Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
There's been some debate whether things like wide-screen should be supported or not, I'm interested to see some actual numbers. I use 1280x1024 by default When I'm playing Renegade I use 800x600 with full screen enabled so my fps isn't complete crap. Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution Resolution % Of Internet Users Higher than 1024x768 38% 1024x768 48% 800x600 8% Lower than 800x600 < 1% Unknown 6%
Zion Fox wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 11:19 1440 x 900 for me, 16:10 ratio. Same here... Clown, in your poll you haven't got one widescreen resolution The only thing I don't play in 1440x900 is TestDrive Unlimited because the cars looks really fat. Oh and games that obviously don't support it like Dungeon Keeper 2. But all modern games I play at the maximum resolution my monitor can display.
I used 1024x768, mostly because it's supported by pretty much everything.
I use the biggest widescreen one (1680x1050?). Before I got my new monitor it was 800x600.
1152 x something. Same res makes minimizing so much faster.
IronWarrior wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 16:01 1200x1600 I think you mean 1600*1200 otherwise that would be like super widescreen.
Caveman wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 10:13 IronWarrior wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 16:01 1200x1600 I think you mean 1600*1200 otherwise that would be like super widescreen. Yep. ^^
I use 1280x768 in windowed mode. With a desktop resolution of 1440x900 (19" Widescreen).
2 Monitors ftw, one is a CRT(1024x768) I play ren on that one with the full screen, other one is a widescreen LCD which is 1280x800.
Ghostshaw wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 04:56 1280x1024 for everything.
My desktop res is 1920x1200 (16:10 widescreen). But I play games in smaller res's just for the fps since nothing but a rapage gfx card can game in 1920x1200, even for old games. I'll go as small as 1024x768 and as large as 1280x800 (widescreen). I voted 1920x1080 by accident. The poll should be edited since 1920x1080 is the 16:9 widescreen ratio. Computer widescreen res's are 16:10.
SlikRik wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 13:34 My desktop res is 1920x1200 (16:10 widescreen). But I play games in smaller res's just for the fps since nothing but a rapage gfx card can game in 1920x1200, even for old games. Huh? My video card plays Renegade, and even Tiberium Wars, maxed out at a 2048x1536 resolution and with 4x AA (2x AA for Tiberium Wars) and, in the case of Renegade, 16xAF (I see no difference in Tiberium Wars with AF on or off). I'd consider an 8800GT good, but not "rapage". As for me, I switch between 1400x1050 and 1600x1200 for desktop use. For games, it depends. If I can use it, I'll opt for 2048x1536 or 1600x1200. If it's a newer or more demanding game, sometimes I'll use 1400x1050 or 1280x960. I don't think I go lower than that for games unless it's a certain exception. By the way, I know it's impossible to do it right due to the limitless possibilities of resolutions, but you really did miss alot of resolutions. You skipped everything in the middle. I'd do it this way. 800x600 (4:3) 1024x768 (4:3) 1152x864 (4:3) 1280x960 (4:3) 1280x1024 (5:4) 1280x720, 1280x768, 1280x800 (widescreen) 1400x900 (widescreen) 1400x1050 (4:3) 1680x1050 (widescreen) 1600x1200 (4:3) 1920x1200 (widescreen) 2048x1536 (4:3) With the many different widescreen ratios and multiple monitor setups, that doesn't even account for all, but I'd consider that list having most of the standards, and even some of the less common. Oh, and for those who have an LCD (widescreen or not), if you play at fullscreen in ANY resolution but your native (maximum), it will interpolate and look like a stretched mess.
I have a Geforce GTX 280, yet I have a 15" 1024x768 monitor. Do I overkill or what? For those who have large resolution screens and go down to lower res for some games, I personally can't stand doing that. If I had a high res screen and a GPU not capable of getting good FPS for it, I'd lower the detail settings etc, not the resolution. I think lowering the resolution only looks acceptable on CRTs, but on LCDs it gets ratyher ugly.
Caveman wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 06:37 Clown, in your poll you haven't got one widescreen resolution Yea sorry, I never had widescreen so I didn't know of resolutions off the top of my head. I did a search for the common sizes and that's what I found k I updated the poll, don't think it lets you change your vote though so I deleted option "Other" and readded it... Not sure if that will actually work though. :/
Clown wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 14:49 Caveman wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 06:37 Clown, in your poll you haven't got one widescreen resolution Yea sorry, I never had widescreen so I didn't know of resolutions off the top of my head. I did a search for the common sizes and that's what I found k I updated the poll, don't think it lets you change your vote though so I deleted option "Other" and readded it... Not sure if that will actually work though. :/ It's 1440 x 900, not 1400 x 900.
I copied the new resolutions off of Chuck Norris' post, and I think the current list is big enough.
Chuck Norris wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 15:17 SlikRik wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 13:34 My desktop res is 1920x1200 (16:10 widescreen). But I play games in smaller res's just for the fps since nothing but a rapage gfx card can game in 1920x1200, even for old games. Huh? My video card plays Renegade, and even Tiberium Wars, maxed out at a 2048x1536 resolution and with 4x AA (2x AA for Tiberium Wars) and, in the case of Renegade, 16xAF (I see no difference in Tiberium Wars with AF on or off). I'd consider an 8800GT good, but not "rapage". It's still pretty top-of-the-line. Yes I know there are a couple better cards out there, like the rest of the 8800's (excluding the GS), the 9800's, and the GXT 200's, but still kicks hard ass. I'm stuck with an 8600M GT in my laptop, which to be honest barely performs better than my 6800 in my old desktop (most likely due to being a laptop gfx card and shitty cooling). Xylaquin I have a Geforce GTX 280 I hate you with a burning passion.
SlikRik wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 15:46 Chuck Norris wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 15:17 SlikRik wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 13:34 My desktop res is 1920x1200 (16:10 widescreen). But I play games in smaller res's just for the fps since nothing but a rapage gfx card can game in 1920x1200, even for old games. Huh? My video card plays Renegade, and even Tiberium Wars, maxed out at a 2048x1536 resolution and with 4x AA (2x AA for Tiberium Wars) and, in the case of Renegade, 16xAF (I see no difference in Tiberium Wars with AF on or off). I'd consider an 8800GT good, but not "rapage". It's still pretty top-of-the-line. Yes I know there are a couple better cards out there, like the rest of the 8800's (excluding the GS), the 9800's, and the GXT 200's, but still kicks hard ass. I'm stuck with an 8600M GT in my laptop, which to be honest barely performs better than my 6800 in my old desktop (most likely due to being a laptop gfx card and shitty cooling). Xylaquin I have a Geforce GTX 280 I hate you with a burning passion. I have an integrated Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family... pwnage!!!
I pwn your intel card with my intel card: Intel 945 Express Chipset Family(the funny thing is I'm actually able to play portal with it).
I play at 1024x768, and use that for my desktop, even though it's native is something closer to 1280x something I just can't read the text at that res!
CarrierII wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 17:03 I play at 1024x768, and use that for my desktop, even though it's native is something closer to 1280x something I just can't read the text at that res! Agreed, my new laptop is widescreen, and its not that bad, but usually anything over 1024x768 just makes me squit and doesn't make sense logically to me atleast to use it.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 05:23 I pwn your intel card with my intel card: Intel 945 Express Chipset Family(the funny thing is I'm actually able to play portal with it). Intel 945 = Intel 82945G Express Chipset. 1440 x 900 for every game that can support it. Before I upgraded my graphics card, I used to run Renegade at 800 x 600 when I was with the ATI X1550 (although I could run it at max resolution without shaders).
Zion Fox wrote on Sat, 28 June 2008 05:19 1440 x 900 for me, 16:10 ratio. Same.
1360x768 32" Samsung LCD 120HZ 720p HDTV
I wanna know who picked 640x480 lol Everything must look huge at that resolution!
Clown wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 02:40 I wanna know who picked 640x480 lol Everything must look huge at that resolution! Cheater/s
A couple HUD mods mess up at higher resolutions.
Xylaquin wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 11:35 does renegade support 1440x900 then? you can enter about eny resolution in the registry and it works, at least till 1680 x 1050 (cant test higher, as my doesn't support more. I am thinking about getting a 32 to 40 inch LCD HDTV and perhaps use it to game on, occasionally.
Caveman wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 08:06 Yeah...Why wouldn't it? It "supports" it in the sense that it shows something on the screen. It actually doesn't because that something isn't the right aspect ratio and stretched...
1440x900 on my laptop, which is what I use most of the time. I ran my old laptop at 1440x900, then at 1920x1200 when I replaced the monitor. I run my desktop at 1280x1024.
1440x900 idk the contrast but it is much better than a CRT 1024x768. I wish it was taller though, as I don't like widescreen that much.
I wonder if you could run Renegade at 2560x1024. The problem with dual-monitors (here, anyway) is that DirectX seems to hate the second screen most of the time. If you move something over to the other screen it either runs at about 1 fps, or it goes really slowly while it's across both screens but works fine when it's entirely on either one. OpenGL works nicely though, playing Homeworld 2 across both monitors rules. :3 http://stuff.jontysewell.net/desktops/desk140508.jpg <3! Normal cost of monitors: £440; I got one for £200 and the other for £80 over a year later.
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 03:38 Caveman wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 08:06 Yeah...Why wouldn't it? It "supports" it in the sense that it shows something on the screen. It actually doesn't because that something isn't the right aspect ratio and stretched... The game itself doesn't get stretched, its the menus and backgrounds that go ugly.
nopol10 wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 13:37 Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 03:38 Caveman wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 08:06 Yeah...Why wouldn't it? It "supports" it in the sense that it shows something on the screen. It actually doesn't because that something isn't the right aspect ratio and stretched... The game itself doesn't get stretched, its the menus and backgrounds that go ugly. I have to agree, my game looks normal..I dont notice any stretching the only time I notice any different is at the loading menu.. I don't have a loading bar just the text. Its horribly cut off.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 08:57 nopol10 wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 13:37 Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 03:38 Caveman wrote on Sun, 29 June 2008 08:06 Yeah...Why wouldn't it? It "supports" it in the sense that it shows something on the screen. It actually doesn't because that something isn't the right aspect ratio and stretched... The game itself doesn't get stretched, its the menus and backgrounds that go ugly. I have to agree, my game looks normal..I dont notice any stretching the only time I notice any different is at the loading menu.. I don't have a loading bar just the text. Its horribly cut off. Amen about the loading screen. It happens to me too, though I have no idea why.
The HFOV stays the same between widescreen and "square" displays. UI being messed up is far less important than the stretched ingame display that occurs because of it
Technically, it gets stretched in the other direction (tall-wise) on a 5:4 ratio too (ala, 1280x1024 LCDs) making things skinnier than normal instead of fatter than normal, but it's far less noticeable because the difference is smaller between 5:4 and 4:3 than it is between 8:5 (16:10) and 4:3. Renegade was made for 4:3 and will look stretched horizontally or vertically (depending on the ratio) at anything but what it was made for. To make it look normal for widescreen, you have to increase the FOV, which in my opinion is an advantage. Comparing higher-end hardware as an advantage is not the same as increasing how much you can see around you due to having a wider monitor. Having higher hardware lets the game run faster (what can't run Renegade fast today anyway?) and prettier, but changing the way the game works to allow those with a capable monitor to see more than others/more than what is intended is unfair. I agree it must be annoying stretched, but if the only fix is to change the FOV which gives them an advantage, I don't think it's the right solution. If it stretches it enough to be that noticeable, there must be alot of FOV that needs to be added to make it normal.
Decreasing the vertical FOV is possible as well...
Yeah, but then that would be a disadvantage to those with widescreen monitors, no?
Yep... So you can choose between streched or a disadvantage...
Well I mine would be 1280X800, because of my laptop monitor.
Chuck Norris wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 15:54 Technically, it gets stretched in the other direction (tall-wise) on a 5:4 ratio too (ala, 1280x1024 LCDs) making things skinnier than normal instead of fatter than normal, but it's far less noticeable because the difference is smaller between 5:4 and 4:3 than it is between 8:5 (16:10) and 4:3. Renegade was made for 4:3 and will look stretched horizontally or vertically (depending on the ratio) at anything but what it was made for. To make it look normal for widescreen, you have to increase the FOV, which in my opinion is an advantage. Comparing higher-end hardware as an advantage is not the same as increasing how much you can see around you due to having a wider monitor. Having higher hardware lets the game run faster (what can't run Renegade fast today anyway?) and prettier, but changing the way the game works to allow those with a capable monitor to see more than others/more than what is intended is unfair. I agree it must be annoying stretched, but if the only fix is to change the FOV which gives them an advantage, I don't think it's the right solution. If it stretches it enough to be that noticeable, there must be alot of FOV that needs to be added to make it normal. Valve certainly doesn't think so. All Source 2007 based games now have a FOV slider to allow users to set their own FOV. Neither does Epic, they have a console variable that allows setting of the FOV also.
An option letting the user change the HFOV does not equal making the HFOV wider for widescreen resolutions. I admit, this is a problem with no easy solution. Leave it as is and it's stretched (or you can have to play without the whole screen and it'll look correct), or increase the HFOV and it's an obvious advantage to those with widescreen monitors. Personally, I prefer the first, but I have no widescreen monitor, so I'll admit slight bias, but even if I did, I'd go with the option of running it 4:3, because even though "it's not taking up my whole monitor!", it wasn't intended to run at 16:10 but rather 4:3. By changing that, you're changing what it was designed for and it creates an imbalance. IF you're going to make true widescreen support, then at least do what they (Valve and Epic Games) did and implemented it as a choice for HFOV instead of giving users an advantage or disadvantage by locking it to be based upon something like their monitor.
Let me get this straight, valve made Half Life and Half Life 2 and Epic Games made Unreal Tournment, correct?
KristyGirl wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 04:56 Let me get this straight, valve made Half Life and Half Life 2 and Epic Games made Unreal Tournment, correct? Correct. Also, to the person that said that hardware doesn't count as a advantage, I must say that it is not true. Try to run renegade at the lowest of the lowest options. Now go play Under for ex. When you drive out of your (GDI) base, there should be an arti at the other side of the field. Normally you (CLEARLY) see what way the turret is pointing, even from that distance. But with these settings, that's not the case. It'll look like a rectangular box, with the name "Mobile Artillery" under it...
Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one. Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range.
Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one. Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range. Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops. And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times. Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them... Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases. what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one. Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range. Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops. And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times. Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them... Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases. what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit. Let's have UT3 as an example. It defaults to 90 hfov for 4:3 displays. For 16:10 displays, it's around supposed to be around 100.38 to match the 4:3 display without stretching. Chuck Norris wrote on Mon, 30 June 2008 21:37 An option letting the user change the HFOV does not equal making the HFOV wider for widescreen resolutions. I admit, this is a problem with no easy solution. Leave it as is and it's stretched (or you can have to play without the whole screen and it'll look correct), or increase the HFOV and it's an obvious advantage to those with widescreen monitors. Personally, I prefer the first, but I have no widescreen monitor, so I'll admit slight bias, but even if I did, I'd go with the option of running it 4:3, because even though "it's not taking up my whole monitor!", it wasn't intended to run at 16:10 but rather 4:3. By changing that, you're changing what it was designed for and it creates an imbalance. IF you're going to make true widescreen support, then at least do what they (Valve and Epic Games) did and implemented it as a choice for HFOV instead of giving users an advantage or disadvantage by locking it to be based upon something like their monitor. Except that most monitors stretch to fill the available area when running at lower resolutions. So it's a choice of being rendered incorrectly, or being stretched. Either choice would result in horrible quality because I have a widescreen monitor. Much fun, eh?
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops. And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times. I don't have the 865 graphics, and my monitor, being a CRT, doesn't have a native resolution (nor is it set to 1024x768). I've tried Renegade on a computer that did have those graphics though. It defaults to all high but you should turn the particles down one notch as, for example, the added effect of flames spreading onto things will slow it down at the highest setting, but at high, even those graphics can play the game reasonably. The GeForce4 MX (GeForce2 level) defaults to high and runs good at high as well. If I remember right, Renegade's requirements were back in the era where they just listed the RAM your video card needed and that it needed T&L and that's basically it. They didn't list the GPU power needed but, for example, an ATi Rage (we're talking pre-Radeon era) would not play the game much more than a slideshow despite meeting that requirement. Yes, it's an advantage of having a constant 60FPS versus an average of 40-50 that drops a bit, but actually seeing something more than the game was designed for is something else, which brings me to this, which is what you questioned at the end of your post. If it's only an increase of 10, then I guess it's no big deal then. I was thinking we were talking about quite an addition of view (110-115+) here. If you stop and look at the numbers though, 8:5 (16:10) and 8:6 (4:3), it only seems marginally shorter (wider), but they SEEM much wider physically, which is why I thought it'd need a big change.
Saberhawk wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 20:06 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:03 Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 07:43 Okay, that I was unaware of. Still, it goes for ALL games that you should have the hardware to run it properly enough. It doesn't take a supercomputer to run Renegade above the lowest graphics settings. Even the Intel integrated 865 can run it at medium-high (which means all high but particles) at acceptable framerates, though only at 800x600, so it doesn't take much. Minimum requirements get the game running and that's it. There are corners cut in order to play at the minimum and the example you gave is one. Anyway, the point I was making is that having high-end hardware versus normal hardware isn't the same as those with a widescreen monitor getting more FOV than those with normal monitors. Faster hardware gives you smoother and prettier gameplay, not a bigger sight range. Well, it can be, obviously.... As I just demonstrated. And yes, Renegade dodes get played on a lot of older computers, so it is not wierd to expect some people using that settings. A couple of years ago I only had a GF 2 MX, which ment that running anything above low could cause framedrops. And well, if you have your 865 integrated graphics then I am sure that if you for ex because your monitors native resolution is 1024Xsomething you will have to play on lowest, and still get some framedrops at times. Framedrops are also a disadvantage, so perhaps we should make sure that if 1 player getsd framedrops, everyone gets them... Also, FOV doesn't really make that much of a difference. Try it in UT if you think it does. Usually you'll either see it or not see it in both cases. what i do wonder is how much more FOV you would get. Anything under 10 degrees do not make any real difference for sure. Above that perhaps a tiny little bit. Let's have UT3 as an example. It defaults to 90 hfov for 4:3 displays. For 16:10 displays, it's around supposed to be around 100.38 to match the 4:3 display without stretching. As far as I know, that doesn't give much of an advantage, and certainly not more than having a better computer overall. Even today there are enough people that get (massive) framedrops when there is a "large" seige... While I don't have much troubles with that with my 7800GTX. Is that fair? No. Is it tolerably unfair? Yes.
1280x1024 for Windows 1024x768 for Games Widescreen is just gross...
Creed3020 wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 18:59 1280x1024 for Windows 1024x768 for Games Widescreen is just gross... Those resolutions are great if you have a 4:3 monitor. But having a 16:10 display makes 4:3 resolutions look gross, sooo
Saberhawk wrote on Thu, 03 July 2008 06:51 Creed3020 wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 18:59 1280x1024 for Windows 1024x768 for Games Widescreen is just gross... Those resolutions are great if you have a 4:3 monitor. But having a 16:10 display makes 4:3 resolutions look gross, sooo Yeah I would have to agree, trying playing games at 1024x768 (16:10) just doesn't look right lol.
I'm very glad you brought this up because I've always played Renegade at its native 800x600, I believe, and always thought that changing it would cause more LAG...would going 1024X768, my windows resolution, cause lag or would it bring our "crisper" graphics, or what should I do? I play on a 10 year old 17inch regular CRT monitor by the way. Thanks in advance...renohol
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 22:26 graphics card? I actually got duped into buying a computer with and on board chip 3 yrs ago, a radeon xpress 200 which seems to be as good or if not better than my old GF2 64.
Yea you should be alright setting it to 1024x768 I have a crappy intel graphics card and use that res lol. EDIT: Ram and Processor?
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 23:16 Yea you should be alright setting it to 1000x768 I have a crappy intel graphics card and use that res lol. EDIT: Ram and Processor? Ok, Ive got an AMD 3200+ processer and oly 384MB of RAM since 128MB are reserved for the on board graphic chip.
Yea it should work fine running it at 1024x768 of course the FPS will be lower but it should be playable.
Just look at it this way, if it become less responsive than you'd like it, you can always change it back.