You are right!!
I am sorry i overread it.
Printable View
You are right!!
I am sorry i overread it.
This must be where i'm supposed to say "Gotcha" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...miley-wink.gif
so are there any pc's that can run at 1600 x 1200 at max settings with this game i mean 50fps + ?, also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it.
"..also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it."
You are mistaken. The potential maximum resolution is dependant upon individual monitor specifications. I have a 19" monitor and I can run at 1600x1200 because my monitor supports that resolution. My dad has a 19" monitor but he can only run at 1024x768 because that is the maximum resolution his monitor supports..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daytraders:
so are there any pc's that can run at 1600 x 1200 at max settings with this game i mean 50fps + ?, also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can run at 1280x960 without FSAA and I get 50 FPS in perfect mode but the jaggies are noticable IMHO. I prefer to use 1600x1200 at the same perfect settings and I get FPS pegged at roughly 37 (half 75) vsync on, my average FPS is 42.
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.
Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.
If you want the high res you need an LCD.
I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.
LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.
Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.
If you want the high res you need an LCD.
I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.
LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IMHO no LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.
I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600?
I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost.
Somewhat aside from resolution, (I have a 19" and run at 1024 X 728, which gives me pretty good FR and lets me see aircraft at long distance. But I find the "full real" servers to be rather unrealistic.
I was flying one last night, and I carefully stalked 3 different aircraft that I just barely avoided shooting because I recognized them as friendlies at the last second. (This was mostly P40s against Zeros) From the six, it's really hard to ID the enemy properly.
We generally do not have the advantages real pilots had; flying in well-practiced groups with radio communication and all.
I much prefer the servers that use the discrete little black "friendly only" icons that show up when you're close enough.
We have enough trouble keeping track of things.
(Speaking of which, TrackIR is definitely on my Xmas list).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.
Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.
If you want the high res you need an LCD.
I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.
LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL, go and learn about monitors before spouting such pure BS. NO LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT THAT IS A FACT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.
OH and I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600? Hardly top class is it?
I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lol, indeed. LCD is great for the eyes but still a fair way behind the best (and comparitively cheaper) CRT displays for colour and sharpness. It is only the very best LCD displays that have a low enough response time to make games with quick moving graphics playable. I'm looking forward to an LCD in the future, just not until the gap in further narrowed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its also hard to have sympathy for those shafted by high graphics settings. The fact you can run the game in 1600x1200 means you have a machine far better than mine, and thus have far too much money and free time on your hands <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...n_confused.gif
It hardly takes a killer machine to pull it off.
I've been running at 1600x1200x32 for about 2 years now with an Athlon XP 2000+, 1GB of RAM and a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 (OC to 4400 levels) and it works great. While I could be wrong, I'd suspect most here (you included) have at least that much machine at this point.
It's not an FPS, sustained framerates in the high 20s to low 30s are perfectly fine. Anything sustained above 35-40 is cake.
I will note however that I'm running the above with trilinear filtering and no AA, as it's not really necessary at 1600x1200. Nice, yes, but 16x12 with no AA still looks better than 1024x768 with tons of AA.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.
Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true. You just need a quality monitor to do it (ie, not something you picked up at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or likely the one that came with your OEM PC).
I specifically purchased a 19" monitor (Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920) that would support 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. It looks great. At that size tube and resolution it's a bit too small for desktop use at 3 feet away, but it still looks nice and sharp. For gaming though, it's wonderful.
However, the sim definitely penalizes anyone who runs at higher than 1024x768. With icons off and cockpit on at 16x12 most any aircraft becomes invisible against the ground as close as 300m unless they're firing at you. That's stupidly close and completely unrealistic no matter how well camoflaged it is.
Dropping back to 1024x768 solves the problem though, and aircraft can be spotted and tracked under the same conditions at 3-4 times the distance.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LCD is great for the eyes but still a fair way behind the best (and comparitively cheaper) CRT displays for colour and sharpness. It is only the very best LCD displays that have a low enough response time to make games with quick moving graphics playable. I'm looking forward to an LCD in the future, just not until the gap in further narrowed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. I figure in about 2 more years they'll be there (or really close), but for now they're still falling just a bit short of where I'd consider them a fully viable alternative.
That said, I purchased my current 19" monitor about 2 years ago with the intention that it would be the last CRT I buy. I figured after 5 or so years when it was due for replacement, LCDs would be both cheap enough and good enough that they'd be the natural choice.
So far everything seems to be proceeding on schedule. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...on_biggrin.gif