what resolution will you be playing at.

[Adam]

Originally posted by BBA
WHy? HL1 has graphics that dont scale.

Now, take Doom3 or BF1942/Desert Combat...if I take screens at 640x480 no aa/af, and then one at 1600x1200 4X/16X you will see a freaking magical difference analogous to watching the superbowl on a black and white tv as opposed to a widescreen HDTV. The difference is indescribable.

Adam...if you want screenshots, I'll send them.

Im talking about 640x480 WITH FSAA/AF compared to 1600x1200 with the same. Obviously disabling FSAA/AF would change the way it looks..

 

[droper]

Originally posted by TAZ
Hmm.. HalfLife 2, drivable vehicles, firefights with 50 story Stryders and Big mofu Antlions... nah, no quick moving in this game

If everything is physically simulated to some degree it should not be like a UT type fast. I'm sure 25-30 will look good. multiplayer is going to be more of a challenge.

 

[OneAngryDwarf]

Well, considering i bought a FX 5600 256 meg for this game (got it a few months ago, before the benchmarks and all) so i just hope i can play the damn game. I'll probably run it at 1024x768, providing my computer doesnt explode first...:flame:

 

[BBA]

BTW: Your monitor does not grow to show you more pixels, the resolution does that by definition. As in 640x480 means 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels high...and 1600x1200 is 1600 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. If you monitor is capable of 1600x1200, then you will see much more detail at 1600x1200 than you will at 640x480.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by BBA
BTW: Your monitor does not grow to show you more pixels, the resolution does that by definition. As in 640x480 means 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels high...and 1600x1200 is 1600 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. If you monitor is capable of 1600x1200, then you will see much more detail at 1600x1200 than you will at 640x480.

I never said that my monitor grows.

 

[nsxownzme]

Originally posted by nw909
Get in the game bitch.

ROTF hah

1280x1024x32

 

[BaNDiT]

i will try to run at 1600 x 1200 with med settings. no aa or af

 

[willyd]

1024x768 on My monitor, but hopefully i will have a transcoder by when HL2 comes out. If i do, then ill be running 1920x1080i on my 50inch HDTV. But since it is a G4800se i will prolly be getting a good 15-20 fps but no biggie. Oh and def no AA or AF cuz that kills my performance.

 

[DimitriPopov]

Ill probably be running about 640x480 0x 0x , Low detail and still getting sht frame-rates. thanks Nvidia 5900FX U 256!!!! GG

 

[Athlon7]

Adam, dude try games at a higher resolution you're SO missing out.

1152x864 w/ 4x FSAA 8X ANSI.

 

[Warbie]

'Anything that is 24 fps and above will look good.'

Anything less than 30 and u'll definately notice it as you look about.

I've got a xp2500+, 9700 pro and 512 pc2700 - i'm just hoping the game will run at a stable 60 fps @ 1024*768 with no AA or AF.

 

[Stiler]

1024x768
AA/AF don't really matter much to me.

"oh hey a jaggy on the stairs"
"KEILL EM!"

 

[TheWall421]

Adam I just tried Battlefield 1942 at 640x480 8xAA/16xAnistrop. It is actually much smoother looking than I was expecting. Though the real difference is in how much detail you can see. You have a great deal more pixels to work with at higher resolutions, so detail is much much greater. You can make out faces from way farther away, etc.

I think theyre useless, youd have to be crazy to even care about jaggies or texture quality a few meteres infront of you. Image quality is the last thing I care about, I just wanna play.

Anyone who thinks AA or Anistropy are worthless, obvisouley have an Nvidia card . Don't be a hater, I used to have one too.

Oh and I have a 9800 non-pro oc'ed to a little above the supposed 9800XT speeds (415core/730mem), with an Athlon 1800XP. I'll plan on playing at 1024/768 4xAA/8xAnistropy and max details.

 

[A2597]

well, thinking back...

whatever nets me a constant 40+ FPS, preferably 60.

and yes, I CAN see a difference, even without the FPS counter. 30FPS seems pretty laggy at times....

 

[A2597]

TheWall421,
if you can, upgrade that 1800+, that will be a bottleneck for the 9800XT.
(Trust me, seen PLENTY of benchmarks/ingame states to know you want at LEAST 2ghz behind that card)
difference is about 30FPS from a 1800+ to a 2600+ for that card, so it IS worth it.

(Test based on UT2k3 forums results as posted by forum members/discussion)

 

[VoiD]

I find that 30fps is great in games such as ut2k3 ravenshield and bf1942. But in older games like halflife and even quake3 30fps sucks completely. Hopefully halflife2 will feel smooth as silk at 30-40fps like bf1942 does.

 

[A2597]

interesting...
in UT2k3 I can tell the difference between 30and 60 FPS easily...
but your right, BF1942 is smooth at 30.

 

[oldi1knoby]

/Comic book geek voice from The Simpsons ON

I will be playing at 16x12

Wild huh?

there will be over 190 pixels on the screen at the same time. It is going to be the best game ever.

 

[Woggy]

Anyone who thinks AA or Anistropy are worthless, obvisouley have an Nvidia card . Don't be a hater, I used to have one too.

What? I have a Geforce 3, and I cant even notice the difference between quincunx (which make textures blurry) and 4x (which doesnt)
In hardware reviews they show you pics of image quality from different cards and go "Its ovious that X has superior quality to Y", but I cant see a differnece at all.
I just dont care.
Maybe Im used to having shitty graphics, I used to have a TNT2 and before that a 8meg AGP card.

 

[A2597]

on the GeForce3, quincunx is the way to go, looks best...

on the ATI cards, 4x, or 8x looks SWEET...and 16x anscopic filtering...*drools*

 

[ValVed RaY]

2048x1536 32 bit color

 

[Spitwad]

I'll try and run at 1280x1024 since thats my lcds native res.
Powercolor 9800 Pro 128mb @ 421/360 speeds.

 

[Seikeden]

1024x768 med det. no AA 2x AF... if it aint playable i'll get a new video card

I'd say, dependant on the geometry and texture complexity in a game, resolution really makes a difference.

e.g. half-life 1 ideal resolution was 640x480 (that was hardcore high res back in those days ) whereas playing even cs, with its much higher def. textures, they look blurry at 800x600. so I'd say 1024x768 would be fairly sweet for moderate texture detail, under that would be poopadelic. the more edges there are, the more you notice jaggies

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

1280 x 1024 32-bit
AA x 8
AF = (wtf?) x 4 or x 8 meh.
Ill have everything on High or Extreme.
Hercules Prophet 9700 pro

 

[Mr Neutron]

Each game is very different with AA/AF. It's useful especailly with games where you look far distances, though I find BF1942 needs AA desperately but not AF.

 

[mosquave]

I'll play at the highest res that can support a half-decent framerate.

I'm not bothered about aa/af either, it's the gameplay that interests me not the graphics.

 

[RhapSidious]

Originally posted by poseyjmac
what kind of motherboard do you have? u could overclock to 3.2 probably even with stock cooling with that cpu

Intel DBPZ875.

Currently the top end Intel mobo, but offers virutual ZERO overclocking. I've got enough cooling to overclock too, so in a year or so I may change to a ABIT overclock friendly mobo.

On the upside, it's a very reliable setup.

 

[c14dude]

640-480 lowest details
i think it'll run ok on my Geforce 4mx440

 

[Quixoticism]

800 x 600 8xAF full detail (I hope)

_________________
MSI KT400 Ultra mobo
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB
256 MB 2700DDR ram (going up to 512 soon)
13GB HD (really)

 

[Ki||tacular]

that one guy that said 1600x1200 with 16 bit color is crazy. 16 bit color looks like ASS.

 

[Froz]

1024x768 all maxed out. Radeon 9800 Pro

 

[KPeh]

1280*1024

Radeon 9800 Pro. Maybe 2x AA depending on performance.

 

[soman]

Ill be playing whatever they had on E3 as I got the same specs.

 

[Pol]

1024X768

high/max detail no AA no AF

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

i dont think you select AA or AF in game its already set on your Gcard so

 

[Lauts]

Probably 800x600 (no AF or AA) with medium details because my comp is crap

 

[FriScho]

Originally posted by draven
1024x768 with 4xAA. Details maxed.
*hopes*

dito (P4 2.8Ghz, 1Gb Ram, Radeon9800Pro)

I hope Framerate will stay >=20 even in a hot fight in City 17

 

[Gorgon]

well 1024x768

everything is on.

 

[k956764]

1600x1200 full detail no AA hopefully will run ok

 

[Vash]

Heh...1024x768 if I'm lucky. Ordering a new CPU has been put ont the back burner until I can pay for it without being reduced to eating spagetti-os for a month. So I'm stuck with my old Athlon Thunderbird C 1.4 and my Ti 4600. I might be able to swing 1024x7...maybe...