PDA

View Full Version : I had to reduce my resolution again...



Airmikey2
12-02-2004, 07:23 AM
New 302 dots and I had to reduce my resolution again...I guess its my LCD monitor at 1600 x 1200, but for me the 301 dots were perfect...

So my question is: Why not make dot size an option for the individual.. There would be no advantage added with adjustable dot sizes that cannot already be gained with reducing resolution...and reducing resolution is a bummer cause it diminishes the eye candy...

What do you think..?

Airmikey

Airmikey2
12-02-2004, 07:23 AM
New 302 dots and I had to reduce my resolution again...I guess its my LCD monitor at 1600 x 1200, but for me the 301 dots were perfect...

So my question is: Why not make dot size an option for the individual.. There would be no advantage added with adjustable dot sizes that cannot already be gained with reducing resolution...and reducing resolution is a bummer cause it diminishes the eye candy...

What do you think..?

Airmikey

Extreme_One
12-02-2004, 08:00 AM
Dot-size an option?

Only if the Host could lock one size for all.

Capt.LoneRanger
12-02-2004, 10:50 AM
Agreed - I'm glad 3.02 brought back the effect of camouflage painting against the ground.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2004, 11:45 AM
Your reso is 1600x1200?

Mine has to be 800x600, or fps makes it unplayable

I hate you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Really though, kinda bugs me when I read threads with ppl with super systems whining about not being able to read the hubcaps on 3/4 ton trucks in flight et al

Many, Many pilots in FB/PF have minimal, or even under req systems, we just want smooth game play, dont care about the eye candy

CHDT
12-02-2004, 12:09 PM
Reducing resolution for better visibility!

It it goes on this way, we will finish to play PF on a phone screen to see the dots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
12-02-2004, 02:48 PM
It bugs me when people with crappy systems whine that people with good systems shouldn't complain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Nobody is asking to "read the hubcaps on 3/4 ton trucks in flight et al", people are asking to be able to see planes that are close by that they were following and who just disappeared against the ground. Big difference.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'm just pointing out that just because people have good systems and run the game at high res does not mean they are not entitled to have legitimate concerns.

SeaFireLIV
12-02-2004, 02:58 PM
Well, I quite like the 3.02b? (latest beta patch) dots. they`re definitely easier to see at distance and against ground than the 3.00.

Now I never did get to try the 3.01 dots cos I was away, but from what I read it was too blocky on 1024 X 768. I can go higher and I can see the dots really well still, previously I had to drop higher resolutions because it WAS nigh impossible to spot dots. And the nice thing is it still looks realistic.

But I`m a hardened non-icon user and got on fine without icons anyway, even over Europe where it was especially hard to see. But anything that improves the 3.00 dots without looking like something from a crude 1980s console bat game is good to me.

Popey109
12-02-2004, 03:12 PM
1024x768€¦what more should I expect from 1600?...P4 2.8 9800pro and a gig of mem! Try playing at lower res http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Hamm109/SNAG-0001copy.png http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
12-02-2004, 04:49 PM
IT IS WORSE THAN EVER!!!

Hunde_3.JG51
12-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Popey, that would be fine if I had a monitor the size of your pic, except I have 21-inch Viewsonic so 1600x1200 is a must IMO. Every game I run is at 16x12, I wouldn't sacrifice anything for my resolution as it makes a huge difference in image quality. If I play at 1024x768 it looks like I am playing through a screen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

LEXX_Luthor
12-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Daiichidoku:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Really though, kinda bugs me when I read threads with ppl with super systems whining about not being able to read the hubcaps on 3/4 ton trucks in flight et al
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/7D/11/TaoofDaiichidoku/1/a.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With the smoothness of new Patches, I use ATI~9200 at 1280x960 now, with Default CD driver out of the box, and I prefer 3.01 dots.

We must learn to ignore the competitive internet Brownie Point dogfighter hostility, insults, and accusations against those flight simmers who for the first time can *see* dots with Patch 3.01. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-02-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Popey, that would be fine if I had a monitor the size of your pic, except I have 21-inch Viewsonic so 1600x1200 is a must IMO. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, must try 1600X1200, see what it`s like... Sounds a bit like ya showing off here though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-02-2004, 07:20 PM
Well, my ATI~9200 can now do FBP at 1280x960, but could use some improvement as fps is "only" 25-30fps. I can't wait for next year and get "mainstream" to "low end" 9800Pro. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Then I can do 1600x1200 and NEVER look back. I'm telling you, the new small aircraft grafics are stunning with high resolutions.

mmm, 9800Pro shortage? Aussie simmer/simmerette Muthapusbucket posted in GD that he/she can't find 9800Pro down yonder. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
~ http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19960

ATI's Radeon 9800 Pro In Grievous Shortage
In short, hard to get

By Fuad Abazovic: Tuesday 30 November 2004, 09:33

ATI PLANS TO fight Nvidia's 6600GT with its Radeon 9800PRO cards. Of course we are talking about AGP cards as there is no such thing as 9800PRO PCIe. It's a chimera.

Regardless of ATI's dreams, we know there is a huge shortage of 9800 PRO cards in both shops and through distributors.

Oddly, an Asian source tells us that there's no shortage in Mr Raffle's little colony, Singapore. In fact there appear to be floods of them over there.

Many sources close to ATI and the ones that are actually selling those cards tell us that you can of course place an order but it will take quite a few of what we call in the trade "weeks" before you see the cards.

With 6600GT AGP already available, ATI's partners might be in trouble as they need all the 9800PROs that they can get. Or not get, as is the case. We hope that the situation is going to change but in the last few commercial weeks remaining in this year of delays, things don€t look too bright in the northern hemisphere.

Yields on 9800PRO, after more than a year on market "should" be good but bear in mind that the 9800PRO was once a high end chip and has now been wrenched back to the mainstream.

Usually a graphics card company redesigns a high end core and releases it into the mainstream, but this time ATI just used the same core. That might be the essence of its problem.

We hope that the Rialto ATI bridge to Babylon comes soon, very soon we would suggest. I believe that Rialto can help ATI to make a difference. It might also help its stock price. (ticker: ATIW). µ
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackjack174
12-02-2004, 08:41 PM
hmm , with a radeon9800 pro i have go anopther way , let the 1280 resolution be but crank up FSAA , my "low res" 1280x768 looks almost (if not better) to me as 1600 without on 2xFSAA(and i cant play 1600 on perfect fluently with my 9800pro) and runs much faster, and btw. dots wont vanish with fsaa because radeon cards only smooth geometry , not everything on the screen (my old gf2pro used other tech. , dont know about never nvidia cards), so far the new dots are more likely to be seeen by me against ground , but the range towards the horizon seems heavily reduced, so if u see the dot and are in a bad position to attack you are really in trouble now.

Hunde_3.JG51
12-02-2004, 09:15 PM
Seafire, I'm not showing off. First of all I paid good money for what I own. My 9800pro broke, I was pissed and dumped alot of money for a 6800GT, maybe I will regret it later. As for my monitor I got it used at a computer show (risky, I know) for $180.00, and I have posted about it several times in the past. It is a ViewSonic Professional series and I consider it one of the best deals of my life as I have not had a single problem with it, and it is in near perfect condition. And I am not one of those computer geeks that judges someone's worth by what computer they have. If I had my way we would all have the latest and greatest, well, most of us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Showing off, that is what my girlfriend is for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Trust me, resolution makes a huge difference in picture quality on my end. I have tried lower res with more AA and AF but it just doesn't compare IMO. Others may feel differently though.

Airmikey2
12-03-2004, 08:26 AM
I guess my point is...people with different cards, screens and resolutions have different results with dotsizes...So, if I adjust my resolution in order to adjust dotsizes...how can it be an unfair advantage to just make dotsizes themselves adjustable.. (not a server contolled option.)

As it is, I can not track planes once they drop below horizon at a distance...maybe because I have a LCD monitor and I dont think LCD can do "black".. so my dots are probably gray..

Anyway, I dont want unrealistic bumblebees either - but that was not the effect I got with 301 dots..they looked good on my system and settings.


Airmikey

LEXX_Luthor
12-03-2004, 06:47 PM
Yes SeaFire, 3.02b dots *much* better than 3.0 dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I am finding I prefer 3.01 dots better for range judging purposes...the problem we are having is that 3.01 dots needed Default dotrange reduced so the dots fade realistically with range, but now with 3.02b dots and dotrange now too small, even the "anti 3.01" lobby are saying we must bump 3.02b dotrange up to maximum of 25km but that means HIGH dotrange and so no fade out until the most Extreme long range, and so no way to judge range with 3.02b dots at high dotrange settings. Confused yet? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFire:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I never did get to try the 3.01 dots cos I was away, but from what I read it was too blocky on 1024 X 768. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SEAFIRE -- pay attention please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Airmikey2:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Anyway, I dont want unrealistic bumblebees either - but that was not the effect I got with 301 dots...they looked good on my system and settings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
SeaFire, if you look at the posts claiming dots "too big" you will see jokes, insults, and hostile accusations against other flight simmers. Be careful of making your judgement based upon reading flight simmer posts. See for yourself. I am thinking that I am noticing that these hostile gamers are highly competitive internet dogfighters. Not sure though, as offline player, I really don't know "who is who" online...and don't really care. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...thankfully there appear to be many honest online simmers here.

Also, if you get to try 3.01 dots, Be Sure to czech out how mp_dotrange makes the dots "realistic" for lack of typing time here...oh, just read the mp_dotrange thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Popey109
12-03-2004, 07:36 PM
S Lexx, I fly off-line as well, I have no agenda or motives except to keep my game as exiting and immersive as possible! No gaming the game or evil intent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have good eye site (knock on wood) and before all this started I had trouble spotting aircraft same as all of you! 3.02bm is a vast improvement over 3.00. Aircraft are much easer to spot at a distance but still difficult to track over terrain, I have to keep my head on a swivel, always looking. As it should be€¦.Now with my eye site, using high res low res or dot range made no difference in 3.01. It was wrong! And what all of you are asking for will ruin the game for a lot of us!...and lets not forget all of you do have options (how did any of you play this game before 3.01?) 3.01 for guys like me will be nothing more than a permanent Icon! An emersion killer that steals all the excitement. And I don€t believe making some kind of optional dot range will work either! I think it€s asking too much and a bit redundant when you have icons already€¦no disrespect intended€¦just my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-03-2004, 08:43 PM
Popey, if you had "good" eyes like you seem to claim, you would see the effects resolution has on dots. Actually, you do know the effects, but you are keeping quiet.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif I'd like to share your thoughts with ALL simmers...


Popey:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think it€s asking too much and a bit redundant when you have icons already...no disrespect intended€¦just my opinion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Popey:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3.01 for guys like me will be nothing more than a permanent Icon! An emersion killer that steals all the excitement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Popey, you are correct, ALL simmers need 3.01 dots--with dotrange fix--to fly with immersion and excitement without text icons that KILL immersion and excitement. Getting rid of the NEED for text icons is the most important thing for ALL flight simmers.

The selfishness and greed in these threads astounds even me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S! Popey

Popey109
12-03-2004, 09:42 PM
A nice way of calling me a lire!...No Lexx! €œThe selfishness and greed in these threads astounds even me€œ you mean it exceeds even your own selfishness and greed? How long have you been flying Lexx? Had any success at all before 3.01? Like I said, Not all pilots are equal€¦and I don€t need to exploit anyone! I€ve stated my case, and we agree to disagree. Fair weather to you Sir., may you find your target. Signed Popey109€¦aka Hamm109€¦D13-thHamm109€¦look it up! I€ve not flown on-line in over a year! My Hamm109 handle was lost here when the new forums came on line http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif