Resolution question....

1280x960. I have a 4:3 monitor.

It's not really about sharpness. 1024x768 can't possible give one a lot of room to work with in a game like this.

-HM

HM,

explain.

A higher resolution gives you more pixels on the screen, thus, you can fit more stuff on it.

Try this - in Windows, go into the resolution option and change it to something worse than what you have (move the slider to the left) and apply the changes. Watch how all your icons on your desktop get bigger and you now have less empty space on the screen. Now pretend that those icons are your ships and structures in Sins, and you'll see what I mean.

-HM

I play in a 1360 X 768 window, with a 1440 X 900 desktop rez in the background.

The latter is my monitor's ideal resolution : it's a 19-inch widescreen.

To answer your question :

1. It is better to select a game resolution that is nearest to your monitor's « native » (ideal) resolution ;

2. But the key is your videocard : it must be powerful enough to process the graphical info on your screen at an acceptable framerate ;

3. Also, one has to test the consequences (on the framerate) of various game options.

For example, I turn off all forms of anti-aliasing : SINS looks great even without AA, but I know other games that look much worse with AA turned off.

Also, I turn off the « Bloom Effects » option : I didn't find it that great, and it has been identified as a potential source of framerate problems.

There is no absolute answer to your question : you have to take into account your monitor, your videocard, the game's options, and what you consider acceptable framerates.

Consequently, test yourself various resolution & option setups and find out what looks best and plays more smoothly according to your tastes.

What about framerates? Do you dial up the resolution until you see slowdown? I also read somewhere that certain video cards only show their true muscle at higher resolutions.

Sorceresss also makes some good comments. But I suspect if you have a monitor that's been made in the last five years, it's more than capable of running better than 1024x768 (and hopefully your card can easily handle it).

"Native resolution" only matters if you own an LCD (which you probably do). If you have a CRT (like I do), it can handle different resolutions with more gusto, because the monitor is able to actually change the pixel size, whereas LCDs cannot.

All that being said, if you have an LCD, my suggestion is to figure out what the native resolution is and run it at that for best image clarity. Once that's set, then fiddle with the advanced graphics options in Sins until you come up with a good compromise of quality vs. performance.

Assuming LCD, if your performance is poor at native resolution no matter how you set the advanced graphics options, then it's time to think about updating certain components of your system (or get a smaller monitor).

-HM

You start by selecting a resolution that is the « native » one for your monitor.

My 19-inch widescreen has an ideal rez of 1440 X 900. I wouldn't try to go beyond that.

If then, you perceive that your framerates are not always acceptable, you dial down your resolution (and/or dial down certain visual options)... because it might mean that your videocard is not powerful enough to sustain SINS at the monitor's ideal resolution and/or sustain certain graphical options (such as 4X AA).

You really must experiment by yourself, depending on your monitor's size and on the power of your videocard ... and on what you feel are acceptable framerates.

P.S. > Yes, Hollow Man, I forgot that I had a LCD, where « native resolution » is more important.

I play at 1600X1200 - I don't know if this is still considered high resolouton as there are dell 30" monitors that go well beyond this!

I in fact have a CRT, and a fairly fast system.(quad 2.6 8800gtx) But I would not want to turn up the resolutions to the point that I was getting the same framerates as I would before I upgraded my PC. I understand that I gain more real estate with higher resolutions...but is it a prettier pic?

On a CRT you're going to see less "jaggies" if you crank the resolution up because the pixels end up being smaller. This is a good thing.

-HM

I play at 1920x1200. You get used to 'high', or in your case, higher resolution then low.

1440x900 on a gf8600GS.

Aeonism,

Whats your processor and do you play with all the bells and whistles on?
Also does anyone know what type of graphic improvements they are talking about in the 1.1 update?

Thanks.

Higher resolution textures for some objects, and new explosion effects is what we've heard. Explosions will decrease performance rather directly, the higher resolution textures will use up more memory (and so indirectly decrease performance eventually)

Myself, I run 1600x1200 - which these days is fairly standard (1920x1200 is the related widescreen resolution). Most cards aren't benched for much higher than those

Higher resolution is (pretty much) always better. I game play at 2560x1600 (30" screen), and I've yet to find it "too big" in any game.

However since you're using a CRT display it may be that you will be limited by the maximum refresh frequency your display can handle. Personally I find that I need at least 75 Hz, and preferably more. But some can actually stand it as low as 60 Hz.

Since you have a 8800 GTX you should be able to play at as high a resolution as you want, so as long as you are not bothered by too small fonts or too low refresh rate I think most will agree that higher resolution is always better.

wbino,

With a quad 2.6 system and an 8800 GTX, you should be able to put all the settings at their highest with a resolution that feels best for you. Since you are using a CRT monitor, simply choose a resolution that 'looks best,' or, balances the three factors of framerate, playing space and picture quality. I have an dual core system with a Radeon 1950X Pro, and I run at 1680 X 1250 (22" widescreen) with all settings on 'highest' with maximum AA and bloom. I have very few framerate issues, and you should find the same with your system. Just play around with the graphics settings, and choose what works best for you. If you can run all the settings at their maximum, and notice little-to-no slowdown, then play with those settings. You're the only one who can judge how much of a framerate hit you are willing to take for a better picture. Things to consider are your system's ram and video ram. I would be surprised if you had any FR issues, and if you notice you can't run on the highest settings with your system, perhaps some tweaking is in order. Also - what size is your CRT?

CrysaniaIV,

My CRT is a cheap 17''with a current setting of 60hz. What would my refresh do to lower my framerates?
The only time I noticed ANY slowdown was one huge battle, but I might have had a few programs running in the backround. Like I've said previously, I don't want to push the resolutions too much and get the same FR as a lower card. BTW I could throw another 8800gtx in for SLI , but was gonna wait till they are cheaper.

Thanks again everyone.

To be honest, I think getting one of the shiny bigger (21" or so) LCDs, regular or widescreen, would be a much better monetary investment than another 8800gtx. Other than Crysis, I've not run into a single game (DX10 or otherwise) that a single 8800gtx could not handle pretty much maxed out at 1600x1200.

wbino,

Your refresh rate shouldn't affect your FR as far as I know - generally speaking, however, a higher refresh rate is much easier on your eyes. I run all my monitors on the highest refresh rate possible, and I don't have any issues.

Like I said, simply play around with the settings, and avoid running programs in the background that you don't need (check your task-manager, but don't just close a bunch of programs that you aren't sure about. If you want to know what a process is, just google the name to learn about it).

I agree, you probably don't need to bother getting another 8800 GTX for SLI, especially for SINS which is a relatively low-requ game. If you play lots of FPS and such, then go nuts, but I agree that a better investment would be a new monitor. However, if you go much bigger than 22", make sure you have adequate video memory to use it. 256 MB is good for anything less than about 24" or so, if you go bigger, make sure you have at least 512 mb.

You're the only one who can decide what you like best for settings. Simply play with the settings, and choose what you like best. The biggest FR hits usually come from things like shadows, AA, and bloom effects. Just play with the settings, and if you are going to invest any money, I really agree with Annatar to get a new monitor before you bother with SLI. Don't forget, not all games support SLI, so you have to be careful when you invest that kind of money - make sure the games you play or are going to buy support SLI (if and when you get it).

P.S.

If you really want to know about your FR, you can get programs that will tell you your FR while you are running a 3D application. FRAPS is a good program for this, just to see your FR while you're running a game, though I know there is an ATI tray program (which I use) which will post your framrate as you run a 3D application. I'm sure there's something similar for Nvidia.

If you're curious about tweaking your computer, check out www.gamereplays.org, and go to the 'Hardware' portal. There's a huge amount of information on Nvidia and ATI tweaking, and things to do to make sure your computer is running at maximum efficiency. Like I've said, don't be afraid to play around with settings. If you want to see the effect of a single setting, leave the rest and change it from the lowest to the highest setting (testing both) and see if you notice a difference.

EDIT - double post

You kidding me?

You say "fairly fast" when your computer essentially has the best video card and almost the best CPU on the market?

Uhh the 8800gtx is great but it's not the "fastest" anymore.

Also 2.6ghz isn't very high of a clockrate. If you overclock at all you're gonna get way higher than that.

I think "fairly fast" is pretty accurate. If he had a 45nm quad a 4+ghz and a 9800gx2 (or two of them) then I would say his computer is very fast

You kidding me?

You say "fairly fast" when your computer essentially has the best video card and almost the best CPU on the market?

---

I have a athlon xp 2400+ the pre athlon 64 processers. I only have 1GB of RAM and I run a ATI radion 9800 pro overclocked. With this I run the game at 1600X1200.

1920 x 1200 Yeah!