Hackl
3./JG51 Member
Posts: 1,625
|
Post by Hackl on Jul 3, 2014 12:38:17 GMT -5
Since my upgrade I just have not been seeing dots or picking up the fights like I used to. The eye candy is awesome! But not seeing stuff when I need to or should is quite dis- heartening. I am being left out of the fights and rendered pretty much fodder because of it not to mention on a uselessness level to the squad. Not sure if its graphics card related or maybe just monitor settings. But flying for me is becoming very much a chore : /
|
|
|
Post by Gunther on Jul 3, 2014 16:37:57 GMT -5
If you still have your old monitor, it may be worth flying with it again for a night or two just to confirm whether or not that's your issue. Have you noticed any difference in CLOD?
You're often hard on yourself, but I think you contribute more than you realize!
|
|
Hackl
3./JG51 Member
Posts: 1,625
|
Post by Hackl on Jul 3, 2014 17:49:54 GMT -5
That's a good idea Gunther even tho I love the Asus monitor way better.
Cliffs is were I'm having the most trouble. And in GS I feel like I'm always playing catch-up. Maybe i just need to play with monitor settings. Contrast, sharpness or something. For now I've turned back my res to 1680x1050....
|
|
Stecher
Administrator
Staffelkapitän
Hauptmann
Posts: 2,681
|
Post by Stecher on Jul 3, 2014 19:48:13 GMT -5
I don't know what anyone else it actually seeing of course, but I get the sense that I'm rather blind compared to some as well. At some point, it's a trade off between image quality and dot visibility. Finer resolutions with higher ppi are going to make the textures, landscape, buildings, cockpit, drawn planes, etc look better. But when planes are dots, literally a couple pixels, they will be harder to see. To this point, I've resisted lowering resolution, but it's worth a shot. For our monitors Hackl, just stay within the 16:10 ratio and see if any improvement in dot visibility is worth the tradeoff in loss of sharpness of everything else. If you can't notice a change at 1680x1050, try 1440x900, or even 1280x800. I'll be experimenting with them too for a bit in case it helps without making things look too crappy.
|
|
Stecher
Administrator
Staffelkapitän
Hauptmann
Posts: 2,681
|
Post by Stecher on Jul 15, 2014 18:33:38 GMT -5
I flew CLOD with 1440x900 for a night. I can't say I've done enough of it to make any real judgement on the dots, but I think it was better as a first impression. Nothing massively obvious though. However, what I wasn't really expecting was just how much harder it was to ID planes. I knew the quality from an aesthetic standpoint would take a hit, and that was especially obvious with the cockpit. But from a functional standpoint, I had to get much closer to actually ID the plane I was looking at. This is a considerable hindrance, as it really affects the decision to engage, evade, or ignore, and valuable time has been lost when you finally realize which of those you should do. I flew another night with 1680x1050, and to my eyes on the VS24AH-P, it looked much better. You can tell it doesn't have the crispness of the native 1920x1200, but it still looked reasonably good, and it was much easier to ID planes. I'll list the pixel density of these 16:10 ratio resolutions below, and you can see 1680x1050 pretty much fits right in between them, +11/-12. Subjectively, it was much closer in appearance and functionality to the native 1920x1200. Again, only 1 night on each lower resolution is not a fair evaluation on the various conditions in which you pick up dots, so I won't pass final judgement on that yet. But for the 1680x1050 session, I didn't have any periods where I knew people were around, and I wasn't seeing them. Maybe it helped enough, maybe it was just the right visibility conditions, or maybe I just don't know what I was missing. It at least warrants more live play at this resolution, and I'll try to set up some controlled visibility test to really limit the difference to the resolution itself, and not the endless variables that occur every moment of live play.
1920x1200 on 24" 94ppi
1680x1050 on 24" 83ppi
1440x900 on 24" 71ppi
It may not be an issue for you Hackl, with the 780Ti, but a bonus to flying with a slightly lowered resolution is the increase in FPS. For me, I might fly one step below native just for that, since right now I have to turn down the land shading setting (which controls landscape texture resolution more than anything) for smooth play (45+fps) on my 7850. That settings affects the gameplay appearance much more than scaling resolutions a notch.
|
|
Stecher
Administrator
Staffelkapitän
Hauptmann
Posts: 2,681
|
Post by Stecher on Oct 9, 2014 22:01:24 GMT -5
Segler had asked me about how this has turned out. I decided to not go with a lower than native resolution. The performance increase was nice, but I've simply gotten used to the lowered graphics settings to get my FPS where I want until I spring for a better card. Flying at a lower resolution, will try to render the plane dots on more of a pixel footprint, but that will blur the dots. Surrounding pixels will be ever so slightly shaded the plane dot color compared to the sky/ground background. While it may appear a tiny bit bigger, it takes away from the sharpness of the plane dot being locked into an exact pixel group. And the sharpness is important in the eye spotting them. The contrast between the plane dot and the background is what catches your eye. In order to make the dot take up significantly more of a footprint on your screen, you'd have to lower your resolution so much, I can't stand how bad it looks, even with settings turned up.
|
|