1024x768 refusal


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Nerocz

Nerocz

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 05 October 2003 - 03:08 PM

OK, 1024x768 may seem as low and I know it, because I have 21" screen, but it's no tragedy. Try switching on functions like antiliasing or anisotropic filtering and I'm sure that in the end you'll get something nice to look at.

BTW. : Why does Czech game come out in Czech Rep. long after other the other countries  ??? .

#22 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 05 October 2003 - 03:12 PM

Good question Nerocz... :laugh:


#23 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 07:46 AM

Just to clear things up. No, I am using the only way possible to run x8/x8.

Anti-Aliasing is about fixing up a bad image. I used to do anti-aliasing by hand on my Amiga back in the old days.
AA does not improve the actual detail in the image, it just blurs the image to make it look less pixelated.


The problem is that the game now looks alot worse than it could have been. Simply becouse the developers shortcutted the production one-two days instead of implementing the most basic pieces of DX code... a resolution switcher.

And thats what got me annoyed. Its like "Yeah, I know that the car looks ugly if you look at it from some directions, as we did not have time to paint the roof"... "Yeah, I know that it only take a day to fix, but we decided early that we shouldnt, so now we cant"... "Yeah, I know its stupid, but if you dont like it, dont drive it". etc etc...

#24 GarethS

GarethS

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 08:27 AM

Tried this on both my home machines (both self-built) and it runs fine.

One is my main usage PC designed to run Pro/E R20 (3D CAD so designed to crunch numbers) and the other is my "network server" which is mainly an MP3 storage (and space for my drawings).
The lower spec PC is 800Mhz P3 with a Radeon 9000 Pro. The newer PC has something like a 9800 Pro with an AMD processor (fastest that was available at the time of build 6 months ago). Both PCs run Win2k Pro as I personally can't stand WinXP Pro. I've had a few glitches which I think are Catalyst related (refresh-like problems) but these are only on the older PC so may be speed/memory related. :angel:

#25 systems

systems

    X-COM Alien Interrogator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 09:38 AM

I agree that they should let you pick other "unsupported" resolutions (as is done with Baldur's 2 and Icewind Dale). Incidentally, Baldur's 1 was 800x600 res.

Is the "blurring" problem purely occuring with GeForce cards using anti-aliasing? I know 3 people all with Radeons using the Cat 3.7 drivers and it's perfect. Absolutely glorious, in fact (and I have a 20" monitor).

My only problem is with screenshots - they all end up as black screens!

[Edit: I'm using X16 anisotropic filtering and X6 anti-aliasing].

#26 GarethS

GarethS

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 09:58 AM

I might try tweaking Antiisotropic and Anti-alias on the "new" PC yet. I m also using Catalyst 3.7 drivers .. in fact the game told me that there were newer drivers available  :laugh: I'm just waiting for my 19" TFT to show up so that I have a viewing area of vastness (always useful when your personal design projects revolve around bits of car!)

#27 Jye

Jye

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 12:08 PM

I had this problem with the blurry text etc and it was because of old GFX card drivers.  I updated to the latest Omega drivers for my ATI 9700 Pro and lo and behold crisp legible GFX.

Hope this helps m8.

#28 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 12:21 PM

Its only natural that details are reduced with lower resolution, making it 'blurry' or 'pixelated'. Anti-aliasing is a way to adress the problems with jagged edges, which is more like fixing up a bad image rather than increasing the detail.

See the following image:
http://jemym.no-ip.com/resolution.jpg

Yes, it is not UFO, but I cant get a 1600x1200 shot in UFO, so I took the closest alternative: Dungeon Seige. Note that most of the detail is dissolved in the 1024x768 'blur'.

#29 Amenable to Change

Amenable to Change

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 12:42 PM

To be honest JPG's aren't the best format to be comparing image detail.

At the end of the day, Altar had to make decisions about what to implement and what to leave out. We don't know why they didn't add other supported Resolutions, perhaps it's because the gui elements didn't resize properly, because the game was coded to be in only 1024x768.

The game I think however is good enough that it doesn't detract from being in 1024x768 only. It's not exactly a small resolution as it is, and beside when you start getting into those high res's things get mightly small, and when you get older you'll be wishing they had done it in 640x480 with double height fonts.

#30 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 01:20 PM

The jpg is saved in quality 100%, but I had to resize it so the size was equal regardless which monitor you use to look at it.

#31 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    Anything that flies I can handle ...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 October 2003 - 04:54 PM

Slaughter, on Oct 5 2003, 03:20 PM, said:

1: I have this:
- AMD Athlon 1400 MHz
- 1024 DDR RAM
- ASUS GeForce 3 Deluxe (64 MB)
And the game run smooth for me, so you should have no trouble!
We have quite the same hardware SLAUGHTER
I have - P4 - 1.8Ghz ( Older Core will.)
            1024 Ram
            ASUS GeForce3 Ti500 (V8200Ti500)
that is the best GF3 Ever manufactured  :laugh:  Now it is on its final mission but ... what a machine it stil is ... So I am going to be just fine with the game speed ...

#32 ShadowBlade

ShadowBlade

    Veteran Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 07 October 2003 - 12:44 PM

Yes, the 1024x768 resolution problem is there, but you can't say it has screwed up the game just because YOU don't like playing on 1024x768. Sorry, but that's...

I know you have spent $3000+ to upgrade your PC, but it doesn't mean you can't play games which work on systems far less than that. So this pretty much depends on your opinion.

"why create a game that only a few can enjoy" - "A few"?! As it was said before, only "a few" can afford such and advanced PC. Remember, a computer game is always designed to be run on the lowest specs possible.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh/rude, but if you want ultra-l33t gfx, GET ANOTHER GAME!
Proud veteran of the X-COM Alliance Sim
[ JG-7X3 ]

#33 Centauris

Centauris

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 October 2003 - 03:13 PM

Amen to that brother! :laugh:

#34 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 07 October 2003 - 04:23 PM

Its not like Im asking for a truckload of candy here.

The average gamer IS equipped with a 17" and play games at 1280x1024. And there HAVE been comments about 800x600 as well.

It is a matter of personal preference... The option to play one game like all other games.

Its just as bad as locking the keyboard setup, or permanently disable Eax, or dissallowing AA etc. etc.

All developers should be aware that a game should not be locked at any setting, that things such as video, sound and input should be freely changed by each player... and locking any of thoose will leave out players for a very bad reason.

#35 ShadowBlade

ShadowBlade

    Veteran Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 07 October 2003 - 10:46 PM

Listen, I can't believe this "preference" of yours is gonna keep you from playing UFO: Aftermath, you aren't a true fan of the game, don't blame the developers for this (by "this" I mean "not pleasing the wealthy minority"). Even if the game's not as customizable as you wanted, I repeat, you can't let this _minor_ detail prevent you from enjoying the fine game UFO:AM is.

PS: I dunno what other people think, but I guess you should get a better idea of what an "average gamer" is. (1280x1024?)

"...locking any of those (settings) will leave out players for a very bad reason." - By "players" do you mean you?
Again, sorry if I was rude or harsh.
Proud veteran of the X-COM Alliance Sim
[ JG-7X3 ]

#36 CPT.Beefheart

CPT.Beefheart

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 October 2003 - 02:28 PM

I'm also very unhappy with the resolution being locked to 1024x768. Furthermore I don't like the graphics too much - imho they are a bit outdated (eg. the Cars).

But that doesn't keep me from playing since I am in bad need of a new X-Com game. :laugh:

I was very confused bout the locked resolution since one of the advantages of vector-graphics is that you are able to switch the resolution according to your system specs - low res for low performance - high res - u got the idea. Anyway - Ufo:Aftermath is a great game although it could have been better.

I think another half year of development would have made U:A the absolute killer game. Of course I could not stand an additional delay :P

Happy hunting,

Beef

#37 Cutedge

Cutedge

    the other Pete

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 05:40 PM

1024x768 is low?

I run Dungeon Siege in 800x600 and it does NOT look like that screenshot. It's much more crisp looking. AA and AF mearly blur the screen to make jagged lines look smooth. You're then turning up the resolution to get rid of that smeared look. If you turn off those options, maybe you'll see that UFO:A doesn't look bad and actually has good texture design which eliminates the need for AA.

I think UFO aftermath has good graphics, other than a few bad models (ie, the cow). If you were to compare it to another RTS, say C&C Generals, you'll see that their models actually aren't even as good looking. Yes, I do know that they have more things to deal with on a larger map.  :laugh:

#38 Pete

Pete

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buckley, North Wales

Posted 09 October 2003 - 06:21 PM

I did a poll a while back and the MOST common setting for people's PC's nowadays turned out to be 1024x768. That's just a quick post to answer whoever asked that question, though it's only the desktop reolution and not for any particular game.

I understand that players may want 800x600 if they have either machines that would run the game more efficiently at that resolution, or if they couldn't read the smalle text very clearly.

In the above mentioned poll, 1280x1024 was a second choice for screen size, even though it was behind 1024x768 by a long way. 800x600 was even further behind this though in third place.

Perhaps the next poll we should run is which screen size you all prefer to run your games at? I'm very much open to opinions on this, as even if it doesn't get anything changed in an upcoming patch for this game, it could well be helpful for a sequel.

I don't think there are going to be any strong agreements in this post as we each have our own preferences, and some of us can only guess what games look like at higher resolutions (grphics card limitations etc.), but I certainly agree that perhaps the game could have benefitted from the option of resolutions.

It would be nice if we could progress this topic now past the "Why I think this game is shutting out players" and the posts poking at people that disagree with each other in ways that could cause (offensive?) arguments.

If anyone's got another perspective to add, then please do, or post your opinion on the poll suggestion and otehr opinions for other parts of the game that could technically be improved without neccessarily rewrtigin the entire code structure (as perhaps a mod can be released by the fans in the future if a patch does not address these concerns). Just try not to overkill what's already been said :P

*Pete tries to be even-handed and vaguely enforcing whilst having all the impact value of a damp lettuce* :laugh:
May your terror missions always be infested with Chrysalids.

#39 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 10 October 2003 - 03:23 PM

Dont take this wrong Pete, but perhaps you prefer Macintosh as well?
Personal choice and options... is that just buzzwords that nobody cares about on the long run?
Is everyone fine with the same as everybody else?


The question would be:
Do you prefere your own options?
* Yes
* No

Thats the issue.

#40 Pete

Pete

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buckley, North Wales

Posted 10 October 2003 - 04:30 PM

I'm a PC fan and I dislike Macs as I find them harder to crash, and only REALLY useful if you're doing graphic design a lot. A computer without so many errors worries me... god forbid someone should make a perfect computer... :laugh:

As for personal choice and options - we had a massive impact this time around in a great many aspects of the game. I think personal opinions are important and ALTAR have listened to the fans on many occasions and asked us what we thought about their ideas as they were going through the development process so that they could make a game that so many of us are enjoying.

A poll or series of polls addressing people's personal views on various subjects certainly wouldn't be a waste of time, as I'd be surprised if there wasn't going to be a sequel to this game. And since we've got one major forum devoted to the weekly poll, it's not going to be too difficult for ALTAR to get a good idea of what our opinions are.

As for "Do you prefere your own options?" - well everybody does, naturally, that's why there's always disagreement, but we're not trying to dismiss them out of hand either.

I possibly misunderstood what you were talking about, and most likely repeated my above post, but I ain't'nt perfect by any stretch of the imagination :P
May your terror missions always be infested with Chrysalids.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users