GTA IV graphics optimisation that works

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:28:54 -0500, Tom <mail.RemoveThis@deleted.com> wrote:


>I also don't doubt that some games make good use of widescreen,
>although the argument that you're seeing more is kind of silly.. I
>can handily run most games at 1600x1200.. Think about that... that
>means I'm seeing almost as much as you horizontally but 15% or so more
>vertically, right? Do you miss seeing the sky and the ground at the
>same time on that widescreen monitor? lol..
>
>Ok so I'm being facetious in that last question. You may be seeing
>more or less at ANY given resolution or aspect ratio. How much you
>really see depends on a game designers decision of what to show in a
>given resolution.

And most games show more of a world in 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratios.
You can think of 1600x1200 as a cut down 1900x1200 image. Even
compared to 1680x1050 Hor+ widescreen setting, in a game like DOOM3 or
HL2 you see less of the game world horizontally and same in vertical
direction. It has to do with the FOV setting, which you probably know
and most games today favour WS aspect ratios when setting the FOV.

Wider aspect ratio somewhat mimics human vision as well, so for lot of
people a game using one seems more immersive.
--
Noman











>Now, an argument could be made that a choad-monitor (wider than tall)
>could give you a better sense of being surrounded by putting more
>moving things in your peripheral vision, but you could also accomplish
>same by simply sitting closer to the 4:3 and you would still have more
>in your field of vision overall.
>
>
>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:28:54 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:24:21 -0500, Tom <mail.DeleteThis@deleted.com> wrote:
>
>>Once you go back to playing on CRT and are no longer victim of input
>>lag, 60hz refresh, the foolish marketing promises of widescreen that
>>still have not panned out 5 years later, etc, you will once again
>>realize why you enjoyed gaming in the first place.
>
>On the rare occasions I get to look at a CRT monitor and my eyes start
>hurting again

Are you talking about when reading/surfing or in games? If you're
talking about TEXT looking more readable on an LCD I agree. Reading
on CRTs give me eyestrain as well.

This is why there is a bit of a dilemma for people who don't have
separate gaming / reading computers. One solution is to run them in
cloned video mode or use some other method of switching between the
CRT for gaming and the LCD for everything else.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:12:22 -0800, noman <no_m_an.RemoveThis@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:


>The only place where LCDs fall short is the contrast ratio (the black
>levels), and even there things have improved. They are definitely
>easier on eyes.

No, input lag is the worst part, not the contrast ratio, the blurring,
the quality loss in scaling down to resolutions etc or the other huge
plethora of issues that go along with gaming on an LCD.

>>Those who hold on to their CRTs, or better yet buy (hard to find) good
>>ones will find their gaming enjoyment greatly enhanced over LCDs.
>
>A 24" WS monitor with a good LCD panel gives a better gaming
>experience than a 21" 4:3 CRT.

Subjective statement, but even if we assume it does, it's going to
require MUCH more expensive video card setup to run cutting edge FPS
shooters at those resolutions than it would on a 21" CRT. What's more
in a year you'll need another expensive video upgrade just to keep up
with the joneses. Meanwhile the guy with the CRT, if he is not in the
mood to upgrade his PC, can simply back off 1280x1024 down to 1164x768
or make some other minor adjustment, and he's just bought himself a
framerate increase that would have cost a lot to achieve any other
way. Maybe one could run 1164x768 on that 24" screen, but then you
have black bars on the side, shitty downscaling side effects, input
lag, turn vsynch on and sacrifice some mouse responsiveness as a
result lest you want tearing, and all the other BS that must be dealt
with the in LCD world.

>Problem with input lag is vastly overstated and 60Hz refresh isn't
>even an issue.

Everyone in this NG likes to make subjective statements based on what
they see from their little corner of the world.

How big of a problem input lag is depends on how bad it bothers the
player. If I had never gamed on a CRT or had not compared CRT gaming
with LCD gaming side by side, I too might fall into the category of
people who do not notice it or are not bothered by it. If I played
mostly RTS or strategy games, I too might not be bothered.

But I play mainly FPS and the lag is instantly noticable, instantly
takes away a certain amount of responsiveness, affects my ability to
play well in multiplayer games, and a plethora of other issues.

It just makes the gaming experience less fun... and I think the FPS
gaming experience has gotten less fun for all the CRT-only users.

I see so many people on here bitching about how bad this orthat new
FPS is, or they say "maybe I'm getting too old to enjoy this".

The truth of the matter is that their enjoyment has been undermined by
their hardware purchase decisions and if they played it on a different
setup their opinion would likely change.

I know most people in this NG are LCD gamers and most people in this
NG are single-player-only guys. There is definately a connection
there... I wouldn't enjoy multiplayer FPS games on a laggy LCD either.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:20:52 -0500, Tom <mail.DeleteThis@deleted.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:12:22 -0800, noman <no_m_an.DeleteThis@zzzyahoo.yycom>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The only place where LCDs fall short is the contrast ratio (the black
>>levels), and even there things have improved. They are definitely
>>easier on eyes.
>
>No, input lag is the worst part, not the contrast ratio, the blurring,
>the quality loss in scaling down to resolutions etc or the other huge
>plethora of issues that go along with gaming on an LCD.

I already mentioned about quality loss with scaled-down images, that
it's not bad for gaming use. You'll notice some issues with the fonts
on desktop (and where even a 21" CRT displaying a 1280x1024 Windows
desktop isn't pretty), but the games work fine. This is a hugely
overstated issue.

The motion-blur isn't that bad and unless you are nailing down
opponents with a sniper weapon, while doing a rocket jump, the input
lag is nothing to write about.

The lower contrast is a problem because it affects all games that are
set up in darker areas, but even there things have improved quite a
bit.

>>A 24" WS monitor with a good LCD panel gives a better gaming
>>experience than a 21" 4:3 CRT.
>
>Subjective statement, but even if we assume it does, it's going to
>require MUCH more expensive video card setup to run cutting edge FPS
>shooters at those resolutions than it would on a 21" CRT. What's more
>in a year you'll need another expensive video upgrade just to keep up
>with the joneses.

You can very easily play the game at lower resolutions. It doesn't
look worse than playing a 1024x768 game on a 21" CRT. Besides a drop
from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 (or from 1680x1050 to 1440x900) is not
noticeable in games on a good LCD. A decent $120-150 graphic card will
run most games (DeadSpace, Prince of Persia, FarCry2, Assassin's
Creed, Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 4/5,
Fallout 3, STALKER: Clear Sky, Call of Juarez) at 1680x1050 and higher
with some AA and AF levels as well.

I saw somewhere you were suggesting that buying a 24" LCD means that
down the road you have to get $1200 SLI graphic cards, and this
statement (even for a hyperbole) is wrong on multiple levels.

>I know most people in this NG are LCD gamers and most people in this
>NG are single-player-only guys. There is definately a connection
>there... I wouldn't enjoy multiplayer FPS games on a laggy LCD either.

I don't find any problems with BF1942, Team Fortress 2 or other
multiplayer FPS I have tried.
--
Noman

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:16:34 -0800, noman <no_m_an.DeleteThis@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:20:52 -0500, Tom <mail.DeleteThis@deleted.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:12:22 -0800, noman <no_m_an.DeleteThis@zzzyahoo.yycom>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only place where LCDs fall short is the contrast ratio (the black
>>>levels), and even there things have improved. They are definitely
>>>easier on eyes.
>>
>>No, input lag is the worst part, not the contrast ratio, the blurring,
>>the quality loss in scaling down to resolutions etc or the other huge
>>plethora of issues that go along with gaming on an LCD.
>
>I already mentioned about quality loss with scaled-down images, that
>it's not bad for gaming use. You'll notice some issues with the fonts
>on desktop (and where even a 21" CRT displaying a 1280x1024 Windows
>desktop isn't pretty), but the games work fine. This is a hugely
>overstated issue.
>
>The motion-blur isn't that bad and unless you are nailing down
>opponents with a sniper weapon, while doing a rocket jump, the input
>lag is nothing to write about.
>
>The lower contrast is a problem because it affects all games that are
>set up in darker areas, but even there things have improved quite a
>bit.
>
>>>A 24" WS monitor with a good LCD panel gives a better gaming
>>>experience than a 21" 4:3 CRT.
>>
>>Subjective statement, but even if we assume it does, it's going to
>>require MUCH more expensive video card setup to run cutting edge FPS
>>shooters at those resolutions than it would on a 21" CRT. What's more
>>in a year you'll need another expensive video upgrade just to keep up
>>with the joneses.
>
>You can very easily play the game at lower resolutions. It doesn't
>look worse than playing a 1024x768 game on a 21" CRT. Besides a drop
>from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 (or from 1680x1050 to 1440x900) is not
>noticeable in games on a good LCD. A decent $120-150 graphic card will
>run most games (DeadSpace, Prince of Persia, FarCry2, Assassin's
>Creed, Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 4/5,
>Fallout 3, STALKER: Clear Sky, Call of Juarez) at 1680x1050 and higher
>with some AA and AF levels as well.
>
>I saw somewhere you were suggesting that buying a 24" LCD means that
>down the road you have to get $1200 SLI graphic cards, and this
>statement (even for a hyperbole) is wrong on multiple levels.


>>I know most people in this NG are LCD gamers and most people in this
>>NG are single-player-only guys. There is definately a connection
>>there... I wouldn't enjoy multiplayer FPS games on a laggy LCD either.
>
>I don't find any problems with BF1942, Team Fortress 2 or other
>multiplayer FPS I have tried.

Well if you're playing games that are 6 years old like BF1942, or
games like TF2 with VERY modest hardware requirements, a lot of what I
said does not apply as much.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:43:11 -0800, noman <no_m_an RemoveThis @zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:28:54 -0500, Tom <mail RemoveThis @deleted.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I also don't doubt that some games make good use of widescreen,
>>although the argument that you're seeing more is kind of silly.. I
>>can handily run most games at 1600x1200.. Think about that... that
>>means I'm seeing almost as much as you horizontally but 15% or so more
>>vertically, right? Do you miss seeing the sky and the ground at the
>>same time on that widescreen monitor? lol..
>>
>>Ok so I'm being facetious in that last question. You may be seeing
>>more or less at ANY given resolution or aspect ratio. How much you
>>really see depends on a game designers decision of what to show in a
>>given resolution.
>
>And most games show more of a world in 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratios.
>You can think of 1600x1200 as a cut down 1900x1200 image. Even
>compared to 1680x1050 Hor+ widescreen setting, in a game like DOOM3 or
>HL2 you see less of the game world horizontally and same in vertical
>direction. It has to do with the FOV setting, which you probably know
>and most games today favour WS aspect ratios when setting the FOV.
>
>Wider aspect ratio somewhat mimics human vision as well, so for lot of
>people a game using one seems more immersive.

Want immersion? Put the screen about 8" from your face

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:58:44 -0500, Tom <mail.RemoveThis@deleted.com> wrote:

>>On the rare occasions I get to look at a CRT monitor and my eyes start
>>hurting again
>
>Are you talking about when reading/surfing or in games? If you're
>talking about TEXT looking more readable on an LCD I agree. Reading
>on CRTs give me eyestrain as well.

Possibly more with reading, I haven't analysed it that way.

>This is why there is a bit of a dilemma for people who don't have
>separate gaming / reading computers. One solution is to run them in
>cloned video mode or use some other method of switching between the
>CRT for gaming and the LCD for everything else.

I am perfectly happy with LCD for gaming and it is far superior for
reading.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:26:22 -0500, Tom <mail RemoveThis @deleted.com> wrote:

>Want immersion? Put the screen about 8" from your face

And if you are going to do that, you would want to do it with an LCD,
you eyes will last longer.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:55:39 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:26:22 -0500, Tom <mail.DeleteThis@deleted.com> wrote:
>
>>Want immersion? Put the screen about 8" from your face
>
>And if you are going to do that, you would want to do it with an LCD,
>you eyes will last longer.

Again I will say... for text? Yes.. but is anyone looking for
immersion for text? For gaming? Maybe yours but not mine. The lag,
the blurring (which is less visible to some, and certainly less
visible at a distance but would be MORE visible at a close distance)
would add up to a major eyesore for me.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:35:27 -0500, Tom <mail.RemoveThis@removed.com> wrote:

>>CRT's are dead, get with the times.
>
>They're not dead if you want to win in FPS multiplayer. Like to line
>up for a game of 1 on 1? With a little money on it placed in escrow
>of course?

Erm, who are you? Why don't you challenge Fatal1ty. When you beat him
on his LCD, I will take you seriously.

I am over 40, and even when I was younger, I played games for fun, not
willy waving contests.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:46:38 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap.RemoveThis@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:35:27 -0500, Tom <mail.RemoveThis@removed.com> wrote:
>
>>>CRT's are dead, get with the times.
>>
>>They're not dead if you want to win in FPS multiplayer. Like to line
>>up for a game of 1 on 1? With a little money on it placed in escrow
>>of course?
>
>Erm, who are you? Why don't you challenge Fatal1ty. When you beat him
>on his LCD, I will take you seriously.
>
>I am over 40, and even when I was younger, I played games for fun, not
>willy waving contests.

Depending on what week you're checking, he's any one of about 200
different names. You killfiled me for "trolling" the console dweebs,
but sure latched onto this bait.

"Andrew" <spamtrap.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:n90pl4havtjksl6fmfp40brruu1fn4kvbf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:35:27 -0500, Tom <mail.DeleteThis@removed.com> wrote:
>
>>>CRT's are dead, get with the times.
>>
>>They're not dead if you want to win in FPS multiplayer. Like to line
>>up for a game of 1 on 1? With a little money on it placed in escrow
>>of course?
>
> Erm, who are you? Why don't you challenge Fatal1ty. When you beat him
> on his LCD, I will take you seriously.
>
> I am over 40, and even when I was younger, I played games for fun, not
> willy waving contests.
> --
> Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com


Andrew, he is clearly trolling. Probably a sock puppet of a well known
regular.

Schrodinger wrote:
> "Shawk" <shawk.TakeThisOut@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
> news:1uidnV3ZxPtmssHUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

>>
>> Might be worth you trying a friends LCD (if they have a decent, high
>> quality panel). I think you'll be impressed how they have evolved over
>> the last few years. If you're closed-minded about it however then I wish
>> you well... and a Happy New year too.
>>
>
> I was going to say the same, but figured Tom is simply set against LCDs for
> his own reasons.


Many people have concerns 'I' find pretty irrational, such as LCD, Steam
etc. You can encourage folk to be (in your view) a little more open
minded but then its up to them...