Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Supporting resolutions

This topic is 6556 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I would say that depends on the game and your min specs for the comp to play the game. Like earlier today i was looking at a few games and found one saying you needed atleast a 8mb video card(for a 2d game 800x600x16). Common ppl not everyone has thoose cards. I myself am trying to still target 2mb cards(for 2d only).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Multi-resolution games are better for the guys, that don't have a fast computer (like me ).
If a game supports only one resolution, i'd prefer 800x600, too.

(I do still have my 2MB card )

_Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ofcourse most computers can handle 1024x768.
I've had mine for 2 years now and i can run more than that. (same 4 meg card)

I don't see why you'd need 8 megs for 800x600x16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on the game.
If it's a 3D game then you wont be able to run the game in res of 1200*700 (or something like that)

I can run Windows in 1600*1200 but a can't dream of playing Q3A in more than 640*480 and still I'm having a 400mhz computer

[This message has been edited by GunnarSteinn (edited December 27, 1999).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a 2D game like SMAC/CTP (I know SMAC was kinda 3D but the principal is 2D.) I'm targeting everyone, but I expect the end result to run reasonably on a 300 MHz computer, at least graphics wise. I'm only blitting a few layers of stuff, so the speed would not be too dependent on the graphics system, but more on AI and calculations. I'd like to use 1024 because you can show a lot of information and still have a good map view, while being supported (I think) by a lot of people. My old P90 runs 1024 I think, even. Do you agree?

------------------

Lack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you understand. It isn't all a matter of what speed your CPU is. It also matters how much Vid mem you have. You have to take both into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AI is going to be directly dependant upon the memory and CPU in the machine. Your graphics will be limited by the graphics card in the machine. Figure out who you target audience is and then design for that audience's typical configuration.

Older Computers(>2yrs old)
233P1, 16 - 32Mb RAM, 2Mb Video
Mainstream Computers(2 - >1yr old)
400PII Celeron, 32 - 64Mb RAM, 4Mb - 8Mb Video
Newer Computers(1yr - Sold yesterday)
500PIII 64 - 96 Mb RAM, 8Mb - 16Mb AGP Video
High End Computers($2600+ machines today)
700Athlon 128+ RAM, 32Mb AGP Video

Take the four categories mentioned above and plot them on points of a normal bell curve where the height of the curve is the number of users owning the systems. As time continues update the points on the curve to reflect the current industry. Using Moore's Law you can pretty reliably predict what the power of a computer will be at the completion of your game development cycle. Use your conclusions as a guideline and program for them.

This all has a correlation to the amount of AI you can build into your game(CPU and RAM size) and the graphical detail you can put into the game(Video card). With the AI side of the house, the more RAM and CPU you have, the more variables you can add to your decision making logic. With Video you can adjust the resolution minimum, color depth and variety of sprites or textures. A good balance of all three graphics components will make your game more interesting. I hope this helps you determine what resolution you need to use. Sory for the lengthy post.

Kressilac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
You should support 800x600x16 as a minimum even if you plan for your game to be accelerated. I am using Voodoo2 which is maxed out at this resolution and it appears that many others still have older video cards that 1024x768 is not available or too slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
If your target audience has mostly 300mhz computers, you can pretty certainly have 1024x768 as the only resolution supported. Even my old _386_ with 1mb vram could do 1024x768x8bpp, a computer with 2mb could do 1024x768x16bpp or 1024x768x8bpp with page flipping, and with 4mb (which is probably the very bare minimum even with MMX's) you could do 1024x768x16bpp with page flipping, which is probably enough for your needs. Also, a correction for an earlier post: a Voodoo2 can do 1024x768x16bpp WITHOUT A Z-BUFFER, and since this is a 2D game, no z-buffer is going to be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm i dont know,for a 2d game your generaly gonna use pageflipping and a backbuffer so lets see at 1024x786x16 reguires 1,572,864bytes timesthat by 2 for the backbuffer ,and you get around 3.2mb of video memory required just for the front,and back buffer.Which won't fit in a 2mb card so your looking atleast a 4mb card. Now if you go 800x600x16 its 960,000bytes which a 2mb card can handle(for a front and backbuffer + a little for gfx). 640x480 is even better hehe.

Also not all comps have 4mb cards my comp is well i guess bout 2years old it was a p166mmx,32mb edo ram, and a built in on the mother board 2mb video card.(this was from packard bell at the time.) Nowadays ive upgraded the card to a hercules vodoo rush 6mb card.(old but fairly effective,however it only provides 4mb for 2d.)Anyways my point is that not every comp is the latest,and best. Thats really true in USA where it really began everyone having a comp in there house(which means alot of older comps.).

Please forgive me on my spelling/grammer ,ive had about 2 hours of sleep and 4liters of caffine floating around in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I know it's not mostly dependent on the CPU, I was just kind of giving a ballpark computer age. The P90 I was talking about has a 1 meg Cirrus video card, I should've said.

It seems we're still divided. I plan to target Mainstream/older computers, with a ~two year completion.

For a 2D game, not too fancy, mainstream computers in two years, is 1024 too high? Too low? Should I support a wide range of resolutions? If I were to say, support 800x600 through 1600x1200, how would be the best way to go about that? Have 2 texture sizes? 4? More? Also, what bit depth do you think is good? I dispise 8, but is 16, 24 or 32 the most reasonable? Should I support all three?

Thanks.

------------------

Lack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say you could get away with 1024 most computers today. 800x600 can give you better color depth and adding additional colors to a picture is usually more effective than the same increase in resolution. The brain tends to make up for the resolution part of the equation as it looks at the various colors. Your target audience usually will only have a 15" monitor to go with that computer so 1024 might be too small for them to use. All in all if you go with 1024 then you will play to the higher end of the group you're targeting. If you use 800x600 you will hit that group squarely in the chest.

Of course this is just my opinion.
Kressilac

ps Someone else is going to have to answer the texture questions cause I am not sure of the answer myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE between 800x600 and 1024x768 in games even on a 17" monitor. except that 1024x768 will be QUITE slower in non-accelerated graphics. I would even go as far as saying 640x480 on a 15" looks pretty damn good for a 3d game.

Try running duke3d in 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 (and if you''re nuts, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200). Tell me if you can honestly tell the difference. anything more than 800x600 is overkill for games. it''s mostly for bragging rights "i run at a higher res than you".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites