Minimal settings for seeing objects the furthest?

2008-10-31 08:30:52

#26

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6455|Winland

Im_Dooomed wrote:
steelie34 wrote:
hence all the problems with low frame rates on high settings.
Well, even on the lowest settings possible, for my card, and in game settings, it still was laggy. Talk about total shit. A four (five?) year old game that cant run smooth on a laptop I bought 1 1/2 years ago with 2 gigs ram and an 8400M G nvidia card?

I guess I can call Sager tech support maybe they can recommend different driver sets for my card to run older games or maybe the tweak guide dudes have older NVIDIA driver sets I can use?

Freezer halp! whuer r u!?

An 8400m G is about 1/6th of an 8600GT. The GS and GT are ok-ish (half of an 8600), but that G is just pure bad.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-10-31 08:37:28

#27

-CARNIFEX-[LOC]: Da Blooze; +111|6912

I always used to read about settings the "pros" use (like turning shadows off, etc...), and it makes the game look like shit IMO...

So if I play with absolutely everything on high, does that actually make me a better player because I have to deal with spotting player models that have decent camoflauge, hiding in high quality shadows, etc.???

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg

2008-10-31 12:37:57

#28

H3RB4L ABU53: ™; +45|6126|123 | 456 | 789 | Δ

No, I used to play with everything maxed and turning it all to low hasn't got me any more kills really as I was used to it with all high anyway, but it does make it easier with low lighting to see enemies like in the warehouse on karkand and people in general, but with lighting and dynamic lights on high you can see enemy fire much more clearly from a distance and spot them easier so I would say they both have uses

2008-10-31 12:39:43

#29

H3RB4L ABU53: ™; +45|6126|123 | 456 | 789 | Δ

Putting the settings to low just gives me more confidence because the game looks more basic and easier, graphic wise it does look terrible but with anti aliasing it looks quite neatly plain if it makes any sense

2008-10-31 15:03:24

#30

twoblacklines: all grown up now (its boring); +49|6465

I play on all full in both game and gfx card etc!

2008-10-31 15:06:39

#31

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6712|The Twilight Zone

twoblacklines wrote:
I play on all full in both game and gfx card etc!

lol thats noobish. When you play Sharqy everything is too dark when you're inside the buildings if you play with shadows on.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-10-31 15:11:46

#32

twoblacklines: all grown up now (its boring); +49|6465

true but i play for realism (as much as you can get with its game engine) ie what i would see if i was there IRL.

And it makes me learn the hard way spotting the difference between a player and a leaf IMO

2008-10-31 15:14:09

#33

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Off the top of my head:

Terrain: High - helps by more clearly defining the terrain at long distance.
Effects: Low/Med.
Geometry: High - this, along with draw distance, has the biggest effect.
Texture: High - helps by more clearly defining textures at long distance.
Lighting: Low/Med.
Dynamic Shadows: Off/Low.
Dynamic Light: Off/Low.
Anti-aliasing: As high as you can go - doesn't actually help you see further, but does help make far away things clearer.
Texture Filtering: High - helps by more clearly defining textures at long distance.
View Distance: 100%
Resolution: as high as you can go - like AA this doesn't actually help you see further, but does help make far away things clearer.

2008-10-31 15:19:50

#34

ScoutStrike: Member; +37|6512

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Just a quick question, what should my settings be to spot objects and vehicles the furthest? I currently run all low, with geometry on high and effects on medium. I think geometry was the one to change for the draw scale, but I can't quite remember. It feels like things aren't drawn as far as on the gaming rig, but it could just be placebo, due to the smaller screen.

And yes, the slider is at 100%.

Apart from geometry and view distance, there's one big factor: aspect ratio.

In fact, you'll get an extra 30-40m on wake with 1280x720 (16:9 widescreen) compared to 1280x1024 (5:4 lcd). And this affects regular soldiers too, unlike the geometry setting, which only affects vehicle draw distance.

2008-10-31 15:54:39

#35

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6455|Winland

ScoutStrike wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Just a quick question, what should my settings be to spot objects and vehicles the furthest? I currently run all low, with geometry on high and effects on medium. I think geometry was the one to change for the draw scale, but I can't quite remember. It feels like things aren't drawn as far as on the gaming rig, but it could just be placebo, due to the smaller screen.

And yes, the slider is at 100%.
Apart from geometry and view distance, there's one big factor: aspect ratio.

In fact, you'll get an extra 30-40m on wake with 1280x720 (16:9 widescreen) compared to 1280x1024 (5:4 lcd). And this affects regular soldiers too, unlike the geometry setting, which only affects vehicle draw distance.

Good thing my lappy is 16:10 then

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-10-31 17:16:27

#36

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

It evens out, though. Playing with a widescreen aspect ratio gives you a slightly reduced fov (at least when comparing 4:3 to 16:10, not sure about 16:9). E.g. You can actually see more of the battlfield playing @ 1600x1200 versus 1920x1200.

How to reproduce this: Simply play in one resolution and then play in another with the same vertical pixel count (in my case, 1600x1200 then 1920x1200). Take a screenshot in the same place (e.g. get in the cobra on sharqi and immediately take a screenshot without moving). Then, open your favourite image editing program and stretch the smaller image to the same size as the larger one if it helps you see the difference.

You will see that:
A: The widescreen image has a marginally smaller horizontal fov (barely noticeable)
B: The widescreen image has a sizeable loss in vertical fov (very noticeable when looking at screenshots)

The result is that the widescreen resolution has a noticeably narrower fov. You might care. You might not. I personally don't like the more zoomed in look, but it's not the end of the world.

Last edited by Arnie_Ze_Austrian (2008-10-31 17:19:28)

2008-10-31 17:33:37

#37

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7102|Reykjavík, Iceland.

What is the deal with vsync? For me it's just a framerate killer, I've never had any form of tearing whatsoever, on my Samsung 226BW, and my framerate is over 60 more often than under 60...

2008-10-31 17:41:10

#38

twoblacklines: all grown up now (its boring); +49|6465

Sydney wrote:
What is the deal with vsync? For me it's just a framerate killer, I've never had any form of tearing whatsoever, on my Samsung 226BW, and my framerate is over 60 more often than under 60...

+1, never had any tearing EVER wether on an x1950 pro or my current card, all over 1680x1050...

2008-10-31 18:28:45

#39

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

VSynch murders your framerate at times because it works at multiples of your display's refresh rate. Your display gets periodic updates from the graphics card and expects the updates at a set time (typically every 16ms for a standard TFT). If your PC is banging out > 60 fps, then it's fine. All that happens is that you're capped to 60fps (which is generally not a problem on a TFT monitor). However, if your PC is struggling to render a single frame in a time of 16ms, then it will miss the synchronisation time. As a result, it has to delay showing you that image until the next valid synch time which effectively halves your framerate (as ~16ms + ~16ms = ~33ms = ~30fps).

It's a bit like missing a train. If you're two minutes late for a train, you have to wait for the next one. You don't just get delayed by 2 minutes, you get delayed by whatever the delay will be until the next train arrives.

+1, never had any tearing EVER wether on an x1950 pro or my current card, all over 1680x1050...

I've never liked vsynch and I'm not susceptible to tearing, so I don't use it. Some people barely notice it while others cannot stand it. However, it is there, you just might not notice it. If vsynch is off, the synchronisation doesn't exist. When the monitor receives an image, it can contain a mixture of the current and previous frame buffer contents.

2008-10-31 18:33:01

#40

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
If vsynch is off, the synchronisation doesn't exist. When the monitor receives an image, it can contain a mixture of the current and previous frame buffer contents.

Unless you have triple-buffering enabled. Then you don't need VSynch at all. Triple buffering completely solves the tearing problem by itself.

2008-10-31 18:41:25

#41

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

Except then you have potentially some added input lag and memory consumption (which may or may not be worth the tradeoff).

2008-10-31 18:44:17

#42

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
Except then you have potentially some added input lag and memory consumption (which may or may not be worth the tradeoff).

Memory consumption, yup, but it's only 1 extra frames worth - what's that, <10MB.

And input lag? How so?

2008-10-31 18:54:24

#43

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

Memory consumption, yup, but it's only 1 extra frames worth - what's that, <10MB.

You have to remember that certain types of AA will rape your memory, even on modern cards. If you don't use AA then yes, it's not really a concern.

And input lag? How so?

I'm a bit hazy on this, but I'm pretty sure that you can potentially get an extra frame's worth of input lag when using triple buffering. When you consider that you have mouse latency, rendering latency and then display latency, waiting an additional frame may not be a good thing, especially in an action game.

2008-10-31 18:58:25

#44

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
Memory consumption, yup, but it's only 1 extra frames worth - what's that, <10MB.
You have to remember that certain types of AA will rape your memory, even on modern cards. If you don't use AA then yes, it's not really a concern.

And input lag? How so?
I'm a bit hazy on this, but I'm pretty sure that you can potentially get an extra frame's worth of input lag when using triple buffering. When you consider that you have mouse latency, rendering latency and then display latency, waiting an additional frame may not be a good thing, especially in an action game.

Right, yeah, I see, I guess if you're competing, or a stats-whore, then yeah, it's worth considering, but if you're getting tearing you're talking what 1/60th of a sec max.

2008-10-31 19:05:32

#45

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

I personally just like playing games without any additional problems and I don't mind or notice the tearing. Everyone's different Everyone should try various options and then go with what they like.

2008-10-31 19:07:53

#46

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
I personally just like playing games without any additional problems and I don't mind or notice the tearing. Everyone's different Everyone should try various options and then go with what they like.

Some are more different than others

But yeah, it's horses for courses, and that's why video cards come with all these optional settings - if everyone liked their games with all the exact same settings, they wouldn't include them.

2008-11-01 05:01:57

#47

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6455|Winland

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
It evens out, though. Playing with a widescreen aspect ratio gives you a slightly reduced fov (at least when comparing 4:3 to 16:10, not sure about 16:9). E.g. You can actually see more of the battlfield playing @ 1600x1200 versus 1920x1200.

How to reproduce this: Simply play in one resolution and then play in another with the same vertical pixel count (in my case, 1600x1200 then 1920x1200). Take a screenshot in the same place (e.g. get in the cobra on sharqi and immediately take a screenshot without moving). Then, open your favourite image editing program and stretch the smaller image to the same size as the larger one if it helps you see the difference.

You will see that:
A: The widescreen image has a marginally smaller horizontal fov (barely noticeable)
B: The widescreen image has a sizeable loss in vertical fov (very noticeable when looking at screenshots)

The result is that the widescreen resolution has a noticeably narrower fov. You might care. You might not. I personally don't like the more zoomed in look, but it's not the end of the world.

http://imk.cx/pc/widescreenfixer/

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-11-01 12:46:13

#48

Arnie_Ze_Austrian: Member; +55|6400

I've seen that before, but I was under the impression that PB might not 'like' it...

Unless it's officially OKed by PB, I'd be cautious about its use.

2008-11-01 13:55:14

#49

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6455|Winland

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
I've seen that before, but I was under the impression that PB might not 'like' it...

Unless it's officially OKed by PB, I'd be cautious about its use.

It's officially OK'd by PB. I use it all the time.

To keep it all in one topic, now BF2 is refusing to turn on AA. Not even forcing it from within CCC works. Any suggestions?

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-11-01 14:00:33

#50

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:
I've seen that before, but I was under the impression that PB might not 'like' it...

Unless it's officially OKed by PB, I'd be cautious about its use.
It's officially OK'd by PB. I use it all the time.

To keep it all in one topic, now BF2 is refusing to turn on AA. Not even forcing it from within CCC works. Any suggestions?

Have you got that 'choose options for me based on exe name' (can't recall what ATI call it) option selected in ccc?

BF2S Forums Minimal settings for seeing objects the furthest?

Im_Dooomed wrote:

steelie34 wrote:

twoblacklines wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

ScoutStrike wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Board footer