Cpl Steiner Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Hi again, Sorry but I seem to have new post diarrhoea at the moment. I was wondering what sort of screen resolutions will be supported by CM:SF and what would be best to use. My monitor supports up to 1280 x 1024 but this is not a 4:3 ratio so it might be better to use 1280 x 960 if this was supported. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I haven't posted on this forum in a very long while but wanted to say something here. I have a 1920 x 1200 display, hoping that CMSF will somehow deal with this well. I bought it for photo-editing and boy does it works awesome for that, but games pretty much look strange on it. Using the display at that resolution would be the sweetest method, but diplaying the game at some other resolution but not stretched to fill the display would be better than what most games currently do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am hoping for 1920x1200 as well Even 1600x1200 looks pretty blocky on it. I have the hardware to run it as well so im hoping BF goes the route of most modern game developers and lets you pick whatever you monitor can allow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage2 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Another vote for 1900x1200. I pretty much won't buy games that don't support my display in native mode -- they just look like c*** otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaxisAxis Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 And yet another for 1900x1200. I have a dell 2405 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 1280 x 854 This is ONLY a guess but in the OS X thread Steve has posted that he is running the beta code in XP on a MacBook Pro and my guess is (unless there is something funky in the beta code and he is seeing black bars on each side :confused: ) that he is running in wide screen mode at about 1280 x 854 which is the standard wide screen resolution of the 15inch Macbook Pro (I think). I am on a 15 inch G4 Powerbook Mac (PPC NON intel) now and it is 1280 x 854. The other large format Mac wide screen LCD is 1680 x 1050. There has been no official comment but wide screen Macs never had any problem with any of the CMx1 games. FWIW -tom w [ February 21, 2007, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Add me to this list, unless you take another year. Then I will need it to be even bigger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The bigger the screen, the slower the performance. Just a reminder for you big screen guys I actually don't know what resolutions we are going to support. I'm running on an external 19" flatpanel. Can't remember what the resolution is so I'll check on that. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: 1280 x 854 This is ONLY a guess but in the OS X thread Steve has posted that he is running the beta code in XP on a MacBook Pro and my guess is (unless there is something funky in the beta code and he is seeing black bars on each side :confused: ) that he is running in wide screen mode at about 1280 x 854 which is the standard wide screen resolution of the 15inch Macbook Pro (I think). I am on a 15 inch G4 Powerbook Mac (PPC NON intel) now and it is 1280 x 854. The other large format Mac wide screen LCD is 1680 x 1050. There has been no official comment but wide screen Macs never had any problem with any of the CMx1 games. FWIW -tom w The Macbook Pro's screen resolution (15") is 1440 x 900, not 1280 x 854. That does not mean he used it to its max abilities mind you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Well my Apple 23” Cinema Display is running at 1920 x 1200 when hooked up to either the MacBook Pro or the PC so I’m hoping CMSF can run at that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The bigger the screen, the slower the performance. Just a reminder for you big screen guys Steve My wife has no complaints about a big screen meaning a slower performance. Boom boom 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The bigger the screen, the slower the performance. Just a reminder for you big screen guys I actually don't know what resolutions we are going to support. I'm running on an external 19" flatpanel. Can't remember what the resolution is so I'll check on that. Steve my guess is its running at: 1680 x 1050 on the 19 inch Apple LCD but I am just guessing -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The bigger the screen, the slower the performance. Just a reminder for you big screen guys Steve My computer should be able to handle it with little problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 As an FYI, I've been playing at 1280 x 1024 on a 19" Dell flat panel LCD. I've not bothered to try larger than that, but I'll play around with it. I don't think there are any restrictions as far as CM goes. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Update... one of our spoiled rotten testers, who shall remain nameless out of envy, has reported that he is running CM quite well on a 24" wide screen monitor at 1920x1200. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zoidberg Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 We need a name, dammit! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastakyle Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The bigger the screen, the slower the performance. Just a reminder for you big screen guys I actually don't know what resolutions we are going to support. I'm running on an external 19" flatpanel. Can't remember what the resolution is so I'll check on that. Steve Actually, my 22" Samsung has 2 ms response time..... Big AND fast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Rastak Which model is that? Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Samsungs 940BF and 931BF are the 19 inch 2 ms models. (the 940 is the older model, but the specs are the same as far as I can make out). (just checked, bought one two weeks ago under this name, but the name already changed again. The new name is 960BF - the BF designation seems to be the fast respons one). Dont know what the 22 inch model would be named, 260 BF???. But be warned, the 19 inch one is about 300 euro, the 22 inch one about 800. (in the Netherlands, including VAT, etc.). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 You can get the 24 inch Dell model for much less than 800 Euros 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Originally posted by Bertram: Dont know what the 22 inch model would be named, 260 BF???. But be warned, the 19 inch one is about 300 euro, the 22 inch one about 800. (in the Netherlands, including VAT, etc.). The Samsung website lists the 225BW monitor at 5ms. In my research I've yet to find a 22" (or larger) lcd with a 2ms response time. Though I'm not sure if 5ms vs 2ms is significant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Actually, my 22" Samsung has 2 ms response time..... Screen refresh rate wasn't what I was talking about. The higher the resolution, the more polygons are draw, the more polygons, the more demands on things like CPU, RAM, and especially the video card. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.