Matrix Games Forums

We need more screen real estate to display information in the game. We are considering dropping support for 800 x 600 and making our minimum screen size 1024 x 768. Are you in favour or not?

I am okay with that provided that nothing gets smaller like fonts or unit icons.

Don't forget that the wargaming market demographic is older than the FPS demographic and may have started experiencing age related vision degradation.

see my post in the "not likely" thread, I think making certain displays dependent on higher res - rather than only allowing the game to run at all in higher res - is the way to go.

Otherwise you cut out folks with 15" monitors who could display 1024x768 but not with a usable refresh rate.

Cheers
33

I run at that resolution any how - so I say Yes.

Out of curiosity, I came into work very early one morning and loaded UV to see how it looks on a flat screen monitor.

It was horrible.

No matter whether I adjusted the screen resolution from within the game or from the desktop it still looked horrible.

And I confirmed that the graphics card was up to the specs.

Most of us will upgrade to flat screen monitors over the next few years. And some would love to run 2 monitors. Such support would be wonderful.

I am not sure if you are aware of it, but LCDs have a native resolution. The monitor was probably not running the game at the native resolution and instead interpolating. Anything but the native resolution produces a relatively poor image.

Thus, as good as LCDs look that's why I stick with a CRT. You can run games at a wide range of resolutions from 640x480 to 1600x1200 if you have the CPU and GPU for it (and eye sight).

The other issues with LCDs is they have a relatively poor response time compared to CRTs. This causes problems with simulations that have a high frame rate. However, I think progress has been made in this area over the last year.

login | register | search | faq | forum home

Jump to new posts
» You are not logged in. Login or register Battlefront.com Discussion Area »
Airborne Assault » Airborne Assault » Anyone using 800 x 600 screen resolution?

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Author Topic: Anyone using 800 x 600 screen resolution?
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted November 12, 2002 08:07 PM
For Game 2 we would like to satisfy the growing desire for more information.
However, one of the hurdles is finding enough screen real estate. One possible
option is to make the minimum screen resolution 1024 x 768, rather than 800 x
600.

We would really like to hear from anyone using 800 x 600. Would you be too upset
if we went to 1024 x 768?

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
dave@panthergames.com

IP: Logged
markshot
Member
Member # 3833

posted November 12, 2002 11:20 PM
Dave,

I think you should also survey if the game elements are sufficiently readable at
1024x768 on various types of displays.

I am using a 21" CRT display and AA at 1024x768; I find the font sizes just
acceptable for my eyes. I couldn't see running it at that resolution on say a
17" display.

--------------------
Mark "MarkShot" Kratzer
Author of STK/EAW (Shoot to Kill/European Air War)
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_co ... ndex.shtml

IP: Logged
Brian Rock
Member
Member # 67

posted November 12, 2002 11:40 PM
I run 1024x768 on a 17 inch. I've been meaning to try the other resolutions but
haven't yet.

--------------------
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

IP: Logged
citizen
Member
Member # 680

posted November 13, 2002 03:07 AM
I run at 1024 x 768 on a 19" monitor. But I'm going to upgrade before the next
installment and will be going to 1280 x 1024.
I say drop 800 x 600.

citizen

IP: Logged
PIATpunk
Member
Member # 4067

posted November 13, 2002 06:10 AM
I can't believe that anyone would find 800x600 in any way a useful resolution
for just about anything these days. 1152x864 for me.

Chris

--------------------
Airborne Assault IRC chat/multiplayer:

join the #airborne_assault channel on EFnet!

IP: Logged
ZarahNeander
Junior Member
Member # 7621

posted November 13, 2002 06:41 AM
Ditching 800x600 will hurt the laptop/notebook users. I would prefer a variable
UI, sacrificing some layout elements on lower resolutions. If this isn't
possible (read: too much work for the programmers ) then get rid of 800x600.
Just my .2$

IP: Logged
coralsaw
Member
Member # 3223

posted November 13, 2002 06:57 AM
I've never even bothered with the 800x resolution, 1024x768 on a 1y old Dell
laptop here. Unless you have a 2y old laptop or older, you won't have a problem.

More real estate is good. I'd love to see the command portion of the screen
toggle on-off with the push of the button too. In fact this would be a step
closer to heaven.

/coralsaw

--------------------
My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

IP: Logged
Tbone
Member
Member # 10722

posted November 13, 2002 07:07 AM
1280 x 1024 on a laptop. I know the feeling of having a semi-older computer and
having games come out that are unplayable due their specs. Took me awhile to
upgrade, however I am all for increased unit information and visual clarity.

Tbone

IP: Logged
Werewolf
Member
Member # 10955

posted November 13, 2002 11:36 AM
I run AA on a 17" Viewsonic and any resolution over 1024X768 has to be run with
a refresh rate of 60Hz. I tried it at 1280X1024 but the noticable 60Hz flicker
was just too much to bear.

1024X768 is my resolution of choice (for now - if I had a 19" or 21" monitor
that supported 85Hz or higher refresh rates at the higher resolutions then I'd
probably switch - but for now that is not an option).

Werewolf

--------------------
Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!

IP: Logged
Agua
Member
Member # 4852

posted November 13, 2002 02:06 PM
I run AA on 1024 x 768 on a 21" monitor. 800 x 600 is too grainy and at 1280 x
1024 the detail / text is too small.

--------------------
Earn this... Earn it.

-Capt. John H. Miller
June 13, 1944

IP: Logged
JeF
Member
Member # 9351

posted November 13, 2002 04:43 PM
FWIW, I play exclusively AA at 1024x768 on 17" monitor. Found it to be the best.

On my old PC, with 2MB VRAM and 14" display, I found out that 1024x768 was
playable.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

[ November 13, 2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: JeF ]

--------------------
Rendez-vous at Loenen before 18:00.
The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
jrcar
Member
Member # 6271

posted November 13, 2002 05:32 PM
Kill 800x600

Rob

--------------------
My wife says I have the body of a God

Buddha!

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 13, 2002 10:15 PM
I use 1024x768 on a 17" monitor. I tried 1280x1024 but the poor refresh rate of
my monitor gave me a headache.

Cheers
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Captain Wacky
Member
Member # 6560

posted November 14, 2002 10:28 PM
Game 2? Where is game 2 taking place?

1280x1024 BTW

[ November 14, 2002, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]

--------------------
"Who cares if it was a fair fight or not? This isn't flag football and we're not
spotting the Iraqis 100 Abrams tanks to make it interesting."

"And I think your opinions are just so much flatulence bubbling into the
ionosphere." --CMplayer

IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted November 15, 2002 06:26 AM
Using 1024x768 on a 17", no problems here with getting rid of 800x600.

Game 2?

Click here

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Brian Rock
Member
Member # 67

posted November 15, 2002 11:23 PM
Looking cool...

OK, Grouchy, spill the beans.

--------------------
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

IP: Logged
Tbone
Member
Member # 10722

posted November 15, 2002 11:41 PM
North Africa, game 2, can't wait, enough said. Well not enough yet, AA's system
should be perfect for the fluid battles that took place in NA. Not to get off
topic, it will look great in any resolution.

IP: Logged

the higher the resolution the better:

I will always sacrifice eye-sight for the bigger picture


Critical

I'm with 33 on this one, make the display dependent on the resolution, and don't drop 800x600 if possible (I run 1280x1024(?) btw).

Having said that, I'd expect almost everyone to run 1024x768 these days.

/coralsaw

Originally posted by MarkShot
I am not sure if you are aware of it, but LCDs have a native resolution. The monitor was probably not running the game at the native resolution and instead interpolating. Anything but the native resolution produces a relatively poor image.

Thus, as good as LCDs look that's why I stick with a CRT. You can run games at a wide range of resolutions from 640x480 to 1600x1200 if you have the CPU and GPU for it (and eye sight).

The other issues with LCDs is they have a relatively poor response time compared to CRTs. This causes problems with simulations that have a high frame rate. However, I think progress has been made in this area over the last year.

Absolutly correct. LCDs and mid class TFTs are very good for office work and things like coding. For the rest, forget about them for now, unless you´re willing to spend 4000$.

If you want somthing good (for your office work, watching DVD and movies and playing games), shoot for a CRT Trinition or Diamondtron Monitor. Reasonable prices, great picture qualitiy at high refresh rates (and resolutions) and you don´t miss anything from a "standard" CRT.

Oh, and I won´t even start discussing color consistancy on TFTs and LCDs

Originally posted by Golf33
see my post in the "not likely" thread, I think making certain displays dependent on higher res - rather than only allowing the game to run at all in higher res - is the way to go.

Otherwise you cut out folks with 15" monitors who could display 1024x768 but not with a usable refresh rate.

Cheers
33

Well, honestly, there´s a time when you should upgrade. You can´t allways stick with the lowest specs, that´s killing progress, especially in wargaming.

People still running a 15" that doesn´t support 1024x768 at at least 85hz should really ask themselves if they care about their eyes. A monitor that is so old that it doesn´t support 1024x768 @ 85 is doing nothing but doing harm to your eyes. Most of this old stuff doesn´t even run 800x600 at a reasonable and healthy refesh rate. And people complain about headaches :rolleyes:

Do they actually still sell 15" CRTs. I havn´t seen one in ages

You know that allways bugs me about a lot of PC users. They are keen to get the latest in grpahics card technology, stick 1gb of RAM in their machines they play Pacman on, buy a keyboard (cordless) for 100$ but only upgrade their monitor once in ten years and then of course shoot for the cheapest available.
Totally ingnoring that the Monitor is the interface between you and your PC .

I personally run at the highest resolution that the monitor reasonably supports: at least 1280x1024.

Notwithstanding my post in the other thread, I am frankly flabergasted that anyone still runs at 800x600, though I see people set up that way at the office all the time. I often think it's a shame that developers have shoe horn themselves into this resolution. There is so much more that can be done with the extra real-estate.

At home I run a dual monitor system with a 17" at 1280x1024 and a 19" at 1600x1200. BTW - the beta version of AA runs fine on the dual monitor system.

I am curious what you actually do with AA/HTTR on a dual monitor system? Do you actually play the game across two monitors?

No, the game just runs on the primary monitor. Some games have a hard time with the dual monitor system - they screw up the secondary (or even fail to come up at all) when they run, but AA is fine

BTW, I have run the scenario maker on the secondary monitor (while working on the map graphics in photoshop on the primary) - and that works very well.

The higher you allow me the higher ill play the game

Bit I agree with the first post...keep units and fonts at the same size

I would love to run the game at 1600x1200 with readable fonts and an MDI interface for the map. Meaning that I could open multiple map windows so that I could watch a number of battles without hopping back and forth. The other option which was already proposed was to allow the assignment of hot keys to either commands or locations on the map.

I run at higher than minimum so I say it would be ok. However I have been on that side of the problem before and always hoped lower res would still be an option when I was. But as others have said progress has to be made I guess so.. Onward.

I would drop it for more functionality.

1024x768 is absolute minimum nowadays, especially in games like these. Moo3 that was released few months ago with 800x600 got huge drawbacks from it. Nobody uses that res anymore, not to mention som computers (laptops) dont even support it. And dont forget the bigger screens of today either, 800x600 on a 19+ inch looks horrible. (i.e spwaw)

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
Well, honestly, there´s a time when you should upgrade. You can´t allways stick with the lowest specs, that´s killing progress, especially in wargaming.

Well, that's the decision you're trying to make now, isn't it

Do they actually still sell 15" CRTs. I havn´t seen one in ages

Yep, I have seen quite a few ads recently for lower-end systems with a bundled 15" monitor. I personally use a 17" at 1024x768@85; if I had the money I would go to a 19" that could run 1600x1200 at a decent refresh rate. At the moment I can't run any higher than I do because a lower refresh rate strains my eyes.

There's also some newer systems shipping with a 15" LCD, I don't know how those handle resolutions at all - are the higher resolutions still readable on a screen that small?

You know that allways bugs me about a lot of PC users. They are keen to get the latest in grpahics card technology, stick 1gb of RAM in their machines they play Pacman on, buy a keyboard (cordless) for 100$ but only upgrade their monitor once in ten years and then of course shoot for the cheapest available.
Totally ingnoring that the Monitor is the interface between you and your PC .

Well, whether this group of PC users (read 'potential customers') overlaps with the group of people who buy wargames, in large enough numbers to be a significant market segment, is something that your market research department needs to find out.

Cheers
33

I use 1024-768 with AA RDOA, and in the historical camppaign, there was some serious slowness sometimes, but the system specs for HTTR are higher so i don't know if my comp will be able (PIII 550, 16mb vid card, 128 ram).

But don't worry, i will buy the game nevertheless as well as Korsun Pocket .