Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Minimum graphics resolution?

Author
Message
Lampton Worm
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 01:25
Link
Hi,

Do graphics cards (reasonable/good) ones these days have a minimum resolution generally? I've heard some don't run the desktop lower than 800x600, but for those does that mean you could still get a full screen exclusive mode of 640x480?

Cheers
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 01:44
Link
Well if they are higher end, or good ones, then they support all of the resolutions below its maximum.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Required
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2005
Location: Server Down
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 01:53
Link
Minimum DirectX 9 Resolution 320x200x16, for anything under 400x300x16 your graphics card must support Mode-X Resolutions.
Minimum Windows 95,98,ME,2000 Resolution 640x480x4 VGA
Minimum Windows XP,2003,MC Resolution 800x600x8 SVGA, 4-bit is available but only in Safe-Mode.

Most modern cards should support everything.

System: Windows XP CPU: AMD Athlon 2600+ RAM: 512MB Video: GeForce FX 5200 Audio: C-Media 9739 DirectX: Version 9.0c
Back to top
Profile PM Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 04:05
Link
I always design for 800 x 600 minimum. Anything lower degrades your game too much, in my opinion.

BatVink
Back to top
Profile PM Email
DBAlex
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 04:58
Link
Quote: " I always design for 800 x 600 minimum. Anything lower degrades your game too much, in my opinion."


Me too. Whats the point in making a good game only to have it ruined by a poor resolution?




>_0
Back to top
Profile PM
Avan Madisen
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: The Castle Anthrax
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 07:11
Link
320/240/8 is the screen mode that every PC goes into when it boots up.

Lower then 800/600? I've seen plenty of games running 640/480 that look fine, add X4 anti-aliasing and they look fantanstic! By the way, I'm running on a 17" monitor!

I don't suffer from insanity:

I enjoy every minute of it!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Lampton Worm
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 16:34
Link
Thanks all, thats just what I wanted to know.

@BatVink, well.. the use for a low res I had in mind is actually a retro game, and I want it to look, err "degraded", on purpose

Cheers.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Required
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2005
Location: Server Down
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 19:00
Link
I can send you a file that one newer graphics cards, like the Geforce FX or Radeon 9xxx it would make a game look as pixelated as you want.

The image is too large (640x960) to post in the thread itself. So it is just been left attached.

System: Windows XP CPU: AMD Athlon 2600+ RAM: 512MB Video: GeForce FX 5200 Audio: C-Media 9739 DirectX: Version 9.0c

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lampton Worm
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 19:13 Edited at: 9th Mar 2005 19:16
Link
That's pretty cool. Is that something that could be used in realtime?

Another idea - I do have tools such as PSP/GIMP so I could just pixelate my images and still run at a high-ish res. So, smooth movement but blocky sprites.

So far I still like the idea of actually using an `old` res seems more authentic.

[edit], I should also mention that I only have a GeForce3 Ti-200 (!) and I'd like not to restrict the game to certain cards if possible (any more than the DBP imposed min of a DX9 comp. card), but it looks like you have a cool effect there!

Cheers.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 20:34
Link
Pixelated sprites at higher resolution would be better IMHO. It gives you greater control as the developer over what parts are enhanced to improve the game, while still giving it an authentic feel.

Remember, a lot of Retro games were played on a TV, so just lowering the resolution won't give you the full authentic feel.

BatVink
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Required
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2005
Location: Server Down
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 20:40
Link
What is shown is a Shader 2 HLSL Effect. So it will only run on Geforce FX or Radeon 9xxx cards, but it is possible to create it using Dark Basic Professional's Pixel Buffer.

Not sure how fast it would run, as my experiments with the Pixel Buffer have been less than great.
Depending on the system you are trying to emulate, most older games run in Graphics Adapter Mode 320x200 (DOS) or Television 320x256 (Early TV Computers).

You could emulate them quite happily in full-screen. If you are going to do it, remember by adding Load Image (Image File),(Image Number),1 it will load the texture as a Point Texture. Meaning it will have 1:1 Pixel Quality.

System: Windows XP CPU: AMD Athlon 2600+ RAM: 512MB Video: GeForce FX 5200 Audio: C-Media 9739 DirectX: Version 9.0c
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lampton Worm
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 21:23
Link
..one thing with the med/high res but blocky sprites, is that rotating a sprite will reveal the 'true' amount of pixels in the window? Might look a bit odd. I'll have to do some experiments!

Hey, while I'm here - can anyone emulate the speccy's colour clash? That's not something I need, it just interests me. I bet its a cpu expensive process.. same as colour cycling currently is I think. Ah, all this back in the day was fast, but to emulate it on a modern pc is, umm, slow. Ironic really.

Cheers.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Required
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2005
Location: Server Down
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 22:30
Link
If you have a GIF of what it looks like, I could give it a go.
Would like to try getting better with the Pixel buffer.

Actually I have an idea. If you can find me a copy of the Spectrum Graphics Commands, I could recreate them in Dark Basic Professional at a reasonable speed. Then you could code moderately how you would have if you were using the Spectrum.

System: Windows XP CPU: AMD Athlon 2600+ RAM: 512MB Video: GeForce FX 5200 Audio: C-Media 9739 DirectX: Version 9.0c
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lampton Worm
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 23:27 Edited at: 9th Mar 2005 23:32
Link
What would be quality would be an image (jpg/png etc) to speccy loading screen converter! So it could resize/pixelate the image to a speccy resolution, then approximate the color dominance and force colour clashing Its just me but I get a kick out of the old stuff, and speccy loading screens I always thought were quality pieces of art! Not all of them of course, but some were very cleverly done.

Some speccy res/clash info (not much, basically no more than 2 colours per 8x8 block)..

http://thespeccyzone.emuunlim.com/hardwarefiles/spectrum.htm

Cheers.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 9th Mar 2005 23:50
Link
Yeah, I had a soft spot for the Speccy loaders too, especially when they made that funny noise - like you could hear the data and watch it draw the image, I probably learned more from that than any of the data communication courses at college .

The speccy worked by having a background and a foreground. The background would be a solid block of 8x8 pixels at a set colour, then the pixels would be drawn on top. For example, if you were making a fried egg sprite, you'd make a 3x3 block with a black background, then make the middle block yellow - the white of the egg would be done in white ink over the top of the background, leaving the yellow yolk underneath to show through.

Too much of this stuff is hidden now, the only game I can think of that shows any sort of internal stuff is Blockland, I love the way it build's the level while your playing, just like one of those Lego TV ads.


Van-B


It's c**p being the only coder in the village.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Required
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2005
Location: Server Down
Posted: 10th Mar 2005 17:52 Edited at: 10th Mar 2005 17:53
Link
256x192x4 is the resolution specified on that site.
I'm not sure I understand your description Van-B. Layers are not new to me, and I can understand the Background and Foreground Concept. It isn't clear exactly how your trying to say it works.

If I understand you correctly.

The Background Resolution is 32x24 Pixels, and the Foreground Resolution is 256x192 Pixels. In the Background any Pixel that is Black would be a Replacement Colour, allowing the Foreground Colour to replace it.

So from the Background / Foreground you would get the Composite.
Like this?



System: Windows XP CPU: AMD Athlon 2600+ RAM: 512MB Video: GeForce FX 5200 Audio: C-Media 9739 DirectX: Version 9.0c

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 11th Mar 2005 03:12
Link
Daggerfall runs in 320x240. It's pretty

It is a perilous occupation for TGC to post anything by way of a promise, as the words get etched in indestructable marble for all time.
-Lee Bamber
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 02:39:57
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 02:39:57