Graphics Mode 512x384 - worthwhile ?

Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Beginners Area/Graphics Mode 512x384 - worthwhile ?

DaxTraj(Posted 2004) [#1]
To maintain a pixel perfect remake, I need to set screen res to 512x384

Does anyone think this will be problematic ?

eg. how many people's machine's can comfortably handle this resolution ?


Stevie G(Posted 2004) [#2]
I would imagine most monitors support a 4:3 res ratio - at least mine does.


jhocking(Posted 2004) [#3]
Where did you come up with those numbers? I've never seen or heard of anything running at 512x384.


DaxTraj(Posted 2004) [#4]
As Stevie G says, its 4:3 and found on 80's arcade hardware


CyberHeater(Posted 2004) [#5]
Sounds like a Mame type rez of an old arcade game.


jhocking(Posted 2004) [#6]
That it's 4:3 is not important. There are plenty of 4:3 resolutions I can come up with which nobody's hardware supports.

Have you considered setting your game to 640x480, but only actually using the middle 512x384 and leaving a black border around the screen?


Shambler(Posted 2004) [#7]
This resolution will only be supported in a windowed mode I believe and the problem with this is the display will be very small ( on my system its around 1/4 screen size )

Neither monitor nor graphics card will support this mode in fullscreen.


Warren(Posted 2004) [#8]
The original Unreal supported 512x384 in software rendering mode. Can't think of anything modern that does though...


DaxTraj(Posted 2004) [#9]
jhocking,

Yes I've had a look at setting screen-res to 640 x 480 but it looks pretty bad. Big black border like you say.

Shambler,
I suppose I'll have to do this if you are right about no hardware supporting it fullscreen (although mine does)

I could try doubling the resolution to 1024x768 and seeing what that looks like.


Shambler(Posted 2004) [#10]
I take that back, even though my graphics card doesn't list that mode it will switch to that mode.


mearrin69(Posted 2004) [#11]
Why not use the border for something creative...arcade looking monitor frame or related graphics or something? I did this with a c64 remake - though it was just a 40px strip at the bottom, not all around.
M


ford escort(Posted 2004) [#12]
512x384 may be a supported resolution, my laptop with radeon 9000 suport this one :o)


napole0n(Posted 2004) [#13]
512x384 runs fine on my GeForce 4 MX 440 card.

Alternatively you might try to use your 512x384 image as a texture on a 3D plane which you scale to a more common resolution. I think that's what Mame does (hence the smooth edging on pixels)


skidracer(Posted 2004) [#14]
It is an excellent resolution if you are running a 1024x768 LCD display, no blurry scaling etc.


DaxTraj(Posted 2004) [#15]
Thanks all,

Thought about scaling the 512x384 up to 640x480 on a 3D plane but

a) Its overly complicated for a newbie like me
b) The texttures look dark and washed out


WolRon(Posted 2004) [#16]
Check for 512x384. If it exists, use it. If it doesn't exist, then scale all images up by two and run in 1024x768.


napole0n(Posted 2004) [#17]
Then I guess 1024x768 and doubling pixels would be your best bet.


Bot Builder(Posted 2004) [#18]
maybe make it windowed mode? doesn't that support everything?


sswift(Posted 2004) [#19]
You may have bilinear filtering turned on for the rescaling. Check that. That would slow stuff down too. But yeah 1024x768 would be slower than 512x484 unscaled. But that would only be your fallback resolution if 512 didn't work. :-)

And you could support a windowed mode for those fullscreen does not work for.

But given what peopel here have been saying, it sound like both nvidia and ATI support this resolution. So you should have few people having problems with it.


napole0n(Posted 2004) [#20]
Just tried the 512x384 resolution on a nVidia Quadro2 Pro card (GeForce 2's big brother), and that works fine as well.


DaxTraj(Posted 2004) [#21]
Anthony and WolRon,
Apologies, I scaled up incorrectly. You are indeed right. The only worry now with 1024x768 is the extra processing overhead.

Everyone on this thread seems to support 512x384 so I may stick with that but keep the design flexible enough to move up to 1024 x 768. Perhaps offer it as an option on the main menu.

THANKS ALL


Stoop Solo(Posted 2004) [#22]
512 x 384 is a standard resolution kind of. However I can't seem to set any mode smaller then 640x480 for some reason. Any attempt to set these resolutions fails...


CodeD(Posted 2004) [#23]
You should try Mode-X instead. >chuckle<


Anthony Flack(Posted 2004) [#24]
Yep, 512x384 is a standard res but there are lots of cards that don't go <640x480 these days. The good ones all do though... but onboard cards, for example, often don't.


AbbaRue(Posted 2004) [#25]
Sorry the lowest res I can handle is 800x600.
but then 1024x768 is exactly twice that.
So just use 2 pixels per pixel of your program and vuala.
Works for me.
Actually on the serious note. I would use a window.
Windows can be just about any size you choose.
so 512x384 window works for anyone.


CodeD(Posted 2004) [#26]
I can set my modes from 320, 200 up to 1440, 900 'is that good?' it looks funny when i set it in 320, 200 especially if you load a bsp...

Toshiba P25-S507 2.8Ghz 512Mb Ram Nvedia GeForce FxGo5200 Windows XP DX9 (It's just a laptop!)

{by the way, when you code games using the number pad for commands, laptop users are left with the cold!}


Anthony Flack(Posted 2004) [#27]

Sorry the lowest res I can handle is 800x600.


That's pretty damn disturbing. I hope you have a really crappy card, and that this isn't a trend that will become widespread. Actually I think it's bad that so many cards don't support 320x240 anymore. You know, on account of all the older games you might otherwise be able to play but now can't. But to not support 640x480 - ridiculous.


Stoop Solo(Posted 2004) [#28]
Actually, I just did a bit of messing around with the refresh rate program I use, and I can set those modes now. I had to set them all to 75 Hz (strange, as 640x480 uses 120Hz, and 800x600 uses 100Hz. But there you go).


xlsior(Posted 2004) [#29]
kind of surprising, but my videocard also supports 512x384 in full screen mode (Voodoo3 3000) although it is not reported as a supported resolution by Blitz.

Does anyone know of a way to verify such an 'unknown' screenmode?
I mean, it is not listed in the list of supported resolutions, but works anyway -- but may not work on 'every' graphics card, so you still can't count on it.
Can one set the screenmode, detect if it failed, and then switch back to an alternative resolution instead?


That's pretty damn disturbing. I hope you have a really crappy card, and that this isn't a trend that will become widespread. Actually I think it's bad that so many cards don't support 320x240 anymore. You know, on account of all the older games you might otherwise be able to play but now can't. But to not support 640x480 - ridiculous.


I've seen some 'widescreen' 17" laptop screens that won't support anything less than 800x600... Standard desktop resolution was 1440 x 960 or something similar. But I agree, not supporting 640x480 is a compatibility nightmare.


jfk EO-11110(Posted 2004) [#30]
Didn^t read the whole thread, just wanted to mention: THis Resolution is very uncommon today, and therefore DirectX can be pretty "surprised" when it has to use it. My System officially supports it. I have a 1024*768 LCD Monitor and therefore I wanted to use it too. But I remember when I set this the very first time, DirectX crashed my System in a horrible way, including complete Freeze, Scandisc, desktop resolution permanently set to 640...


Andy(Posted 2004) [#31]
Just want to note that using the participants of this board as a general sample of all users, particularly those who will be playing a game at 512x384.

The standard today is 1024x768, and no graphicscard/monitor/driver expects 512x384.

I don't understand this need to paint yourself into a corner, to keep some kind of compatibility which as it turns out is a perfectly attainable goal at 1024x768.

Andy


xlsior(Posted 2004) [#32]
The standard today is 1024x768


1024 on 768 on most budget 15" monitors is a nothing but a big headache-inducing flicker -- don't underestimate the number of people who still run 800x600 or lower.
According to the following, about a 3rd of people online still use 800x600 by default:


http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox22.html
(June 2003)

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:

1. 1024 x 768 48.3%
2. 800 x 600 31.7%
3. 1280 x 1024 13.6%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 1%
6. 1600 x 1200 1%
7. 1152 x 870 0.2%



Personally I would choose 800x600 over 1024x768 for a full screen game any day, or even 640x480 for graphic-intensive 3D games. I run windows in 960x720, which is the most pleasant one to look at for any length of time on my 17" screen.


cbmeeks(Posted 2004) [#33]
You know, standard VGA is 320x200 with 16 colors.

MVGA is 320x200 with 256 colors.

Every video card on the planet since probably 1985 can support those. Maybe not in Windows due to some poor drivers and maybe not on some laptops due to the LCD screen but as long as the video card is "VGA compatible" then it will go down that low.

Also, Windows Safe mode uses 640x480 with 16 colors and that works on everything.

Usually if you can't get those low res displays it is because the driver you have won't support it...not the card.

-cbmeeks


Dock(Posted 2004) [#34]
My 20.1" LCD monitor isn't happy at resolutions lower than 640x480, I think you should stick to that or higher for compatibility reasons.

With my game project I'm planning to work at 800x600, and perhaps limiting the maximum resolution to 1024x768 (I'll try to support 640x480 too).


CS_TBL(Posted 2004) [#35]
I'd like ppl to consider 5:4 resolutions as well.. (like 1280x1024)

btw.. my TFT is 5:4 .. and since TFT screens are getting more populair, might there be a chance that 5:4 becomes more populair than 4:3 ?

(tho I dunno if all TFT screens are 5:4 :)


Gabriel(Posted 2004) [#36]
My card will do the res, but my monitor won't. I can understand you not wanting to double the rest because it's 4x as many pixels. If you make it windowed, it'll work for everyone.


eBusiness(Posted 2004) [#37]
btw.. my TFT is 5:4 .. and since TFT screens are getting more populair, might there be a chance that 5:4 becomes more populair than 4:3 ?

(tho I dunno if all TFT screens are 5:4 :)


No, not all TFT screens are 5:4, somebody somewhere got a whicked idea, and since then 5:4 and 1280x1024 have plagued the world.

By the way, for testing if you can use a screen res, don't try to set your desktop to it or something, run a fullscreen program in that res:
Graphics 512,384,0,1
Print "Your system support 512x384"
Waitkey()