they've been playing like that since the forever, that's just what they're all used to.
(and some use crosshairs which are most suitable for 800x600, but that's a very small fraction)

"when these events all use 120hz lcd with native 1680x1050..."

because thats untrue. you got different monitors everywhere from 4:3, 5:4 to 16:10 and everything between 60-120hz

so they just stick to there low 4:3 resolution and use that everywhere - by the way: many lcd support a slighly higher frequency for lower-than-native resolutions (like 75 instead of 60)

and its not like a crisp image matters much in quake picmip5 anyway..

Yeah but a lot of LCDs have fake 75hz though (they skip frames when you set them to 75hz cos they can only do 60hz physically). Some still do true 75hz and therefore using a low res can make sense.

this is 100% not true, at least in DVI mode DVI = 60hz, period.

Also using non native resolution to LCD result in additional output lag.


Plz stop spreading false informations everywhere. ty.

lol

you're wrong about the refresh rate and if you're smart and use GPU scaling you won't increase input lag

why would increase in put lag anyway . bullshit .

because LCDs are shit and whenever you make them do some processing there's a risk of increasing the input lag

i hear this first time ever .

then you don't know shit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

only way to get LCD to do more than 60hz is

1 - VGA

2 - Dual dvi = 120hz

lol, did you even read the article you linked?? It shows examples of dvi running at more than 60hz...
You're limited to 60hz in 1920x1440 and above yeh, but not at lower resolutions.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1555530 etc etc

my little jubei! how i've missed you! so many questions, so little time

But there is plenty of time dear, plenty of time.

noooooo

thats the most amazing cat gif ive ever seen.

.

crosshairs are different between 640 vs 800 vs over 1k resolutions, apart from that i have no idea. hd quake ftw.

aiming is smoother on low res ;)

It is? Explain, please.

its not smoother, but it still affects sensitivity.

lowres seem more responsive to me

they use a low resolution because they have low self esteem!

Well, why fix what was never broken?

O_O

lol, not meant to be a reply to you.

Kind of a funny mistake, though. :p

Because most pros have played on a CRT for most of their career (I switched to an LCD barely 5 months ago), many still probably do and low resolution is the only way to get 125hz from your monitor.

Once you're used to low res, there's not a lot of reason to switch, as a crystal clear image has remarkably little functional use.

One reason now with QL is definitely crosshairs. I find many of them look a lot better on 800x600 or 640x480.

Most importantly though, I don't see an advantage to higher resolution. In terms of what you see on the screen, it's going to be the same size physically, regardless of pixel count. Yes, I could see "more" detail, but it's unnecessary.

with 640 + hi perfornace settings in video card drivers , that makes you see not so good if enemy is far far away... So higher resolution is better ( i se 640 on crt and it sux realy... pc sux...)

Yes, but on most maps that would rarely happen. Also, most people would zoom in those situations anyways :]

There's a few advantages:
Crosshairs can look better on higher res's
It can improve your movement atleast imo
Enemy models can look better on higher res (more clear, therefore maybe making them easier to hit?)

I don't see any worthy pro about using a higher resolution than 800*600 given the cons

what are the cons?

That's what most players used for a long time, they're used to it
It's easier to miss something happening on the side using widescreen
You won't always get a widescreen monitor in a tourney
QL doesn't exactly perform so well at high resolutions, sometimes you get mediocre computers in tourneys
Lot of monitors will allow a higher refresh rate with lower resolution

etc etc

*only crt's allow for higher hz with lower resolutions, most lans have tfts these days
*a widescreen res actually gives you a larger fov and the ability to see more on the sides, you will miss less
*ql performs ok on modern hardware, it could be better but i doubt this is an issue on events
*getting used to widescreen is pretty easy, ql does fov and crosshairs just fine (now)

That'd be interesting to check players' configs and see if they use widescreen (don't count on me). Given you won't be sure to have a widescreen monitor in a tourney, I doubt it. Most tournaments still have 4/3 monitors.

And you can't say they're always good, most of the time you'll be able to pull a nicer 75Hz with 800*600 than the typical 60Hz of the native resolution. I'm not saying it's as good as on CRTs though

As for the CPU/GPU combo, I've seen weak things during some competitions. You're better prepared if you don't bet on high end hardware at a venue in any case.

Also, I still think widescreen is way too large for your foveal vision to properly notice things happening on the very border side of the screen. Maybe the screen could be placed farther than it usually is on the typical set-up of a tournament, but you're not always sure you'll get enough space on the table for that, especially if you're stermy :)

well, i'm going to have to take your word on some things, seeing as i don't have your tournament experience :)

for me at home, widescreen/120hz/high res is the way to go.

I saw ESWC 2010's computers giving FPS drops when post processing was enabled. kinda scary...

2010*

and those were some proper low end PCs ^^

doh... 2010 indeed

fps drops in QL in 2010? I'm impressed. Although apparently some people with decent hardware still get them (bugg-id software?)

you are such a total noob. Really.

i somehow managed to miss your post, go have a plus.

widescreen = i see more . and i hit less when i see more "world" around me .

less i see more i hit . 4:3 or 5:4 ftw .

no, that does not make any sense.

yes it make lot of sense. but again not for u .

damn i see lot of enemies i kill them all cause i see them !

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming...w/wow8.jpg

//am sory lol this is QL forum ^^

if you don't see something, you surely can't hit it. if i see something i atleast have a chance of hitting it, so what in fuck are you jibbering about again?

that's cause he gets neg accel with his wmo when he plays in 16/10.

so old , troll .

serious u r noob if u dont know what am talking about ... maybe something like feel enemy behind my back ? i dont see dudes and i flickshot them ;p

maybe reason why old quak3ers have fov 90 .

ye, go play with viewsize 20 i'm sure it's going to help your aim even further :S

the more I see the less I believe

Fov 1 ATW!

rapha

pro/con

not pro player :)

800x600 is perfect. black bars ftw

don't you play on a crt? :P

When i see people playing on the random footage from events i dont think i have seen any black bars, do people just play with their res stretched across widescreen or do they use black bars and i am just blind?

If the black bars, how the hell do you force that as i have been all through my ati drivers and custom res on ql and been unable to force any bars for 4:3.

They don't always have widescreen but when they do (DH) they do have black bars.

I don't always drink but when I do , I drink Dos Equis.

exactly what i was thinking, although i feel like you could have done more with that joke :/

I wish they made the scoreboard not affected by resolution.

Is it better to have the monitor scale the image or have the gpu do it?

the gpu shouldn't add any input lag while the monitor might (it's not always true)

Mouse DPI?

this too, mouse sens/dpi works different on very high resolutions, wich again is related to 'dont fix what aint broken'

800x600 cause I'm used to it. Going any higher just feels like fisheye. Widescreen feels horrid to my eyes, but meh

I like 4/3 more than 16/9 for Quake/UT so I just use the max 4/3 res my monitor will allow (so on my 1080p monitor I play in 1440x1080 for example). I hate the blur and aliasing you get on LCDs if you're not in native res and I also want to minimize the risk of getting input lag.

Isn't rapha using r_mode -2?

this is the 1st of his 5 steps ahead

ive seen r_mode whatever 1280*1024 in a couple configs of his iirc
doesnt make a big difference, relatively high resolution.

just a shame r_mode is 0->4

renderer_mode = 0 = bad, good, high, 4 = ultra

Well, why fix what isn't broken?

what you're really saying is "why improve when some people are ok with the way things are?"

1024x768 here, using it since ~5 years, it's perfect.

PCI-E cards are shit compared to athlon 64s and AGP, and no modern lan partay can have high res

come up with a temporary gimmick like crossfire and use 2 cards and they still fail, you have to wait fro AGP 3.0

Makes sense.

Sorry to digg this out but that's just... wow... p0rt at his (its?) best!

Does playing at the native resolution really reduce a lot of ghosting/input lag compared to playing on (ie. 1024x768) lower res on LCD?

Sometimes I go from 1024x768 up to my laptop's native res of 1920x1200, and it feels a little smoother, but i get concerned abbout playing at such a high res. such as performance drops.

Is there a program that measures input lag or any monitor performance properties? I'd be interested to know how my old ass LCD screen compares.

added ghosting? very unlikely (impossible if you use GPU scaling)
added input lag? it's possible but it depends on the monitor, and again GPU scaling should pretty much fix it (but may reduce FPS too, though it should be unnoticeable)

If your laptop has a native res of 1920x1200 I suspect that it's not that old and shouldn't have any performance issue in QL, if you want 4/3 you can play in 1600x1200 and not worry about input lag etc.

Speaking of, can someone post a link to the IEM V configs? I know someone posted it as a reply in one of the threads, but it doesn't look like it has a link from any of the main news posts.

http://gouzouboudou.free.fr/quakeLive/IEM5%20World%20Finals/

In group A and group B. Unfortunately includes the demos as well and site is a bit slow so takes a bit to get them all.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=2041851
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=2043188

see the Attached Misc Files

Its smoother fps wise, and well i play on laptop (lol) some effects cause fps to drop, like close-ranged sg and shit.

Moved over from 800x600 to 1280x1024 and i really like it so far even if i have to play with less hz.

640x480 lets u use 400 dpi + a higher sensitivity without any pixel skipping

pixel skipping derp + you're talking about 2duellers and a half ( madix, calipt, somewhat rapha ) and two dedicated tdm player ( deus, demon ).

That's totally the reason why 99% of the scene still use the settings they were using in 2001.

How does resolution have any bearing in turning in degrees?

given 4:3 aspect ratio,

((4/3)*(180/fov)*vertical number of pixels of your resolution)/inches needed to make a 180=necessary dpi for maximum possible pixel by pixel precision

i didnt double check that bc i need to leave but it i think its correct

But all that means is that a higher resolution would either be equal or better to the quality felt on 640x480. Sure you might not be able to place your crosshair precisely on each tiny pixel, however the movement will be the same as that experienced at 640x480, therefore it will be the same or better.

Im gonna tell you one of the biggest secret about pixel skipping in quake. That truth was passed from one chosen to another.
Here it is:

Mousefix has been invented long time ago.

I don't get any noticeable pixel skipping on 1680x1050 400dpi and high sens. So thats bullshit and placebo.

I play in 1080p with 400dpi and a medium-high sense and it's fine too, even though according to phoon.us I'd need 500/600dpi

ingame res has nothing to do with mouse dpi

There is no such thing as 'pixel skipping' in first person shooters.

Pixel skipping only exists for 2D mouse pointers such as the windows desktop pointer. In that case if you lower the screen resolution, you reduce the density of states that the pointer can occupy, and thus reduce the available precision for pointing at stuff. Pixels are macroscopic states - you want to be able to point at each one, so skipping over pixels is bad.

However in 3D games where the mouse controls rotation, the rotations are performed in degrees, not pixels. It doesn't matter whether you are using a 1080p or a 1x1 pixel blob, the game will respond in exactly the same way to your input. The mouse input code doesn't even know or care about what is on your screen.

So the screen resolution only affects the visual detail of the player's view of the world, not his control of it.

You *can* use the screen resolution as a basis for estimating how much mouse dpi is 'useful' for your setup - this is something that both Sujoy and myself have formulated in the past. But these estimations are not magic numbers and you certainly shouldn't lower the quality of your setup to try and match these estimations. They are useful for debunking the gaming mice "you need 9000dpi to be pro" myth in a quantitative fashion.

tl;dr: "pixel skipping" is not a valid reason for deliberately choosing a low resolution over a high one in 3D games. The precision of control is unaffected, only the visual detail changes.

Wrong, there's a point where if your resolution is high, and your sensitivity (with low DPI) that you'll begin to "skip" sections of the screen. Yes, "pixel skipping" isn't the politically correct term, but it still gives the idea of what they're trying to avoid. Crank your sens in any game and try to move it. With a low DPI mouse, you'll be skipping sections of the screen, because there isn't enough detailed accuracy being given from the mouse.

So, it still can exist, but I guess the name isn't correct.

of course, but that's not pixel skipping, and it shouldnt be confused with 2D pixel skipping as they are caused by very different factors.

If I set my sensitivity to a ridiculously high value of 1 count = 360 degrees, then my view will never change. This is not a problem due to the screen resolution at all - it would happen with any resolution (or indeed *no* screen at all).

What you describe isn't pixel skipping at all - it's angle skipping due to high sensitivity (or low dpi) - the screen res is largely a secondary factor in this case.

In other words decreasing your screen res isn't going to 'fix' such an issue - it might just hide it from view.

Well lets look at the issue of low DPI. If I want a high sens, and have low DPI, then there's a breaking point in resolution. Eventually, I will hit a resolution where skipping can occur.

http://phoon.us/mouse/

Right now my useful DPI is roughly 200, due to low resolution (640x480). But if I add in values to accommodate for a higher resolution (1680x1050), my useful DPI becomes about 500, which is 100 more than I current have. Technically, skipping would occur at that point.

You do know I wrote most of the content for phoons site, including the useful dpi / 'skipping' section?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than quoting my own work.

My only point was that 3D "skipping" is a very different thing to 2D skipping, the former is more of a visual effect (and therefore it's not a big deal if it happens), whereas the latter actually involves the precision of control.

does mouse prediction behave differently on 640 vs 800?


(i dont refute any of your posts - i understand the difference conceptually between mouse movments registered serverside and what i see on my screen, i just had never tried explaining it before and it ended up coming out wrong :P)

mouse prediction is in the mouse hardware (or occasionally in the driver) - it doesn't even know that the screen exists, never mind what resolution it's running at.

Pretty funny. I actually tested what you said about the ridiculously high sensitivity.

I normally use sens 3.5 with yaw/pitch 0.022. I tested your statement by setting pitch/yaw to 1 and sensitivity to 360 and which results in that you can't turn the yaw axis anymore. Yet when you add your old sensitivity to it (3.5*0.022) it works again.

I wonder though if the engine makes it work like a full spin or that it actually uses modular arithmetic. If the first it could be used exploitative. Although it being impractical as there's huge amount of skipping (I guess due to rounding errors) and that you have to do the opposite to the pitch as the pitch axis is limited (As in you can't turn around on the pitch axis).

you guys are forgetting the most important thing, dahang would need bigger glasses at a higher res to read console chat.

totally fucked up.

i don't get it

I will help you with this if you want

first try r_mode 0 dahang without glasses, you can now read this.
then try r_mode 27 dahang with microscope

I'm not using a low resolution. I upgraded from 640x480 to 800x600 a couple weeks ago.

gd welcome to 2002 LOL..

i thought everyone was using 1680x1050 and up by now in 2011.

Yeah, I really don't see why people don't use a higher resolution. I play with 1680x1050 myself with a WMO and have nothing hindering my ability to aim. As for 75hz > 60hz, yeah sure it's a little bit of a boost, but it's not going to help you THAT much. Hell I just switched from a Salmosa to a WMO and I actually saw an increase in my ability to aim because of the better shape and lack of correction even though I'm at 125hz on my WMO.

i use 120hz @ 1680x1050 :o

Not everyone can have super awesome LCDs. :P

250 euro aint that much now is it? :-)

Depends on country.

I'm not even kidding lol. I really did just switch from 640x480 to 800x600 like 3 weeks ago haha

LOLOL

640 forever.

I'm using high res. I upgraded from 640x480 to 1920x1080 years ago.
but my acc in q3 was better. especially airrockets (played rocket arena)
dont know - is it te game, 60hz or my old bones.

old bones & back then everything was great attitude :P

I have the samsung 2233RZ 120 hz display with 1680 x 1050 native and use 640x480 now.

I used native resolution for games about 2 years but about a month ago i tried 640x480 and couldn't believe my eyes. My lg and rail got instantly better and i track a lot more consistent now on moving targets. I have no way of explaining this, its just no placebo or "new config induced" better accuracy.The effect is real.

I tried different modes recently to figure out when this effect happens and came to the conclusion that its probably mostly related to the difference between 4:3 and 16:9. However 640x480 is works better than 800x600 and upwards for me. Trying low cg_viewsize on native doesn't seem to induce better accuracy however.

I am at a loss on how to explain why this happens, is there something I missed about the quake engine?

For some reason native res didn't feel great on my previous LCD (like weird tearing and shit, think it was a refresh rate issue) and playing in 4/3 (1440x1080 cos I hate the blur of a non-native res) it felt better.

On my new LCD it absolutely doesn't happen though (same size and res as the old one) so I just play Quake in 1080p and it feels amazing.

I think it's just a matter of getting used to something though. It's not like in 2D games where res changes everything.

90 fov 16:9 aspect master race.
The way I understand it is that the size of the models correspond to 90 fov at 4:3 but you have added screen estate (16:9) so your real fov will be 106. lt's basically larger models with greater awareness right?

edit: just realized that vertical fov doesn't increase going from 4:3 to 16:9 so mileage may be limited.

yes. you can sometimes see models in 16:9 over edges where you can't see them in 4:3.

800x600 since 2003.

1024x768 <3

Can somone test 960x720 on a CRT, my CRT i got will not display the boot screen, don't know why ...

old hardware with new gfx card is quite useless with vga adapter

I played 960x720 on my old 17"CRT. Do u use Powerstrip for custom res?

always custom with config, powerstrip is wind$$ws ?

nevermind, i bought a CRT and it is a great thingy to throw @ppl

i get me a nice ASUS VG248QE, 24" /w or /without G-sync öhh without :D

I use 1028 res on my CRT getting 120 hz

Because I have a shit crt that will only do 120hz at 800x600

lol, try 120hz @ 640x480

prolly use low res cuz it effects FOV.

100 fov at 800x600is different than 100 fov at 1080p/i

and 4:3 vs 16:9/10

btw: YT German PCGH 60Hz vs. 120Hz vs. 240Hz

to be honest, i dont get it. why is blur on textures in motion a bad thing. human eye works quite the same, hence the effect "motion blur" in movies etc to give a more natural feel. i use a 120hz monitor myself - but thats mostly to get rid of tearing stutter without the need of vsync.
plus its a bit disappointing they tested it with a cheap 120fps cam (even my camcorder can do that in 720p) and uploaded it to 30fps youtube.. to be honest i barely see any differences between the lcd. its nice and all they try to adress such topics but somehow its got the taste of poor advertisment "go get that new monitors! we add some video placebo proof so that you dont have to feel bad!"

you are right with the cheap uploading, but you can see the diff in this crappy game
even the CRT was not in 120Hz, but was a reference

ahh, they recorded it with 120fps & slowed it down to see the diff, maybe that's why you can see the diff

low-res kinda aims for you

1.) Lower res's are 5:4 as opposed to 4:3, the common modern 'SD' resolution. These guys are used to 5:4 CRT or learned watching 5:4 and therefore used 5:4 configs on early 4:3 native LCDs.

2.) Usually max refresh rate on older LCD's is below native res a couple steps and is again the highest 5:4 rather than the native 4:3.

I can attest to the mouse feel thing. I use a wmo and it just feels a lot nicer at 800x600 compared to 1080p. my sens isn't too high so I'm not skipping pixels at native rez. even 1280x01024 feels different compared to 8x6. just feels so much nicer

but i want pixels so 1080p. its not like my aim is worse

or is it

Having same monitor xl2411 monitor and if choosing between Monitor Scaling vs GPU Scaling, what would be more prefereble with less input lag? For me it feels like gpu scaling is less laggy which is rly strange, cause i thought with such a fast monitor its own scaler would be the way to go.. Also i noticed a much more blurry picture when scaling with GPU driver like letters being less shark and overall picture quality is lower,its normal and nothing can be done unless i switch back to scaling by monitor right?
Would appreciate your advice, i know that native res and no scaling is the best option bla bla etc but im curious just about these two given possibilities. Thx

800*600 on 17" CRT is amazing