Ideal Resolution

[banjo]

In some flight sims I have played the ultimate resolution as far as FPS wasn't always the lowest one. In one it was actually higher than the kinda standard 1024 x 768. Does anyone know if there is an ideal resolution for SHIV

[AVGWarhawk]

Ideally, 1024x768. Lets remember, the game originally was released locked at this resolution. Therefore, logically, everything in the game should conform to this resolution. Now, they claimed resolution is fixed but was everything else changed to accomodate the new obtainable resolutions? I'm thinking no from the posts I have seen on resolutions and ranges, etc.

This is the resolution I play in. As a side note, no issues either.

[CCIP]

Also, this is a question mostly for CRT users I'd think. For LCD users, the real answer is 'whatever your monitor's native resolution is' :yep:

But yes, AVGWarhawk's suggestion that the game's original locked resolution would be it does make sense.

[AVGWarhawk]

I can go very high in res on my LCD. I choose not to just for the reason stated above. The games looks to have been locked at this res of 1024x768. My logic is, the scaling is locked to 1024x768. Anything higher or lower is just eye candy without the other function of correct stadi readings, sonar ping reading etc. Just my thoughts on that issue.

[DragonRR1]

I can go very high in res on my LCD. I choose not to just for the reason stated above. The games looks to have been locked at this res of 1024x768. My logic is, the scaling is locked to 1024x768. Anything higher or lower is just eye candy without the other function of correct stadi readings, sonar ping reading etc. Just my thoughts on that issue.

You actually pre-empted a question I had brewing here! I bought SH3 when it came out and have played it off and on ever since. I have always intended to go full manual targeting but never did. I have often wondered what affect the resolution hack in SH3 (which I used immediately after its appearance) would have if I did.

I am now pondering going manual with SH4. I run at 1920x1200 widescreen and have absolutely no intention of running 1024x768 even if it means I may not be able to go manual. It seems pretty obvious that the devs intended to release with full resolution available as I have mentioned a number of times - in 1.0 & 1.1 the periscope view for me was running in high resolution anyway...

The problem in my view is with bitmap overlays. Sonar pings shouldn't be affected since that's a maths function, providing the 3D view isn't squashed or stretched for widescreen ships should be the correct height and length. The bitmaps do get expanded to fit the screen and therefore the scales MAY be off. I'm quite sure that if they are off the problem will be moddable....

Hmm I'm off to do some testing :)

[DragonRR1]

Possible bad news x 2 :(

1. They are still cropping the image for widescreen users. I.e. running 1920x1200 you see the same amount horizontally as a 4:3 user but less vertically. It's an irritation rather than a game breaker.
2. Using my TDC fix mod the scale does appear to be off although I need to do more testing.


Going back to your comments Warhawk... there SHOULD be no problem for you if you run a higher resolution providing it is 4:3, after all everything should be just expanded in all directions.. 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 etc.. would you mind testing?

[Beast]

I can't see how a resolution change would affect the in game scales or accuracy one bit, but even if you could argue widescreen resolutions might alter things a little, we're only talking inaccuracies of one or two pixels which shouldn't make any kind of real world difference unless you happen to like taking shots from 10km away :).

I think it's reasonable to assume that at the very least, using any 4:3 resolution (Such as 1280x960 or 1600x1200) would have zero impact to accuracy compared to 1024x768. IMHO, a higher resolution should make you more accurate, because the improved clarity in detail means you might be able to plot or identify better/quicker than at 1024x768.

FWIW I use 1680x1050 on my laptop when travelling or 1600x1200 on the LCD when at home and both seem as accurate as each other (and look great!).

[AVGWarhawk]

Possible bad news x 2 :(

1. They are still cropping the image for widescreen users. I.e. running 1920x1200 you see the same amount horizontally as a 4:3 user but less vertically. It's an irritation rather than a game breaker.
2. Using my TDC fix mod the scale does appear to be off although I need to do more testing.


Going back to your comments Warhawk... there SHOULD be no problem for you if you run a higher resolution providing it is 4:3, after all everything should be just expanded in all directions.. 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 etc.. would you mind testing?

To be honest, I tried the larger res and had to make screen adjustment and tweek this and that. Took me time it back to 1024x768. I do not want to change it. I'm still not sold on the distance range deal when going into higher res. But you know what, I will try it again. How do you know it is 4:3?

[DragonRR1]

If I understand you correctly then:

4/3=1.333333 recurring
1024x768 = 4:3 because 1024/768=1.3333333
1280x960 = 4:3 because 1280/960=1.333333 (sorry Warhawk I said 1280x1024 above which isn't 4:3)
1600x1200=4:3 because 1600/1200=1.333333

And so on..

I hope that makes sense and answers your question!

I have got much time tonight but I ran at 1024x768 and took some screenshots through the TDC, then at 1600x1200, then at 1920x1200 and at 1920x1200 the length of the ship was one notch off and the height... about one notch. 1024x768 and 1600x1200 looked identical...

[AVGWarhawk]

If I understand you correctly then:

4/3=1.333333 recurring
1024x768 = 4:3 because 1024/768=1.3333333
1280x960 = 4:3 because 1280/960=1.333333 (sorry Warhawk I said 1280x1024 above which isn't 4:3)
1600x1200=4:3 because 1600/1200=1.333333

And so on..

I hope that makes sense and answers your question!

Ok, so any of the higher res shown above will still be the same aspect ration to 1024x768, correct? I do not know how this will affect my FPS but I'll give it a go.

[DragonRR1]

Yes the aspect ratios I listed above are all the same. Thanks for having another look (you can always go back) :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Ill mess with it this weekend. See what I see.:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, pushing up the resolution made my computer start to grunt. At 1280x960 she had 9 FPS on the bridge. Map she had the usual 50 FPS. Control rooms she had 11-15 FPS. I switch the res to 1152x864. I gained about 3-4 FPS on each page. I have to leave the res at the 1024x768 so I can have a decent FPS in the TBT and Scope, etc. I need these when the action starts. So I'm not much help here in the res department;)

Test conclusion: I need a faster computer:oops:

[U-Bones]

I use 1152x864.

I would use 1024x768 BUT that leaves no screen real estate to put the stoooopid text message box. Every possible place to put it, except the center of the screen, interferes with one screen or another.

So I run a little bigger so there is room to tuck teh message box in the middle, just above the HUD. Why they dissasociated it from the HUD is beyond me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, the text box is up top on the lowest res but I like the feature of being able to fade out the background on it. It is not so bad then.

[bunkerratt]

as really a simple but true answer ...the image you see is going to be best @the native resoulition of the display it's being shown. on..yes we can change things per basis based on ind hardware ...