CRT

low res = more FPS. Also, low res = higher refresh rate (120+ Hz) on CRT monitors.

Depending on whether scaling adds input lag, it might be a better idea to play quake in your LCD monitor's native resolution.

solid post for a pentium 2 user

I think most people run QL at 125 fps at Full HD res with mediocre graphics card. So, when you see a pro still use some 1998 res mode, it's because he is used to it.

they are used to it coming from a time where we played with crts, there's no other reason.

lower res = more skill

Lower res kinda aims for you..

Anyone know how the res affects fov and how you see the enemy. Rapha mentioned something in an interview about using specific aspect ratios and having the screen stretch the image and how it can make enemies appear larger and how the aspect ratio can affect the field of view. He didn't go into detail but I figured I would mention it.

After I exec'd his cfg, his res and aspect was the same as my monitor, so I suspect he is using a 2233rz, of course it may have just been the monitors at the tourney where he was playing, but it looks like he plays widescreen.

widescreen resolutions make everything wider

the resulting fov is larger in widescreen.
e.g. widescreen 90 would be a 100 in non-widescreen etc. to get the same view

yes

Different aspect ratios only affect horizontal fov in ql, which means wide resolutions allow you to see more than 4:3 ones (while using the same fov).

Check this shit out:



Mad paint skillz right there, but you should get the idea.

So, yeah, it's quite silly to still play with 4:3.

I disagree.

I like 4:3.. allows me to mentally 'chunk' the screen geometry better.

Okay. Then maybe not "silly" but counterproductive.

I think these kinds of discussions are great, and Lorfa might be on to something. There's a LOT going on in both models, as far as how a 3D world is projected onto a 2D screen. The comment "mentally chunk" really stood out to me. I'm a software engineer, and when we do UIs, we talk about how easy it is for the end-user to "visually parse" the data on the screen. 4:3 might have an advantage there.

With my particular setup, I get input lag the way I have to force my Acer GD235HZ to use 4:3, so I don't do it. Since the LAN, I've been wanting to redo my HUD, because I saw some cool stuff on everyone's setups. I'm thinking of creating a HUD that would move all the visual HUD elements to be within a 4:3 box, and even creating some 50% transparent black bars on the left and right of the screen. So I'd have a 4:3 box, with SOME vision on the sides, but partially masked. I know it sounds nuts, but I still think there's a lot to the "psychology" of this game that hasn't been explained or explored. I plan on exploring some of it =)

I've been quite used to 4:3 from the days of CRT. When moving over to LCD I initially stuck to 4:3 ratio. I knew 16:9 should technically be more beneficial, but something didn't feel right, even after re-checking my mouse sensitivity's cm/360, same vertical FOV, etc.

I then thought about how aspect ratio's and FOV's affects your ability to perceive what you see and where you see it on-screen in comparison to how far your mouse needs to move to snap that object. So, I thought I'd calculate the required mouse sensitivity in relation to this for a 16:9 ratio, which did feel nicer. I thought I had figured it out and tried this among other games including; ut2k4, tribes, shootmania(variable FOV, I know), etc. But again I wasn't 100% comfortable.

Then there's this perception of seeing too much information on-screen due to widescreen and/or high FOV and how much your brain is overworking to process this. I've felt the same when switching between high detail mode and low picmip.
I tried switching back and forth between 4:3 (input lag was hardly noticeable with scaling disabled) and 16:9, and I still felt that I could aim and concentrate better on 4:3. Or, perhaps I was just used to it after several years...

Atm I'm trying 16:9 at native resolution, but with a low vertical FOV of 95. This feels like a good balance of distance visibility without hindering your movement. Aim might be something that I just have to get used to.

You are right, but you can get used to all(more info+the aspect) with enough time putted into it. Few years on 4:3(and for some a lot more) is not easly forgetable when you try to play on 16:10/9 for few days.

it helps to play 4:3 imo
http://qlhud.net/hud/hMFZXQUU

best variant for players who get additional input lag and worse resolution by setting scaling via monitor or videocard.

Perhaps, but not for duellers.

You are just too used to it. Play one full year with 16:10/16:9 and come back again. You will aim a little better, because of more crisp image+better close range rockets+better game aware(more to see). After so many years with squarish quake is normal to be brain fuck for quite some time on widescreen. Tox is playing with 16:10, btw.

wait, let me understand once for all.

Q3: fov isn't affected by aspect ratio, but you see everything stretched with a widescreen resolution.

QL: vertical fov is the same regardless of aspect ratio.
and what about horizontal fov?
you say that "wide resolutions allow you to see more", so i don't understand the value of cg_fov if it varies with a different aspect ratio.

For example, in QL

cg_fov 90 at 4:3 is actually 106 at 16:9.

This is horizontal fov in degrees. The vertical stays the same so there is no distortion or other weirdness.

The really good screenshot on this appears to be lost, but this should be sufficient:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4255/3gw.gif

Just don't listen to the guy about quad runs he is talking out his arse.

so the "correct" (what you set in your cfg) value of cg_fov would be with a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Thanks, now it's clear.

how to play in 800x600 and 16:9 ?

4:3 divides into 16:9 so the vertical fov will give u the same feeling as your normal fov

Funny, i heard the same thing from dandaking (an aus quake pro) about the part where enemies look bigger. Maybe it's an illusion?

maybe they're talking about 4:3 resolutions stretched to widescreen. then the enemy would be bigger i guess.

nope i meant with black borders too. But now that you mention it how do you make quake stretched in 4;3. I remember when i first started playing ql i was playing like that by accident and i want to try it again because i found i didn't need to zoom at all with it so it may help aim

you can't change the aspect ratio in QL (wich is a shame, i would like to have this as an option). so you have to change it from the scaling options in your gfx card's driver.

I set r_mode to -2 and set a custom aspect ratio using nvidia control panel in xp but it won't stretch for some reason when i go fullscren :<

change in the scaling options from "use nvidia scaling with fixed aspect ratio" to "use nvidia scaling" and then choose what ever resolution you want in quake, it will always stretch to fit your display

http://cowgod.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/...caling.png

I play i n 800x600 window, just to keep at least 80 fps.

do you have a boyfriend ?

I'll shaft you for her.

That feel bro, I know it.

I sure wouldn't play like that. In window, with 80 fps.

Used to play with 60hz at 1440x900 in an LCD, it broke now I'm stuck with a CRT, that despite 120hz, I have to play at 640x480 or 800x600.
Hate it, would prefer to have 50hz if that meant I'd have 1440x900 back. :|

if you have decent video card, you can do THIS:
1. I am using crt - > my shit crt supports 120hz on 640x480 -> 640x480 looks crappy -> but 120hz!
2. I am decent nvidia card user -> I force nvidia card settings to use antialiasint and other stuff in games -> shitter performance, but it's enought for stable 125fps @ ql (becouse its decent nvdia card).
3. I have nice gfx -> I have 125 fps -> I have 120hz.

ps. with nvidia settings set to performance, ql with 640x480 looks unplayable bad and 1999.

Just how I like it.

Which would mean every other game would have low fps cause of that. No thanks, I don't care about the 120hz at all, I just want to have a decent res.

it's just few clicks and settings back to performance..

If it is a LCD screen, whichever hz it gives, the safe bet is to use the native resolution (highest). Pretty simple and without any shortcomings.

If you live in the past, then play on what gets you 120hz. CRTs are both advantageous and disadvantageous, since it's a bit more fluid but you see less on screen (horizontal) and fov values of pros aren't applicable (CRTs stopped being used in tournaments like 7 years ago).

it's what theyre used to

CRT because I am poor. 800x600 all the way. 120hz = gg. id like 144hz though with lcd some lightboost and 16:9 native res.

using 1024x768 @ 100hz on a CRT monitor, 17inch (Samsung SyncMaster 797MB).

the native res of my monitor is 1024x768. I'm also on windows 8, so can't install the drivers, and can't have 120hz @ 800x600. With some tweaking maybe i can manage to play at 120hz, but don't want to force anything higher than 100hz @ 1024x768. Don't want to break my monitor :D.

also, my laptop doesn't support LCD @ 120hz, so i'm pretty much stuck with my good old crt :D

if your crt is cabable of 120 at 800x600, simply get powerstrip, set resolution and advanced timings hz you want, save desktop res and hz and gaming res and hz as a profile, as long as you have powerstrip running, should apply that auto when going ingame with 800x600. having this under win7, since drivers didnt work like under xp

your crt is not so good.

It kinda Thunderstruck for him.

I've played with 1280x800 on my 2233RZ for over a year.

Swapped to native 1680x1050 last night after reading some comments and its SO much better and smoother. Lovely.

try modern 144hz models and u will be surprised again )

Then go back to 640 x 480 @ 200 Hz. :>

Is CRT@120hz better (smoother, ghosting) than LCD@144hz?

hard to say.
i mentioned modern 144hz models coz they have better panels(less ghosting) and better input lag.
QL caped to 125fps and 144hz will give only 5 more fps.
But if QL will remove this 125fps cap....LCD@144hz >>> CRT for sure.

I play on CRT (HP P1130) in 1024x768 155Hz. Higher resolution is not really needed for QL, I use 8xSSAA to make graphics nice and smooth. I don't have to worry about input lag, ghosting, using only native resolution, LightBoost and what not. It just works. So for me CRT > any LCD.

My kind of guy :-)

I am using 800x600 at 154 Hz and anti-aliasing.

I'll be happy to switch from CRT when they come up with a display that is better in _every_ category, not just a few.

Am I the only one playing without a monitor???

You play with braille?