What resolution do you have?
Moderator: Moporators
What resolution do you have?
I have 1280 x 960, that is double the height and width of the default, so nothing looks distorted. Both 1x and 0.5x zoom works okay. It's getting hard too see with even smaller zoom... Also I have the camera centered, it reduces the work for the graphics card. (But in default resolution (640 x 480) you see too little when it's turned on)
Well, that's what I think anyway.
Well, that's what I think anyway.
<Fihlvein> another case of zworqy-is-always-right closed i guess
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
- Ky.Jelly
- Flood to teh MAX
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: 20 May 2002, 21:40
- Location: Ramarama, Auckland, New Zealand
- Contact:
1024x768 - i tried 1600x1200 but my computer went apeshit
1.5 zoom, except on small levels eg warm up 2.5 zoom
1.5 zoom, except on small levels eg warm up 2.5 zoom
[10:51:18] <skint0r> i could SACh see KyJelly working at ICA ;D
[10:51:37] <skint0r> "vad kostar denna?" "wtf ch0b0"
Thursday, March 2nd 2005, 0942 i was 3333 [4.43% of total / 3.25 posts per day]
[10:51:37] <skint0r> "vad kostar denna?" "wtf ch0b0"
Thursday, March 2nd 2005, 0942 i was 3333 [4.43% of total / 3.25 posts per day]
If you have 1280 x 960 and 2x, zoom it will look like the default, but with better detail, this would have been very c00l if only elma would run smoothly then... well maybe with centered camera it does, but you see far too little ahead of you then.
<Fihlvein> another case of zworqy-is-always-right closed i guess
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
- Ky.Jelly
- Flood to teh MAX
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: 20 May 2002, 21:40
- Location: Ramarama, Auckland, New Zealand
- Contact:
if u got elma 1.2beta version u go to elmaconf.ese and on the rite hand side is a section to chang the resolutionMorti wrote:how can u make ur resolution higher??????
[10:51:18] <skint0r> i could SACh see KyJelly working at ICA ;D
[10:51:37] <skint0r> "vad kostar denna?" "wtf ch0b0"
Thursday, March 2nd 2005, 0942 i was 3333 [4.43% of total / 3.25 posts per day]
[10:51:37] <skint0r> "vad kostar denna?" "wtf ch0b0"
Thursday, March 2nd 2005, 0942 i was 3333 [4.43% of total / 3.25 posts per day]
-
- Le pilote
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 19 May 2002, 23:21
- Location: France
When you configure directdraw in winxp, you must set a frequency that is supported with most of the resolutions, because if you have set 120Hz and then you try to play in 1600*1200, directdraw will automatically switch to 60Hz. Then it's twice worse then 640*480
What i didn't say: if you try to use a resolution that is not supported by your screen, elma doesn't start (grey screen or something). That's normal.
What i didn't say: if you try to use a resolution that is not supported by your screen, elma doesn't start (grey screen or something). That's normal.
-
- Le pilote
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 19 May 2002, 23:21
- Location: France
All of that be summarized as "better graphics". I thought it was quite obvious that these are the benefits of higher resolutions.Hibernatus wrote:more accurate display, wider field of view, nicer display.
<Fihlvein> another case of zworqy-is-always-right closed i guess
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything
-
- Banned
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 3 Mar 2003, 05:35
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
-
- Le pilote
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 19 May 2002, 23:21
- Location: France
I have tried 1152*864 X1.6 and it looks very good.
To people who say it's slower: Do you see a speed difference when you press "+" or "-" in elma? The difference is the same for resolutions. For zooms the difference is exactly as using an LGR with bigger pics (and also a very little, tiny, invisible difference because of the bike display).
So i think it's rather an optical effect, maybe a lower resolution acts a little as a motion blur. Or you simply set a too high vertical frequency in directx (winxp problem, because win98 was able to choose the best resolution in each resolution) which becomes 60Hz in high resolutions.
How to measure the FPS:
- Make an empty file in the elma folder and rename it "f_rate.inf" (just like "message.inf".
- Play a lev and quit by pressing Esc. NOT by dying or touching the flower.
In f_rate.inf you'll find the average FPS of your ride (you don't have to close elma, just "alt-tab").
To people who say it's slower: Do you see a speed difference when you press "+" or "-" in elma? The difference is the same for resolutions. For zooms the difference is exactly as using an LGR with bigger pics (and also a very little, tiny, invisible difference because of the bike display).
So i think it's rather an optical effect, maybe a lower resolution acts a little as a motion blur. Or you simply set a too high vertical frequency in directx (winxp problem, because win98 was able to choose the best resolution in each resolution) which becomes 60Hz in high resolutions.
How to measure the FPS:
- Make an empty file in the elma folder and rename it "f_rate.inf" (just like "message.inf".
- Play a lev and quit by pressing Esc. NOT by dying or touching the flower.
In f_rate.inf you'll find the average FPS of your ride (you don't have to close elma, just "alt-tab").