,

That's the problem, it can't be set properly on the FW900. Even Sony
couldn't do that, and if you look at the service manuals you'll notice
that the allowed tolerances are huge.

> and only then so with text in
> the corners of the screen....which can happen often with games so it
> does need to be checked.

Well, I did notice the convergence issues in some games, and it can get
quite annoying. Besides that, probably only very few users use their
computer only for gaming and nothing else.

> You can buy the FW900 for short money across today, shipping is nearly
> half again the cost of the display!

Right, but I still think they are just a waste of money today. If you're
after one because of curiosity then well, it might be worth the money
for you. But to use one as a primary monitor isn't really a good idea.

Benjamin