Wolfe Posted January 13, 2000 Share Posted January 13, 2000 Any recommendations on a video card that can run CM well at 1600x1200? 800x600 on a Voodoo2 is getting kinda old. And does 32-bit vs. 16-bit make a big visual difference in CM? Thanks. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 13, 2000 Share Posted January 13, 2000 Hi Chris, I can't recommend a card, but can answer your question about colors. All of CMs textures are in 32bit. This should be the standard bit depth for any new card out there. However, if for some reason you play in 16bit there would be a drop off in color fidelity, but not really that bad most likely. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 13, 2000 Share Posted January 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: All of CMs textures are in 32bit. This should be the standard bit depth for any new card out there. However, if for some reason you play in 16bit there would be a drop off in color fidelity, but not really that bad most likely.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a Banshee (ooohh... but the bonus money coming this month is going towards that GeForce I've had my eye on), and like all 3dfx cards out right now, 16bit is the top end in 3d. Looks identical on a friend's PC with a TNT2. Clay- [This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 01-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 But the TNT can run CM in its programmed-for 32-bit color, while the Voodoo chips don't get that high; they use some sort of downsampling that actually processes the image in 32-bit (if you specify) but presents in ~24 bit. I really am unable to detect a difference between 16 and 32 bit, save for the drop in frame rate. Course, my color perception has always been a little screwy. Not colorblind, but I have trouble telling orange from peach from pink, and dark blue/green/black is almost impossible. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Yeah but the Beta demo is definitely 16 bit, I can notice colur banding in the sky and in the smoke. Belive me, none of 3dfx stuff looks as good as the Nvidia TNT2 and GEforce SDR/DDR. The 3dfx stuff, cut corners on textures and colur to get max frame rate. Ok if your into first person shootem ups etc, but in CM you want maximum eye candy A TNT Ultra, Geforce SDR or DDR, and G400 Max are much better. For 32 bit gaming at 1024x768 + res I recommend a Geforce DDR - this card screams! But 32 meg is quite enough for 1600x1200@32 bit without some downsampling of textures. You can see this effect in some screen shots on TGN CM HQ, where the person's video card didn't have enough video memory. I feel sorry for that person He doesn't know what he is missing Wolfe make sure your Cpu is up to scratch too, a Geforce doesn't like old motherboards. It need a strong AGP power MB. ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Umm just for the record the pics on CMHQ are usually JPEGS that have had compression applied to them in order to reduce file size (you guys wanna download the original 5mb 24bits pics? Fine I will send them to you! ) Since anymore the majority of pictures are currently taken by me and I have a TNT2 Ultra there should be NO problem with quality although I was in fact surprised to hear that the graphics were built for 32 bit! I will need to make a change here Madmatt out... ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 The pics on my website are even more compressed! I tried medium and high compression and the difference was greater in size then it was in quality so I went with medium. The original photos that Madmatt and Fionn sent me were over 4 Mb in size and now they are compressed down to about 1 meg ------------------ Visit my Combat Mission for Mac page! With some exclusive images courtesy of the Combat Mission HQ! cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 14, 2000 Author Share Posted January 14, 2000 Thanks for the replies. After going through various reviews of vid cards which use other games as benchmarks, 1600x1200x32 seemed iffy. Since it's an inherently slower-paced game, I was hoping that CM would be able to run at this res acceptably even if many of the other 'twitch' games don't. Glad to hear, CoolColJ. I don't know if I would opt for the GeForce as more than just a few people have complained about its high-res 2D not being as good as other cards (I have a 21" screen running 16x12 on a Millennium-2 and don't wish to compromise). I was leaning towards either the Voodoo-3 3000 or G400 because of their 2D clarity. Though the G400 seems to be faster at higher res and has true 32-bit (er ... 24-bit). Is there a page that describes the 3D engine a bit? BTW, do the sprites (trees and flags) drain CPU power or video? Turning them off on my K6-2-450 w/ Voodoo2 seems to smooth scrolling some. And after I upgrade, who do I send the bill to? Steve or Charles? - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 01-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Actually Steve just stated for the record (about 6 posts up in this same thread) that CM is in fact a 32bit game texture wise! As to the 2d speed/quality of a GeForece, thats news to me, if anything the reviews and hands on experience I have with one would lead me to believe the exact opposite to be true. This is a wonderful card and I WILL be putting one in my own box soon enough, although with a TNT2 Ultra (which you may look into as they are cheap now) I will not see all that much a difference, well 300 dollars less in my wallet I guess thats a difference! Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 14, 2000 Author Share Posted January 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually Steve just stated for the record (about 6 posts up in this same thread) that CM is in fact a 32bit game texture wise!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Drat. Thought I had caught that in time. :-P I haven't seen a specific review that mentioned bad 2D on the GeForce. It's mostly from folks over in csiph.video. Even NVidia supporters seem to acknowledge it could be better at very high res quality-wise. So I can't just discount it as purely partisan bickering. Thanks. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 14, 2000 Author Share Posted January 14, 2000 Ok, wait a minute. Is CM 16-bit or 32-bit? I'm soooo confoooooosed! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000029.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000535.html - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Ok, just to confuse things even more all the BMP are in 24bit so I would have to go with the lastest post from Steve himself above which says all the textures are 32bit...Perhaps some more clarification Steve?!? BTW one of those linked posts above is 11 months old the other is almost 5 so take them both with a grain of salt, the post from Steve in this thread is a few HOURS old so I would have to think its more accurate! Madmatt out... ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 FWIW, 1600x1200 doesn't happen in CM anyway, or so it seems to me. That's my usual desktop resolution (I have a TNT 1 card) and CM always shifts me to something considerably lower when I play it. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demster Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Hi, I've been reading about combat mission for about 4 months now and this is my first post. It is really exciting to learn more about WWII from all of you. Anyways my question is about the different settings. Can you change the resolution in the game to 800 X 600 or 1024 X 768 manually or does the game set the resolution to match your desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 As CM is a Direct 3D program it currently will default to the desktop resolution. There is no resolution adjustment in game right now. By the way, I CAN get the demo to run in 1600x1200 32bit(just did it to check)if thats what you were referring to BulletHead, at least with my TNT2 Ultra card and .368 reference drivers. Madmatt out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 I have run it at 1600 X 1200, and I couldn't read the text! And I have a 17" monitor. I run it in 1152 X 864, and everything works fine. Its OK at a slightly lower setting too. ------------------ "when in doubt, run in circles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, I CAN get the demo to run in 1600x1200 32bit(just did it to check)if thats what you were referring to BulletHead, at least with my TNT2 Ultra card and .368 reference drivers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe it IS working in 16x12 for me. It sure looks and sounds like it shifts gears on my monitor a couple times before the title screen comes up, though. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Oooooops, my mistake. 16 bit is indeed the color depth you guys see. I got confused because the ARTWORK is in 32bit. Seems the hardware does the downsampling. Not sure if you did get a card with higher res if it would display 32bit or not. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 1600x1200? What kind of monitor do you all have. 21" or something like that? I've done some calculations for my 17" monitor and the result was that is can only display 1280x1024 physically. So having a resolution above that doesn't make sense. I suppose the same is true for the most of you too. So just forget about 1600x1200. By the way, I think CM uses a 800x600 resolution on my Voodoo2, and I don't complain about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 I run CM in 1152 x 1024... It runs quite nicely and quite quickly on my system with no problems at that resolution. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 The Geforce 2d image is different to a TNT2, its a bit darker, and the lines seem thicker. But the colours are richer and saturated. Don't by a v3000 and any 3dfx card! Your paying all this money for inferior texture quality. 3dfx drivers are sneaky, they reduce the texture sizes on the fly to improve frame rate at the expense of 3d image quality. to use 1600x1200 you'll 32 megs and a 19 inch moniotr minimum, and if its a crap 19 inch it'll still be blutty, get a 21 inch for 1600x1200, hope your pc is fast though But at this res on my tnt2 and SOny FD Trinitron e200 17 inch monitor it looks good with anti-aliasing. Getting a 19inch Sony G400 soon, so I can play larger res, since 1024x768 is the most I go up to with this monitor. ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 For the record: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1600x1200? What kind of monitor do you all have. 21" or something like that? I've done some calculations for my 17" monitor and the result was that is can only display 1280x1024 physically. So having a resolution above that doesn't make sense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I have a NEC 21 inch monitor, It cost me over $900 dollars when I got it over 4 years ago (at the time they LISTED for over 2 grand but I was able to buy a returned one from where I work for cost!The customer had refused the order and since the monitor had been opened we could no longer sell it as new ) and it is still the single most impressive and worthwhile part of my system. Video cards and processors change in my system at least twice a year but the monitor stays the same! Madmatt out... ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 14, 2000 Author Share Posted January 14, 2000 Bullethead wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, maybe it IS working in 16x12 for me. It sure looks and sounds like it shifts gears on my monitor a couple times before the title screen comes up, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Assuming you have a PC, does hitting Print-Screen save an in-game image to the clipboard? Try it, then hit escape and open a paint program and paste the bitmap image. You'll then be able to tell what size the game has settled on. Tough this doesn't work with my setup; it always saves the text screen in the menu, and not the in-game pic (I have a Mill-2 for 2D and V2 for 3D; it's saving the Mill-2 image). I guess I could try Hypersnap. Dschugaschwili wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've done some calculations for my 17" monitor and the result was that is can only display 1280x1024 physically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, 1024x768 and 1152x864 seem to be the best for 17" screens. Even on 19" screens, 16x12 is pushing it. 1152x864 and 1280x960 (if your vid card supports it) are probably the best fits for a 19"er. I think 1440x1080 would be a good fit for 21" screens too. Unfortunately, I've never heard of any driver supporting this res. CoolColJ wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>to use 1600x1200 you'll 32 megs and a 19 inch moniotr minimum, and if its a crap 19 inch it'll still be blutty, get a 21 inch for 1600x1200, hope your pc is fast though But at this res on my tnt2 and SOny FD Trinitron e200 17 inch monitor it looks good with anti-aliasing. Getting a 19inch Sony G400 soon, so I can play larger res, since 1024x768 is the most I go up to with this monitor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a 21" Sony 500PS. Real nice screen. Haven't heard of the G400. Sounds like a video card. As Madmatt said, it's good to buy the best monitor you can afford. It's the biggest single expense in a system, but it'll last the longest. Long after your CPU has turned itself back into a pile of sand, a good monitor will still be going strong. Hopefully mine will last atleast as long as his. You can turn on anti-aliasing in CM?!? I've pretty much settled on the Matrox G400. Just not sure whether to spring for the Max version or not. Thanks much to all. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Got a new job today so I'm going to buy myself a Guillemot GeForce with DDR RAM as soon as I get my first pay from the new job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 To all you guys with the big monitors - NOTHING beats a 17" TFT screen! NOT A THING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts