poll: what resolution does everyone play at?

o-dog

2008-03-10 10:14:10

just wondering

1024x768 here

best balance of high resolution and good FPS for my system I think

0nti

2008-03-10 11:39:52

1680x1050

Cynips

2008-03-10 12:59:25

1280x1024. Can't really imaging playing anything else than the native resolution of my 17" LCD screen.

edit for 2nd question: no, steam says 1024x768, but for almost everything else I put it at lowest quality for best fps.

snuffymckiller

2008-03-10 14:23:40

1024x768

2nd question: do you use the settings that steam says are optimal?

joule

2008-03-10 14:43:26

holymoly wrote:1440x900

This.

Poor_Billy

2008-03-10 14:45:19

holymoly wrote:1440x900

^

Kornography

2008-03-10 14:45:49

For me is 960x600.

zohar

2008-03-10 16:07:30

0nti wrote:1680x1050

sava

2008-03-10 16:12:26

1680x1050

thatguy

2008-03-10 19:13:16

1280x1024 and i get a good fps on basically every map

Fearsome*

2008-03-10 19:18:41

1600x900

[EYE] Valar

2008-03-10 20:02:04

1680 x 1050 on a 20". felt a bit paranoid at first but once i got used to it..sheesh can't look back. i mean..literally...it's like all there in front of me .. .bahhh

+

=

graffitiknockout

2008-03-10 21:01:00

1152x864

and LOL @ kornography's sig xD

provost

2008-03-10 22:31:35

1024x768

s0iz

2008-03-10 22:39:58

I used to play at 1024x768 in CAL Season 1 (LsD video), but now I'm using 1280x720 and when my new computer arrives (C2D E8400 / 2x2GB DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 / 8800GT) I'm going to fill up my screen with 1680x1050.

Walking Target

2008-03-10 23:12:41

.conflict wrote:1024x768

^

Coke.

2008-03-10 23:30:04

No fullscreen (windowed)

Widescreen 16:10

1280x800

(people are a fat asses on the left and right sides of the xhair)

[EYE] Valar

2008-03-11 00:07:42

Coke. wrote:people are a fat asses on the left and right sides of the xhair

lol

cyber_clash

2008-03-11 00:38:23

Coke. wrote:No fullscreen (windowed)

Widescreen 16:10

1280x800

(people are a fat asses on the left and right sides of the xhair)

keefy

2008-03-11 01:20:29

Pray tell, where is this poll?

Zman42

2008-03-11 04:41:59

1280 x 1024...Can someone tell how to force custom resolutions????

MeekMeekle

2008-03-11 05:06:53

Zman42 wrote:1280 x 1024...Can someone tell how to force custom resolutions????

in properties > launch options you can set:

-width 500 -height 400

.. i run 1280x1024, 800x600 depending on how i feel.

L2k

2008-03-11 19:26:08

1920 x 1200 16:10 on a 24' samsung. Still get 100-200 fps on 7800 gtx's in sli unless the map is terribly made.

I used to have a 20" crt and was running 640x480 for a long time, what a difference. When I first got this monitor, I thought I'd try using its default res for awhile just to see what it was like and if there was any issues. To my surprise it ran fine and fps were still good so I stayed with it, now my eyes don't bleed after long sessions

s0iz

2008-03-11 20:50:17

Say whaaat?

640x480 @ 20" CRT?

That would be stretchie like hell!

L2k

2008-03-11 22:22:15

s0iz wrote:Say whaaat?

640x480 @ 20" CRT?

That would be stretchie like hell!

What it did was make the players slightly larger and made my movements faster (and I don't know how to explain that one)

But now, Ill take the wider FOV over that anyday.

[EYE] Valar

2008-03-11 22:30:59

L2k wrote:
s0iz wrote:Say whaaat?

640x480 @ 20" CRT?

That would be stretchie like hell!
What it did was make the players slightly larger and made my movements faster (and I don't know how to explain that one).

omg

Ko-Tao

2008-03-11 23:03:46

1024x768

Zman42

2008-03-12 01:21:16

TY meekle.

Freetux

2008-03-12 01:42:51

1280x1024

Swot

2008-03-12 02:01:00

1680x1050

love widescreen for playing / working

Epoch

2008-03-12 07:15:13

1440x900, gotta match that native resolution.

stretch

2008-03-12 08:09:25

L2k wrote:
s0iz wrote:Say whaaat?

640x480 @ 20" CRT?

That would be stretchie like hell!
What it did was make the players slightly larger and made my movements faster (and I don't know how to explain that one)

But now, Ill take the wider FOV over that anyday.

yes it does make everything larger and very blocky (can never get a headshot across aim ever), but does seem like i move faster indeed....i play that res on my laptop

stretch

Paradox

2008-03-12 09:11:18

1680 x 1050 on a 22" Wide LCD

Being able to snipe Fearsome* from halfway across the map Priceless!

Cynips

2008-03-12 10:45:58

stretch wrote:
L2k wrote:
s0iz wrote:Say whaaat?

640x480 @ 20" CRT?

That would be stretchie like hell!
What it did was make the players slightly larger and made my movements faster (and I don't know how to explain that one)

But now, Ill take the wider FOV over that anyday.
yes it does make everything larger and very blocky (can never get a headshot across aim ever), but does seem like i move faster indeed....i play that res on my laptop

stretch

Actually, I thought about that. Shouldn't it be easier to get headshots, really? I mean, surely the game engine treats it like a hit if you hit any of those pixels that represent the head (well, head hitbox), and with low resolution pixels are much larger and should therefore be easier to pinpoint. Or is my logic flawed somehow? Is it too difficult to make out what is a head across aim_arena?

L2k

2008-03-12 19:14:11

Foz is the one who originally told me to try that res, as he was convinced the larger head made head shots easier. I personally didn't really see myself getting more head shots, but the movement thing was very easy to see. Oh and it didn't look all blocky for me at all, just less detail and everything bigger. Also the fps increase is substantial, I was getting 300 + fps at all times on 7800's

†h3 Nèw Ġuy`™

2008-03-12 19:45:22

1440 x 900, and that is the only resolution I can run on anything. Which can be bad for my other, older, games. Does anyone know why my LCD has an option to change aspect ratio but when i goto select it it simply skips over it - and won't highlight it?

Its a HannsG HW191D, and my classic games, like red faction, are all stretched and screwy - can anyone help?

L2k

2008-03-12 20:24:17

not all games support 16:9 or 16:10. Lucky for you hl2dm does and its set in video options in game. As far as setting it on your monitor, thats probably a scaling feature and if its greyed out its possible that your monitor does not support scaling but another similar model form the company does and they use one driver set for the whole line. If you want more info on that I would go to support on the site for the monitor and ask around there.

s0iz

2008-03-12 21:04:45

Cynips wrote:Actually, I thought about that. Shouldn't it be easier to get headshots, really? I mean, surely the game engine treats it like a hit if you hit any of those pixels that represent the head (well, head hitbox), and with low resolution pixels are much larger and should therefore be easier to pinpoint. Or is my logic flawed somehow? Is it too difficult to make out what is a head across aim_arena?

Bingo, that's why CS players use 640x480 or 800x600. CS 1.6 is so old that you REALLY feel the difference playing with higher resolutions, it's harder to be accurate.

0nti

2008-03-14 01:34:26

Bingo, that's why CS players use 640x480 or 800x600. CS 1.6 is so old that you REALLY feel the difference playing with higher resolutions, it's harder to be accurate.

Meh I don't care, I'd rather practice and enjoy my headshots on a 1680x1050 monitor, than getting easy ones on a crappy resolution

s0iz

2008-03-14 20:32:19

0nti wrote:
Bingo, that's why CS players use 640x480 or 800x600. CS 1.6 is so old that you REALLY feel the difference playing with higher resolutions, it's harder to be accurate.
Meh I don't care, I'd rather practice and enjoy my headshots on a 1680x1050 monitor, than getting easy ones on a crappy resolution

Not if you are playing tournments! xD

CSS is different, it's easier to get headshots on bigger resolutions like 1280x1024/1280x720/etc

Mordecai Walfish

2008-03-19 07:12:37

1024x768 all settings as steam recommends. That being said it runs a bit sluggish on bigger maps..... im using a geforce 7600gt and thinking about getting a second one ($65) to run in sli for better performance......

any suggestions?

Coke.

2008-03-20 00:15:47

Mordecai Walfish wrote:an
y suggestions?

What's your FPS at in those big maps?

RAM, cpu? That's not a bad card, a pretty good one actually, for hl2dm, etc

Smethious

2008-03-20 01:42:07

1680 x 1050 !! 22 inch flat panel monitor

Mordecai Walfish

2008-03-21 09:32:06

Coke. wrote:
Mordecai Walfish wrote:an
y suggestions?

What's your FPS at in those big maps?

RAM, cpu? That's not a bad card, a pretty good one actually, for hl2dm, etc

Well it's not necessarily that bigger maps cause the problems, it seems to dip when there are large outdoor areas, into the 20fps range sometimes, maybe lower in special instances (massive firefight, etc) This has happened in indoor levels too (the nintendo level comes to mind) where there are large rooms connected and you are looking from one towards the other, even if youre not close to the doorways connecting them, I think it is spending alot of time rendering the other room because the doorways are there.

My system is as follows:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.41ghz socket am2 orleans not overclocked
1gb DDR2-800 ram, cas 5 latency
gigabyte 570 SLI MOBO
evga 7600gt 256mb ram gddr3 pci-e

I built a system around these parts for ~$340 last september from the ground up, my last computer was a 1ghz p3, hah!

I'm thinking sli would be the most bang for the buck (~$65-$70) upgrade wise, but I want to replace the cpu in due time as well, though that will be a bit more expensive and I'm a broke mofo!

holla back.

-Mordecai Walfish

Seagull

2008-03-21 17:17:02

sli won't make a difference with your resolution as far as I know

Paradox

2008-03-21 21:31:21

Going from 256 m video ram to 512 should help some at least in terms of frame rate. I have seen a difference between 1 and 2 cards in my machine. But IMO you need more processing power (CPU). Another gig of ram would also help. Video rendering depends on all 3 of those with vid ram and processing being the biggest factor of the 3.

Jelly Fox

2008-06-12 19:58:47

bump for curiosity

THE END

2008-06-12 20:28:49

1280*960 - I don't like how the scoreboard looks on 1280*1024.

Van Occupanther

2008-06-12 20:58:52

1024 x 768 @ 120 Hz w/ V-Sync and Triple Buffering (D3DOverrider)

...runs smooth as silk!

svN

2008-06-12 21:20:45

1152x864 with 19inch screen
low settings
stable 100 fps on every map

Do you guys lock your fps ? ( fps_max 100)

Anonymous

2008-06-12 21:57:41

1051 x 772

lead

2008-06-13 09:42:24

Swot wrote:1680x1050

love widescreen for playing / working

me 2 on a 22' LG wido

Plasmodesmata_TSGK

2008-06-13 10:00:01

I play at 1920X1080 on my 40in HDTV (sitting about 2.5 feet from the screen). My aim improves when I go back to smaller monitors, but things are too damn small when I do xD!

warloxt

2008-06-15 06:10:20

i have a widescreen 20' monitor and im wondering if somone of you have any suggestion on playing in "normal 4:3 mode" in game on a widescreen monitor?
Does some of you play with ws monitor on normal.. im curious as i don't know what resolution mode i should use 4:3 or widescreen mode.