Extreme disappointment here. I can verify everything people have said about poor quality rendering at high resolution, as well as the ineffectiveness of AA. I'm trying to run 1920x1200 on a 37" LCD with a 7950 GX2, so the low rez 3D is REALLY killing me.

I also have the sound loop on torpedo hits. Audigy 2ZS.

I would get past the rendering issue in the short term IF AA worked well, but I would still expect the resolution issue to be fixed in an early patch. Unfortunately, I can't see clearly enough to even identify ship types visually. Nor can I see the gauges clearly in the control room except for the big depth gauge right in front of me.

It kills me because I see SO MUCH POTENTIAL in this sim even in the short couple of hours I have played it. But I will not go blind trying to stare at blurry gauges and looking at the blocks hanging in space that are supposedly ship superstructures. I zoom in and they are beautiful, even low-res. Zoom out... blocks.

Verdict: pretend I didn't buy it, put it on the shelf, come back after the first patch and/or after someone in the forum finds a resolution work around. Then - and only then - will I embrace SH4 once again.

Welcome to Subsim!

I have a feeling this particular issue of a fixed XGA resolution of 1024x768 scaling to higher resolutions may well be working as Ubi intended. I think the best way around this is to try and keep the resolution as close to 1024x768 as you can. The native res on my widescreen is 1680x1050, so I will likely get similar blocky graphics to what you're experiencing. Luckily I also have a 4:3 19" LCD that has a native res of 1280x1024, so I'll use that for SH4 as the quality degradation will be less evident as it's in the same aspect ratio and doesn't have as far to scale.

Not the ideal solution, but it's one I can live with.

37 inch? That's pretty big, the game probably was not meant to be played on movie theaters :)

I got an e-mail from a guy who has a review copy, he writes for a major game magazine. He read this thread and wonders what the fuss is about.

I asked him to send me a screen from his PC, here's what he sent. I converted the bmp to a jpg and compressed it a bit, but I think it looks fine.


(Gizzmoe, don't ban me for the giant screen, I won't do it again)
http://www.subsim.com/sh4/SH4Img@16-....20.13_828.jpg

Yea, thats a big reason I am not throwing a fit yet, I don't have the game so I haven't tried it for myself...

Thanks for the update neal :D

I can see jaggies on that ship. Besides, its already been reported that the scope view seems to be slightly higher res or is running some kind of softening filter.

If you are on deck and use the binoculars you will also see the graphics seems to suddenly have some kind of aa/softening applied to 3D world.

That screenshot doesn't look much different to my experience at scope - what he needs to be looking at is the external view!!!

Whatever way you look at it the 3D rendering is 1024 x 768 despite what it may seem.

If the image is compressed, than it's not a clear representation of what it's going to look like fullsize. Show us none compressed images please. Use imageshack if you must.

You can see jaggies on the ship....ok, you're either going to have to leanr to live with it or pass on SH4. I've played quite a few games that had some jaggies, even games with AA, never lost any sleep over it. :)


Here's a shot from the exterior of the sub. Yes, the cable has some jagginess... again, I'm shocked to think this is a showstopper... but that's a decision everyone has to make for himself.


http://www.subsim.com/sh4/SH4Img@19-....54.20_328.jpg

Another good way to prove it...

In your widescreen mode just move the camera around the command room...

then switch to 1024 x 768 and do the same...

you will see your field of view in the widescreen mode is far tighter and you feel more cramped in the command room. Why? Because in the wide modes they are zooming your the field of view to remove the need to have to stretch the 1024 x 768 to your widescreen display.

I hope you understand what I mean ;-)

Neil, please understand these discussions aren't about jaggies anymore.. its about the simple fact that the 3D world you are seeing there is rendering at 1024 x 768 and not at the resolution of your instruments!

This is the basis of why everyone is getting upset.. if you switch to 1024 x 768 and take that same screenshot you they will be identical apart from your instruments will look stretched.

If the game truly can run at any res and it's not just scaling a smaller image, then running it on a 37" 1080p monitor would look gorgeous...as do nearly all games released today.

Hi Neal,

Let me preface this by clarifying that I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller type of guy... I spent alot of time with SH3, read Subsim quite a bit, but never really had anything usful to contribute that had not already been covered in excruciating detail. That's a compliment to the quality of the board and the members!

I hate that my "first post" has to be a complaint, but the fact is my disappointment compelled me to comment.

Anyway, you are correct that the GUI and 2D components of the display are fine. They scale appropriately with resolution. The problem is that the actual "action" image is not showing the proper level of detail that should be associated with the extra pixels on a high-res display.

As suggested above, I ran SH4 in 1024x768 mode. The GUI/panel was appropriately upsized, but the action images looked perhaps a little better - still distorted, but more smooth, and in 4:3 or therabouts instead of widescreen. Basically what I would expect for 1024x768. In any other application that I have used (running the gamut from DLL'd SH3 to rFactor to FSX to Supreme Commander and more than I frankly care to admit) 1920x1200 would be a knock-your-socks-off improvement in detail and clarity - literally a VHS to HD-DVD type of come-to-Jesus rendering joy. That is DEFINITELY not happening here.

The attached screenshot is about right for a zoomed image. By the time you see the ship that close, you're well into your attack run. The problem is that due to the poor resolution, longer range (less zoomed) views are not good at all. Again, in a normal game or application upping the resolution should clear that up no questions asked. That dynamic is absolutely not at work here. I have tried.

I hope that this is something that "got broke" right before Gold and nobody caught it, but I suppose only time will tell. What is indisputable to me is that the program IS NOT rendering the quality that should be present at 1920x1200.

And it's one of those 37" Westinghouse 1080P displays... definitely the best "upgrade" I've ever made! :)

Anyway, here's to hoping that the devs or some smart guy in the Subsim community figures out how to make the renderer work properly.

Just my humble opinion, but I think the complainants actually have a point here.

I don't know if these reports about scaling are correct. One guy, on another forum, who is a professional sim reviewer was responding to comments along these lines. He's using widescreen and high resolution and seems to think it's working fine in SH4 with no distorting or cropping. One point he made was that screenshots in 1024x768 32bit always come out at 2.3mb while his screenshots for SH4 in 1680x1050 are coming out at 5mb.

So...maybe there's something else at work here?

Thanks for forwarding the shot Neal. It's helpful to see a full size screenshot regarding this matter.

I'm really not sure what to make of all this. I've seen shots that look pretty decent (lack of FSAA notwithstanding) and I've seen shots that look down right awful!

I don't think it's fair for someone to pull a screenshot of a game at it's worst possible moment and focus in on a game's weakest spot. All games have things they do well, and things they don't do well. It's the quality of the overall scene that matters most.

Based on what I've seen so far, it's very difficult to tell if SH4's fundamental rendering quality is up to snuff. At the very least, I think SH4 is doing some really wierd things regarding rendering and this worries me.

Sigh. Which is exactly what would happen because the entire image is being upscaled to 1680x1050! What did he expect?

The point everyone is making is that the 3D is being rendered in a low resolution of 1024 x 768 and then simply being scaled/cropped to higher modes and widescreen ratios.

I'm gonna stay out the argument now because I'm getting bored explaining it. There are plenty of other people here who fully appreciate what is going on. I'll come back when its all patched up.

I'm by no means gonna chuck it in the bin - its still got promise, I'm just disapointed that with all the effort they went to with the graphical tweaks they didn't bother to give us true high resolution rendering so we can fully appreciate those said tweaks.

That is interesting. But a Pic at 1680 1050 is going to be bigger then a 1024 768. Remember people are saying the guages etc scale, but not the 3d.