Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 23, 2006 9:02:15 AM

Hi Boys ! I Just Want To Know How Do You Usually Prefer To Play Your Games ? In Wich Type Of Graphics ??
I Mean :
1- Ultra-High Resolution (Even With Medium Or Low Detail)? (1280x1024 or 1600x1200 )
2- Medium Resolution With Highest Details Possible ( W/O Shadows or W/ Shadows) ?
3- 4xAA Must Be ALWAYS Activated ? (Like Me :twisted: , Hehe... )
4- Shadows , Shadows and More Shadows (Nothing Esle is Important )?
(Hey , I Know That Most Of You Can Play All The Games With All Details at Maximum Resolution , But Lets Just Imagine That Your System Have Some Limitation For Future Games ...)
Tell Me Your Oponions ... If You Like ! :D 

More about : prefer play games

March 23, 2006 10:48:28 AM

Hey ,You Can Set Resolution To 800x600 and Have Some Details :twisted: ( Like Me With My Previews Sparkle FX 5900 ) ...
I Really Dont Care About Resolution ... 1024x768 is enough For Me ... :D 
March 23, 2006 11:13:34 AM

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
Related resources
March 23, 2006 11:17:34 AM

What ? You Dont Notice The Different Between AA on and off ?
OH ... Boy , I Prefer To Play At Lowest Detail Possible But With 4xAA ... I Cant Play Without AA ... and I Dont Care About Shadows ...
March 23, 2006 11:25:10 AM

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
March 23, 2006 11:29:28 AM

... Strange ... Yes I Love Shadows Too , But They Waste Awesome Frame Rates ... :evil: 
March 23, 2006 12:01:49 PM

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.
March 23, 2006 7:30:44 PM

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.
March 23, 2006 7:37:53 PM

Hate low res with a passion, the lowest ill settle is 1280, 1024 AT MOST. I prefer at least 2xaa, but as long as i have 10+ framerate on 1600x1200 i dont care.
March 23, 2006 7:51:35 PM

X4 AA, 8xAF, High Quality, Trilinear, Supersampling on my 7800GTX 256. :D  I get good performance and quality at the same time. :D 
March 23, 2006 7:59:54 PM

[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.
March 23, 2006 8:01:11 PM

Most games I'd say max detail lower res..

but for games like DDO and such, a higher res for a little wider field of view, at the sacrifice of quality of course.
March 23, 2006 8:20:02 PM

Allway as high I can go with good fps on my AL1914 19" 1280*1024
Thats 1280*1024 with 4x AA and 8x AF in WoW
Trying to keep 1280 cutting down untill I get decent framrates on more intense fps games.

Have to agree when u played a game with 4x AA then playing without it looks lame. As when u played quake software compared with a GLquake.

Nvidia 6800 128Mb AGP with some luving
A64 2800+ (754) at 2250 (250*11 - 270*11max)
1024 Mb twinmos fullspeed DDR 2,3,3,7 1T (2*512)
Still work good with most games out there

Wouldt mind a x2 939 with a 7900 but would i gain much at 1280 and bellow? Well sure with 4x AA and 8x AF on I would (even 6x AA and 16x AF then).

Im pretty happy as it is right now
March 24, 2006 3:46:23 AM

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 :twisted:
(Same About 4xAA)
March 24, 2006 3:48:56 AM

simple, the way games are supposed to be played. Uber mAxed out on eye candies at whatever resolution that doesn't lag.
March 24, 2006 5:14:39 PM

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+. :p 

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.
March 24, 2006 5:45:27 PM

Quote:
[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.


What are you talking about :roll: . With 2xaa and max settings, I get over 60fps on BF2 and 83fps average on FEAR.
March 24, 2006 5:57:39 PM

Quote:
simple, the way games are supposed to be played. Uber mAxed out on eye candies at whatever resolution that doesn't lag.


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.
March 24, 2006 6:10:19 PM

I try to balance between performance and eye candy. Come crunch time, I'll opt for performance. 1024x768 is good but I like a little higher resolution on bigger monitors. 8) I just hate to strain and squint to find my target.
March 24, 2006 7:40:06 PM

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.
March 25, 2006 3:37:18 AM

Well, I tested my Quake4 frames and found that I get 60 usually (I have the vsync on, can't stand texture tears) and ~25 when a good firefight is on.
As for whoever thinks they need 120fps, sorry but you're an idiot. You eyes work just like everyone elses, which means they can interpret 30fps max. But hey, if you want to spend you money on vid cards, I'm sure someone's happy about it.
March 25, 2006 3:53:46 AM

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.
March 25, 2006 5:01:50 AM

Well unfourunetly i have a 6600gt 256mb and my games play well at

1024 no AA AF with all Max (softshadows HDR ect.)

10-30 frames smooth! so yeah its ok but im getting a 7900gt @450/1320 so im happy!!!!!!
March 25, 2006 6:31:29 AM

where's the option for minesweeper at 1024 x 768?
:?
March 25, 2006 7:44:19 AM

medium to high details....most of games to high details...1024x768 for hard games like fear........1280x1024 the same high detail for nomal games

ohhh.....but of course all the games .. and i mean all the games must have AA4x and AF8x to 16x..and when posible i use vertical sync with temporal antialising
March 25, 2006 8:42:25 AM

... 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 ... :twisted:
March 25, 2006 11:51:52 AM

Quote:
Well, I tested my Quake4 frames and found that I get 60 usually (I have the vsync on, can't stand texture tears) and ~25 when a good firefight is on.
As for whoever thinks they need 120fps, sorry but you're an idiot. You eyes work just like everyone elses, which means they can interpret 30fps max. But hey, if you want to spend you money on vid cards, I'm sure someone's happy about it.


You hear sound in games within 2 ms of the sound source.

Your mouse movements take about 1 ms (or less) for the PC to receive.

Your game at 30 fps is (1000/30) drawing images on the screen 33.333 ms 'behind' the event.

That is quite a delta there between sound (unless delayed by game by distance, etc but even so) and video.

30 fps is where motion looks smoth to most people.
60 fps (16.667 ms) is what most decent gamers want minimum, as they can see and feel the difference.
120 fps (8.333 ms) is on par with the draw time of a decent TFT or CRT screen.

Since you think the difference is so low can you run 30 Hz on your monitor with V-sync to cap your frame rate at 30 fps ?

God, when under 40 fps I can feel it in the mouse, and see the difference between 40, 60 and 120 fps on screen (and yes 120 is over my refresh rate, but you still feel the difference).

Instead of frames per second, when talking highly interactive games (not non/low-interactive movies or film) people should really say "simulation cycles per second".

I feel sorry for people who can't perceive the difference between 60 and 80 fps, let alone 60 and 30 fps:

Would you rather be 8ms behind the server, or 33ms ?, or can't you notice the difference there either.



Then again, maybe not: :evil: 

I suspect not all people in a large sample can see the difference between 60fps and 80fps, and/or it may take years of 'experience' between the two to start seeing it

33.333 ms for frame draw time, plus the players reaction time to what they see, say 45 ms total, is a pathetic reaction time in combat.

8 ms, plus a decent 5 ms reaction time, for a total of 13 ms is a far more acceptable reaction time in combat.

Run Half-Life 2 with "fps_max 30" for a week, and then do it at "fps_max 120" on a decent PC. You'll at least see, and feel (via interaction), part of the difference. A bullet (in VBS1) will travel around 25 m in 33 ms, not reacting until after your dead doesn't look smart. :p 

http://www.virtualbattlespace.com
http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=VESL+VBS1&btnG=...

Film lacks interaction, so a initial delay of 33 ms doesn't matter, so long as the movement is smooth enough to fool the senses. Watching a movie requires little eye movement, and slow reaction time isn't going to change the experience much.

It has already been suggested for fast paced sports that they want to move to 60 fps so people see everything that happens.

================================================

Sure, 30fps is enough for single player, but when you're online you need at least 40fps minimum, and an average close to 80fps just to keep up.

One day I might film a fast paced game of Half-Life 2 DM, just so people know how fast it really is.... when converted to 30 fps WMV (assuming no speed blur, frame averaging 4 frames into 1 film frame) you would see people die and not even notice where the shot came from. :p 

Going from 30fps to 60fps will actually drop your 'game ping' by 16ms or so when playing online. (Game ping includes game engine time, and frame draw, network ping does not :p ). You'll notice my ping in that screenshot is much lower than everyone else. As a result my Kill : Death ratio is 27:0 (= infinite K/D ratio, as you can't divide by zero :p ).
March 25, 2006 12:05:36 PM

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.
March 25, 2006 2:20:36 PM

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/humanbody/sleep/sheep/reac...

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.
March 25, 2006 3:11:26 PM

Quote:
overclocking with a crappy psu? is that wise.



The psu is a hipro 300w POS. When I got my computer, it was an HP, but since then I've put it in a new case, formatted the hard drive, and overclocked the video card. But it's still got the HP PSU. I've been having problems with it shutting down randomly. I don't know if it's the CPU, motherboard, or what, but I have no other parts that I can swap in to test with, so I'm giving it to a geek who I know.

If it's a CPU problem, I'll get an opty 144, a nice socket 939 mobo (it's only the s940 opty's that need ECC RAM, right?), and a new PSU. If it's a motherbaord problem, I'll get a new PSU and Intel motherboard.
!