How Do You Prefer To Play Your Games ??...

Hey ,You Can Set Resolution To 800x600 and Have Some Details ( Like Me With My Previews Sparkle FX 5900 ) ...
I Really Dont Care About Resolution ... 1024x768 is enough For Me ...

i prefer (and my monitors most comfortable resolution) is 1024x768, this is because i really can't get anything higher then that, but i try to get as much detail as possible out of the game which keeping things smooth... framerates first. (i don't really notice the difference with AA on and off)

Ara

no difference... that i can actually spot, i just notice the framerates dropping...

ooooooh, i love shadows... especially quake 4 shadows, sometimes helps you see if something is around the corner...

Ara

Oh you need the shadows in Q4. So much better. Without them it's just a well lit shooter.
I run at 1024 res, 4xAA and 2xAF. At a medium or low res AA is a must. Q4 seems to run really well with those settings for me, very few FPS dips.
BTW, how do you get your FPS to display in Q4? I'm guessing I get around 45+, but I don't know the command to show it. Thanks.

I like to play my games at 800X600 with all details at the lowest settings so I can get 10-40 fps with my 128MB 4X AGP Nvidia GeForce 4. Gaming at work though I prefer the high resolutions over the quality textures, lighting, and shadows.

lol is that on turn based strategy games

[q] X4 AA, 8xAF, High Quality, Trilinear, Supersampling on my 7800GTX 256. I get good performance and quality at the same time. [/q]

haha, try playing those same things on any next gen game that just came out right now; the 7800 gtx is in the dumpster, as unfortunate as it is.

i know what you mean but i thought i'd point out that you can't use trilinear with AF. AF supersedes trilinear.

sry thats in reply to chuckhissle

Any One Just Want To Play at Highest Resolution ... Ah ...
You Know , I Cant Play NFS Most Wanted At 1280x1024 + MAX + 4xAA + 16xAF
So I Have To Disable Shadows !
But I Reduce The Resolution To 1024x768 insted of Disabling Shadows ...
Now I Feel Better ...
Shadows are Good ... We Cant Live Without Them ... Hehe
(Same About 4xAA)

1280 x 1024 (CRT) at 85z

2 x FSAA (4x FSAA when in single player, but 2x FSAA keeps weighted minimum frame rate up online when I need it)

8x Ansio, but with MipMaps / Texture detail set to 3/4 texture size (with 8x Ansio it looks quite good still, like compressing a JPEG more, improves performance when changing scenes *very* quickly, but quality still very nice from the filtering method).

Sometimes medium texture detail in game, but pretty everything else on the top 33% of options.

I want my minimum frame rate to be 40fps, if not 60 fps, and my average around 120 fps, maximum I want at only 160 fps (I can't feel it in the mouse past that), and if the maximum is reduced it means more of a good average frame rate is from using stats from drawing the more complex scenes, and not empty hallways at 200fps+.

I think benchmarks should be limited to 80 fps, so frame rates of 200 don't lift the average frame unfairly, especially if dipping under 40 fps. Once cards get 60 fps average in make the benchmark more advanced. 8) , So you know which cards handle the complex scenes.

:?: What is better ?

- 100 fps average, with 25 fps min, and 400 fps max
- 80 fps average, with 60 fps min, and 120 fps max

More into game / dedi-server concepts / lag normalization:

40 fps with double buffering (forced in every 3D API, at least) means what you see on screen is 25ms behind the game.... and ideally this should match your ping. Better yet everyone on the server would have 25 ms pings, get kicked if their ping goes over 100 ms, and even if their ping is 8 ms online it should be adjusted to 25 ms by the dedicated game server software. I call this 'lag normalization' in work.

Basic soft shadows are nice, don't need more, only enough for tactical purposes.

If a given effect can get me under 45 fps, when used in bulk as some scenes online are, I'll tune it down.

agreed. its a bit harder for me because I have to find a widescreen resolution(usually not many of them in games) if i can and then crank everything up. If it runs well then i start to add on AA and AF until my x1800xl starts to buckle. Then i back of a tiny bit.

Everything maxed out at 2048x1536 with 4xAA. Pretty much any game from HL2 back to the beginning of time runs OK on this system with those settings, but a few more recent games like FEAR are too graphics-hungry.

Also, some old games like Trespasser can't handle AA, or 32-bit rendering.

On my primary machine I play at 1280x1024 min, I don't mind if AA is all the way up 2x is good enough for me. Older games I run at 1600x1200 usually with everything on.

On my HTPC I run everything at 1024x768 maxed since it goes to a 32" CRT TV there is no need in going higher res as it only outputs at 800x600 anyway. I find that 1024x768 is more detailed even when converted to the lower rez.

where's the option for minesweeper at 1024 x 768?
:?

... Still Most Of The People Like To Play in High Resolution , But I Rahter Play With Maximum Details and 4xAA Insted ... With My Preview 6800 Card I Play F.E.A.R. and BF2 and Call Of Duty 2 in 800x600 But Maximum Details and 4xAA ... I Think I Like It More This Way ... Even If The Frame Rate Is To Low I Rather Use 2xAA ... But For Now With My PX7800GT I Play Games in 1024x768 4xAA 16xAF and Some Like Battle Field 2 and Half-Life 2 in 1600x1200 ...

1280x1024, the max resolution of my monitor, with max settings. Every game, even The Sims 2, looks like a slide show .

Time to OC gfx card higher, or get a better mobo than this crappy proprietary one and OC the CPU to 4GHz or so.

Thanks for all that info. I can see, and appreciate your point. But, there are several things you didn't take into account.
First, you showed a picture of scores/latencies. Latenciy is usually measured in ms. But what is it? It's not the time it takes you computer to interact with the server while playing the game. It the time it takes for the server to ping you computer. Sending the data amounts to play a game are magnitudes bigger than a simple ping packet. This, obviously, adds to how much behind the server you are.
Secondly, how much time does it take for the information to enter your brain and your eyes to react? Try hold a dollar bill between the fingers of a friend and see if he can catch it. You've probably seen the experiment I'm referring to. What does it prove? That it takes your brain more time to process the information of seeing the bill fall and responding by telling your fingers to close than it takes a dollar bill to fall 6in. Since we're on the earth and gravitation accelleration is about 32.2 ft/s2, we can see that response time in this experiment is nearly 2 tenths of a second, not thousands.
You're not different from the rest of humanity. You don't have a super powered brain. All your game playing may bring you to ~.1s reaction times, but that extremely doubtful. If you want to be honest with yourself try playing the game from this site and seeing how slow your reactions are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/human [...] rsion5.swf

160fps is just a justification technophiles use for spending obscene amounts of money on videocards. I play Unreal2k4 online at 45-60fps and ~100ms latency and I still place first at least half the time. I played CS source for a couple of weeks but got tired of being kicked for 'cheating' when in fact I am simply good at shooters.

I can also tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I'm with you that at 60 environments look smoother, but 60 and 120? Give me a break. You can't tell, and neither can any other human being.