1024x resulution worth it?

Graphics and GPU Programming Programming

Started by suliman January 03, 2006 03:06 AM

13 comments, last by suliman 18 years, 3 months ago

235

January 09, 2006 06:48 AM

Quote:Original post by suliman
Im thinking of having my world map (think rome:total war) as a space photo. But he one i found that is large enough is 50megs in uncompressed format. Does this mean it will prefer to eat that much of my videocard-memory (i use a directx based engine)?

Thx

You should use DXTC to compres an image of that size. Both a DirectX tool (AFAIR it comes with the SDK) and a plugin for Photoshop made by nVidia can compress the image for you. That should reduce the size quite a lot.

Killers don't end up in jailThey end up on a high-score!

d000hg

1,208

January 09, 2006 07:57 AM

Quote:Original post by OrangyTang
Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Please think of everyone using TFT's, everyone I know which owns a computer has one.

Whats with all these people whining about their TFTs all of a sudden? You knew what you were getting when you bought it - you forfit your right to complain about non-native resolutions looking like ass.

IMHO, for a 2d game anything over 800x600 is slightly silly. 800x600 is a nice compromise between sharp graphics and having lots of fillrate to play with for snazzy effects (remember that maintaining a good framerate is much more important for a 2d game).

If people have any modernish PC then it will play complex 3D games in 1024x768 (my 700MHZ GF2MX even!). So fillrate in 2D should not be an issue - overdraw should be much less than in 3D anyway, so even on a low-spec PC a 2D game should be able to run on the highest resolutions available at 50+ FPS.

OrangyTang

1,298

January 09, 2006 03:21 PM

Quote:Original post by d000hg
If people have any modernish PC then it will play complex 3D games in 1024x768 (my 700MHZ GF2MX even!). So fillrate in 2D should not be an issue

Oh but it is (for me at any rate) [grin]. A 6x6 fullscreen bloom at 800x600 is just about 60fps on my old GF4 Ti, and thats before I start adding stuff like heat haze, motion blur, radial blur, colour remapping and about a billion particles etc. etc.

[size="1"][[size="1"]TriangularPixels.com[size="1"]] [[size="1"]Rescue Squad[size="1"]] [[size="1"]Snowman Village[size="1"]] [[size="1"]Growth Spurt[size="1"]]

Promit

13,404

January 09, 2006 04:11 PM

Please support letterboxed 1280x1024 as well -- a lot of monitors can't do it natively.

SlimDX | Ventspace Blog | Twitter | Diverse teams make better games. I am currently hiring capable C++ engine developers in Baltimore, MD.

suliman

1,720

Author

January 10, 2006 03:16 AM

I now just do some basic calc and draw tiles all over the screen.

In 800x fps : 500
In 1024x fps : 300

I think i can afford it. My experience is that its hard to double the timecost of drawinfg the entire screen. Light/particle effects and stuff like that can do it, and really stupid code, but that about it. Pathfind also and... Ok its always good to have buffert fps to chew from but I will try to leave different resulutions (also higher) open as long as i may.

Thx for your input

1024x resulution worth it?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

1024x resulution worth it?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines