[EdrickV]

Originally posted by penguin
Yeah, the filenames and screen coordinates of all of the UI stuff, as well as the HUD gauges are hardcoded in the source files.  There are two settings, for 640x480 and for 1024x768.

It would be nice to have all this stuff in yet another .tbl file.  That way it could be customized on an individual basis, or per campaign, etc.  It would be a big file, since every UI widget on every screen would need to be listed, as well as all of the HUD gadgets.  And the resolution could be whatever the UI designer wanted...

Yet another thing to add to the wish list...

Actually, all the interface file names, masks, and the coordinates for things are in table files. Check out mainhall.tbl, menu.tbl, and even help.tbl. The hud filenames appear to be hardcoded though.

[CP5670]

the interface art would not have to be changed. ingame stuff would just appear smaller, like ytour desktop does when you turn up the resolution. new icons aren't created, the old ones are just smaller. i think this approach would work well for FS2.

This is what I was thinking as well. We would not need to make any new icons, but simply use the existing ones, although they may look a bit smaller. The menus could be locked into 1024 or something since they do not need 3D acceleration and would work fine on slower computers as well, but the game resolution can be more adjustable.

[EdrickV]

Originally posted by CP5670


The menus could be locked into 1024 or something since they do not need 3D acceleration and would work fine on slower computers as well, but the game resolution can be more adjustable.

To do something like that you would have to do some major rewrites and add in code to switch resolutions when going from the hall into a mission. Right now it switches resolutions as soon as it starts and stays that way. The HUD data might still need to be redone too. Don't have the high res pack installed so I can't check if it has high res copies of the hud parts, but I imagine it does.

[untouchable]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I have a 8mb S3 Savage 4  

I have a 200mb
GeForce3 Ti200

[NotDefault]

I have a 32MB TNT2 Ultra

It's actually much better than it sounds.  Along with the 400mhz Celeron in this computer, it can handle most games (although the latest types have to be played with very low detail).  It can nearly max out all the FS2 detail settings (on 1024x768, 32bit).

[TurboNed]

Originally posted by NotDefault
I have a 32MB TNT2 Ultra

It's actually much better than it sounds.  Along with the 400mhz Celeron in this computer, it can handle most games (although the latest types have to be played with very low detail).  It can nearly max out all the FS2 detail settings (on 1024x768, 32bit).

Same here (though mine's not an Ultra and my processor is a 1 GHz Athlon) - the card's excellent...it even plays JK2 at 1024x768 with decent effects turned on.  

On top of all that, said TNT2 can be had for, uh, dirt cheap.

http://www.pricewatch.com/1/37/3246-1.htm

  --TurboNed

[NotDefault]

Yeah, I'm very satisfied with this card.  It has lasted more than 3 years ( ) and still runs almost anything I need it to.  An upgrade is going to be in the works soon though, especially if any of the upgraded FS2 graphics suggestions come to fruition.

[NotDefault]

Heck, a GeForce 2 can be had for under a $100.  There's really very little excuse to have a card that can't do 1024x768 FS2, nowadays.

[LtNarol]

some of us still cant afford better cards every few months, i have $15.75 right now, with a few pennies and other spare change lying around.  I dont think im going to go spend it on a new 3d accelerator.

[EdrickV]

I have several reasons for not replacing my trusty V3 with a new card.

1. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I got my Voodoo 3 specifically for use with D3 and FS2. It's worked great for a long while in my old computer (a non-MMX Pentium 1 166 Mhz with 32MB RAM) and now in my new 933 Mhz computer.

2. I never said it couldn't do 1024x768, it can, I'd just never installed the high-res pack. I just proved it to myself. I ran both the first regular mission in the FS2 campaign and my mission on my Robotech MODed FS2, which was a bit jumpy at one point but considering the mod has fighters with 1000+ polys and 1700+ poly scout ships, and it would have had ships with a combined total poly count of about 14,000 on the screen at one time, that wasn't surprising. Gameplay was smoother once I got into combat. AOL being running might have affected that too. Oh, and all those ships don't have multiple LODs. (Making sure the uninstaller wouldn't screw anything up when I uninstalled my formerly "clean" copy wasn't fun, FS2 wasn't designed to be installed twice on a computer.)

3. Glide. I chose the Voodoo3 partly because it supports D3D, OpenGL, and especially Glide. Unless I replaced it with a V4/5 I'd have to give up Glide and programs I have which are Glide only.

4. Money and priorities. I need a new sound card more then a new video card and smaller speakers more then I need a new sound card. The list goes on.

5. Resolution wise, I won't want to use 1024x768 or higher much because of the simple fact that I have a 15" monitor. Higher resolutions then 800x600 just look too small. There's also the fact that FS2's resolution changing screws up my desktop icons if it's set for 1024x768. (It starts off in 1024x768, switches to 640x480 for the intro movie, switches to 800x600 briefly, then back to 1024x768 for the game.)

6. The main campaign I've been interested in, the Robotech MOD, doesn't have 1024x768 artwork and it doesn't look right without it.

[LtNarol]

why cant people just settle for the option to change resolutions in the options menu?  my computer gets laggy enough on just normal resolution, on 1028*780 it would die.

[YodaSean]

Originally posted by Red5
we better modify it to somewhere around say around 256 x 224... some of the best video games made like doom and wolfenstein 3d had this resolution as an option...I Dont Know where video game companies get off thinking they should change these resolutions...It makes us people have to update hardware way to much...I was hoping to put of upgrading my ram to 32 megs next year (total ram) but i guess 24 megs and a S2 video card arent what they used to be

  I hope your joking...


I like the idea of making the resolutions higher, not lower.  There isn't any point in spending so much time making it run at 800*600.  I would like to be able to run it at  1280*1024.  I've been looking in the source code to try to find out how to go about doing this but I haven't gotten very far.  Whatever version of directX this is seems to be much more complicated than dx7 or 8

[CP5670]

To do something like that you would have to do some major rewrites and add in code to switch resolutions when going from the hall into a mission. Right now it switches resolutions as soon as it starts and stays that way. The HUD data might still need to be redone too. Don't have the high res pack installed so I can't check if it has high res copies of the hud parts, but I imagine it does.

We could use the DirectDraw 2D portion of DirectX for that, and have it switch to 3D mode when the game is started. I don't think it should be too hard for the more experienced programmers around here; maybe something to simply reference to the function that sets the resolution upon starting the game and a few changes to the memory management systems, although I could be wrong about that. Some of the HUD images might look nicer enlarged, but it would not be an absolutely necessity; as I said earlier, the higher resolution HUDs could simply use the same images but display them smaller.

My personal take on the resolutions is not to worry too much about adding in higher resolutions, but instead fix the antialiasing issues in the game. (this might be easily remedied by updating the game to DX8, and the menus would no longer be an issue if rendered in 2D) Even a 2X antialiased 1024x768 screen looks pretty much just as good as say, a 1600x1200 one in my opinion.

[Redfang]

Originally posted by TurboNed
On top of all that, said TNT2 can be had for, uh, dirt cheap.

 
Might be, but you really shouldn't buy[/i] one anymore.
 

Originally posted by YodaSean
I would like to be able to run it at 1280*1024.

 
It's strange that 1280x1024 is more common resolution than 1280x960, because the second one is more correct.

[LtNarol]

does no one see the benefits of lower overal resolution?  if the screen was scaled down, it would look better, not worse, for less system drain.  Unless you go to 100*80, you wont notice any less detail, it would free up more system resources so you can have higher resolution maps and end up with a better effect.

Having a higher resolution screen means death to system resources and less noticable detail; in other words, unless you have a brand new computer that costed $800+ with a G4 3d accel, just for a bigger screensize with lower detail of everything (since you only have 14-17 inches of monitor), go with smaller screensizes with higher resolution maps.

[YodaSean]

Originally posted by LtNarol
does no one see the benefits of lower overal resolution?  if the screen was scaled down, it would look better, not worse, for less system drain.  Unless you go to 100*80, you wont notice any less detail, it would free up more system resources so you can have higher resolution maps and end up with a better effect.

Having a higher resolution screen means death to system resources and less noticable detail; in other words, unless you have a brand new computer that costed $800+ with a G4 3d accel, just for a bigger screensize with lower detail of everything (since you only have 14-17 inches of monitor), go with smaller screensizes with higher resolution maps.

What are the specs of your system???  The only way a resolution lower than 1024*768 would look better in FS2 is if you already get a really awful framerate.  I have a pentium3 450mhz(really outdated and you could probably find one dirt cheap now) and a Radeon7200(which you can get for around $100) and I can max out all of the options without a noticable drop in framerate.  And I don't think its possible to put the high resolution bitmaps in a low resolution game(thus they are called "high resolution bitmaps").

[LtNarol]

no, its called a smaller screensize pixelwise to fill the 14-17 inches of monitor, with higher resolution maps.  Its like using a magnifying glass in a sense, you can zoom out way far with a higher pixel screen and see less of everything or you can see more and render less by veiwing few pixels in greater detail, it would really bring out higher resolution maps.

As for my system, 550mhz, 128mb ram, 16b 3d accelerator...needless to say im not buying a $100 3d accelerator for just one game, especially when i only have $15.50 at the moment (not including the various change  i have lying around)

[##UnknownPlayer##]

Umm, sorry to burst your bubble here but you will need a high power 3D accelerator even if you are running at a low resolution, the reason being that the model textures have to be stored by the accelerator.

[LtNarol]

you can run 512*512 maps at their full resolution on a 16b, and you can always go back to 256*256, thats only a registry thing.

[CP5670]

you do mean 16mb and not 16b, don't you?