imaheadcase
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2005
- 3,850
- 7
- 76
Sigh, when will people stop comparing the Ipad 2 res to desktop monitors. I guess never because people are dumb.
I think that's a good point, but 3840x2400 doesn't leave a whole lot of memory for RGBA16FP (I'd like to see more games with more alpha blended polygons) D64FP back buffers with 4x RGAA. I'd also like to start seeing more games not using hardware texture compression. If the resolutions keep going up disproportionately like that, then we're going to start seeing lossy color buffers and lossy depth buffers.For someone who constantly rails for image quality, Im honestly surprised you settle for such a mediocre resolution
I reinstalled Starcraft yesterday and was playing for a good 2 hours before I realized I had forgotten to change my resolution from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. I thought it looked a little "odd" which is why I eventually checked the resolution, but I wasn't really noticing pixelation (probably because I had AA on) or scaling lag/artifacts. A decent monitor seems to handle scaling a LOT better than most TVs.
1920x1200 puts you at a competitive disadvantage in Starcraft 2. The reason is that SC2 will "chop off" the sides of the display and zoom in for anything other than 16:9 resolution. So, you should "restore" the sides of the display by using a wider aspect ratio like 1920x1080.
.
Give me 3840x2400 in 24" or give me death!
They allow zooming in. They don't allow zooming out because it would give an advantage to someone with a 30" 1600p display, and there's almost nothing more important to the design of Starcraft as keeping the playing field level.So playing at 5:4 aspect ratio must totally suck. Anyway, they did it wrong, they should have allowed zooming in and out like most 3D strategy games.
They allow zooming in. They don't allow zooming out because it would give an advantage to someone with a 30" 1600p display, and there's almost nothing more important to the design of Starcraft as keeping the playing field level.
you should have left it thereAm I weird? Dell 15" 1024X768, got it out of a dumpster
Plenty of smaller tournaments and challenge matches are played online with money on the line. And even if they weren't, it is a big boost for the game's competitive scene that the ladder is not some kind of wild west. Everyone including the best players use ladder as a form of training, and it's essential that new players have easy access to play that is as close as possible to tournament conditions.You can't say that the aspect ratio design is not strange. It was handled oddly from any point of view (Ha! Get it?) Competitive StarCraft is all done on identical machines at real tournaments anyway. Nobody cares if you cheese your way through the online ladder with a huge screen and an advantage. If you're not used to the "official" aspect ratio and size, you have to adjust at tournaments.
Hmm, so youre concerned about increased VRAM usage from higher resolutions, but then you talk about not using texture compression?I think that's a good point, but 3840x2400 doesn't leave a whole lot of memory for RGBA16FP (I'd like to see more games with more alpha blended polygons) D64FP back buffers with 4x RGAA. I'd also like to start seeing more games not using hardware texture compression.
Yes. 1k^2 uncompressed textures will be fine. Many games use 2k^2 which are compressed 4:1, although I'm no computer scientist so I could be wrong. no artifacts > more detail IMO.Hmm, so youre concerned about increased VRAM usage from higher resolutions, but then you talk about not using texture compression?
Hint: uncompressed textures will cause VRAM blowout far quicker than increased resolutions. Unless you want to go back to 256x256 textures like games were using 15 years ago.
They allow zooming in. They don't allow zooming out because it would give an advantage to someone with a 30" 1600p display, and there's almost nothing more important to the design of Starcraft as keeping the playing field level.