1280x1024 the best resolution for BF2? That makes no sense

2007-04-19 17:04:05

#1

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

It appears that in order to get the best field of view I have to use 1280x1024. If I use a higher resolution I lose field of view both horizontally and vertically. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Who made the decision to do that? Here take a look:

800x600

1024x768

1280x960

1280x1024

https://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/bf2/th_full1620_1200.png

1600x1200

https://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/bf2/th_aspectratio2.png

1920x1200

Put each photo in it's own tab (both FF and explore can do this) and you will see what I mean.
Start with:
800x600
then tab to
1280x796
then tab to
1280x960
then tab to
1280x1024
then tab to
1600x1200
then tab to
1920x1200

You will clearly see how much field of view I lose the higher the resolution gets. I've heard of complaints like this in the past but I didn't know it was that freaking bad!

Last edited by ECH (2007-06-10 17:51:03)

2007-04-19 17:08:32

#2

gene_pool: Banned; +519|6889|Gold coast, Aus.

Hmm...Does seem that way....Weird....

*waits for some forum techie to explain why*

2007-04-19 17:25:27

#3

ReTox: Member; +100|6766|State of RETOXification

Looks like they decrease DOF (depth of field) with higher resolutions. The buildings far in the scene look closer in the higher resolution caps.

The only thing I can think of for a possible reason is for optimizing the renderer to work at those high resolutions while maintaining acceptable performance drops.

The only rendering that benefits, speed wise, to a change in DOF is ray tracing. We are NO WHERE near to having fully ray traced realtime gaming so why they would do it is a mystery.

That's assuming the DOF has anything to even do with it... I could just be blowing sunshine up your asses.

Last edited by ReTox (2007-04-19 17:28:29)

2007-04-19 17:28:55

#4

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6618

EA's way of saying FUCK you for attempting wide-screen... who knows...

I thought wide-screen meant MORE to view?

Last edited by ReDevilJR (2007-04-19 17:30:02)

2007-04-19 17:51:30

#5

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

At 1920x1200 one should love being a sniper but you would be pretty much limited to playing from a far to get the full effect of this problem. That's not my playing style so even if I can use 1920x1200 it's pretty much useless to me (as you can see) as things are way to close up for me to deal with. 1600x1200 is not half as bad as it is a supported resolution from the option menu. But it still chops off more of the screen then I like. But when I go back to 1280x1024 it's perfect. This is the only game were I see a less of the screen the more you increase the resolution beyond 1280x1024

2007-04-20 00:18:01

#6

Marinejuana: local; +415|6853|Seattle

thanks for the info

2007-04-20 00:20:19

#7

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6835|NYC / Hamburg

sure you were in the same spot when taking the pics?

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2007-04-20 00:22:39

#8

HCSkorpio: Hind Secks; +8|6804|California

Can you even force your monitor to play BF2 ata resolution larger than 1280 x 1024?

I remember that if you tried to hack the resolution. PB wont allow you to do widescreen or anything higher than 1280.

Now with a 22 1680 x 1050 widescreen everything is just stretched horizontally @ 1280 x 1024.

2007-04-20 00:23:12

#9

Marinejuana: local; +415|6853|Seattle

max wrote:
sure you were in the same spot when taking the pics?

ya it just occurred to me that you couldnt have changed the resolution without disconnecting. you should take screens of the view when you spawn so youre positive its the exact same view.

ReTox wrote:
Looks like they decrease DOF (depth of field) with higher resolutions. The buildings far in the scene look closer in the higher resolution caps.

what if he is just standing a tiny bit further away in the 1280x1024 screenshot? that would be a more simple way to explain why the buildings look slightly farther away.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-04-20 00:28:35)

2007-04-20 00:24:18

#10

LT.Victim: Member; +1,175|6830|British Columbia, Canada

I think I know why this occurs..

In order to get widescreen since BF2 does not support it, you have to zoom in, and crop the top and bottom of the screen..

2007-04-20 00:25:32

#11

dead_rac00n: Member; +12|6750|DTC

Did you try to get your resolution lower than 1280x1024 ?
Does fov still increase when you lower it to, say, 1024x768 or 800x600 ?

2007-04-20 00:36:09

#12

Jemme101: M24 Abuser; +99|6768|Valley of the Dragons

We were having a discussion about the impact of a bettr GFX card + higher resolutions on the ability to see further when Sniping on maps like Dalian. This pretty much confirms what I already thought.

2007-04-20 01:30:16

#13

Moggle: Member; +4|6847|I'm not sure

Jemme101 wrote:
We were having a discussion about the impact of a bettr GFX card + higher resolutions on the ability to see further when Sniping on maps like Dalian. This pretty much confirms what I already thought.

Well, I've got a fairly low end setup, and I know that I have had numerous occasions as the helo gunner on Wake where my pilot has had a much better view range than me. I had to tell them to call TV targets for me, I would fire it and then find my target as I got closer. That worked better than I would have thought.

My point is that better hardware and res certainly makes a big difference at the lower end, not so sure if it matters that much with a decent (as compared to a 'great') system.

2007-04-20 01:46:22

#14

Invaderzim: Chicken wing?; +49|6716|Newcastle NSW Australia

It was done like that because EA decided that being able to view more was somewhat of an exploit.

This to me is stupid because if you follow that theory then the game should only be able to run on computers that are capable of running the game with full lighting and shadows as without these it is far easier to see people hiding in construcion sites and other enclosed places.

gee gee EA/DiCE

2007-04-20 04:33:28

#15

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

dead_rac00n wrote:
Did you try to get your resolution lower than 1280x1024 ?
Does fov still increase when you lower it to, say, 1024x768 or 800x600 ?

1024x768

800x600

In all the fov does not increase but appears to decrease at some point after 1280x1024.

And no, I did not move the fov. That's why I took those pictures. It's pointless take pics of spawn points:
-you don't always spawn at the same spawn point
-your body sort of moves, as if you are inhaling, exhaling. Trust me I've tried it and found out that your FOV does change making you think you are getting a better FOV. The truth is that your body movement shifts standing still giving the impression you are seeing more. Try it for yourself. Spawn and don't move, in a few moments you will notice your gun moving up and down.

Last edited by ECH (2007-04-20 04:39:02)

2007-04-20 04:50:17

#16

Snake: Missing, Presumed Dead; +1,046|6833|England

Moggle wrote:
Well, I've got a fairly low end setup, and I know that I have had numerous occasions as the helo gunner on Wake where my pilot has had a much better view range than me. I had to tell them to call TV targets for me, I would fire it and then find my target as I got closer. That worked better than I would have thought.

Im on a low end machine and I get that ALL the time. Its so infuriating when my pilot says "why the fuck didnt you fire". Simple: I didnt see anything - yet he obviously did. I get that in both situations - where im the gunner or the pilot.

This only really affects me in helicopters - jets paint the targets anyway and ground pounding, well, you see where the shell is coming from.

2007-04-20 05:08:12

#17

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6921

I can tell you all why

1280x960 was the original resolution available in BF2. later, 1280x1024 got added. These few extra pixels obviously didn't make enough of a difference for DICE to carefully adjust the FOV, thus 1280x1024 has a tiny bit extra.

2007-04-20 05:41:45

#18

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

SargeV1.4 wrote:
I can tell you all why

1280x960 was the original resolution available in BF2. later, 1280x1024 got added. These few extra pixels obviously didn't make enough of a difference for DICE to carefully adjust the FOV, thus 1280x1024 has a tiny bit extra.

Hmm, that makes sense to me. What doesn't makes sense is why the FOV decreases the higher your resolutions is.

Last edited by ECH (2007-04-20 05:48:36)

2007-04-20 05:53:19

#19

Jemme101: M24 Abuser; +99|6768|Valley of the Dragons

SargeV1.4 wrote:
I can tell you all why

1280x960 was the original resolution available in BF2. later, 1280x1024 got added. These few extra pixels obviously didn't make enough of a difference for DICE to carefully adjust the FOV, thus 1280x1024 has a tiny bit extra.

Source? Linkage?

2007-04-20 06:04:03

#20

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

Jemme101 wrote:
SargeV1.4 wrote:
I can tell you all why

1280x960 was the original resolution available in BF2. later, 1280x1024 got added. These few extra pixels obviously didn't make enough of a difference for DICE to carefully adjust the FOV, thus 1280x1024 has a tiny bit extra.
Source? Linkage?

I don't think his intention was to provide facts. What I got out of it was:
-There was no higher resolution beyond 1280x960 at one point
-Do to this that resolution provided the best FOV
-People complained that their monitors were 1280x1024 native and 1280x960 looked funny
-What he is assume is that they added 1280x1024 with the same FOV as 1280x960. In other words, no coding completed to compensate for FOV when they added "other" resolutions. So what happens is that when you increase the resolution you are essential stretching the FOV (not the resolution) to bring things closer. There was no compensation for decreasing the FOV when you increase the resolution. At one point they disabled renderer.fieldOfView 1 when in fact it should be enabled to allow for some minor adjustment for when you increase your resolution beyond 1280x1024 (my 2 cents).

That's my take on it, could be wrong.

Last edited by ECH (2007-04-20 06:17:23)

2007-04-20 06:10:34

#21

BluRR33: Member; +27|6655|Sweden

I can see deferments

2007-04-20 06:12:42

#22

TigerXtrm: Death by Indecency; +51|6636|Netherlands

Isn't the whole idea of widescreen to crop and stretch and use duct tape to hold it all together? Especially when it comes from EA?

Tiger

2007-04-20 07:01:10

#23

Jemme101: M24 Abuser; +99|6768|Valley of the Dragons

@ECH, nah ok, but we had a similar argument about this on another forum and maybe a link/source could provide some info we could use

2007-04-20 09:34:19

#24

ECH: Member; +50|6910|Some where near you

Ok I've added 1280x960 to the list in the OP
You will clearly see that when you compare:
800x600
1280x796
1280x960
1280x1024

You will clearly see that 1280x1024 offers the best field of view. So if I use a resolution lower then 1280x1024 (in this example, I already explain resolutions higher then 1280x1024) I will actually lose field of view. Therefore, the sweat spot is 1280x1024 if I go lower or higher in resolution.

Is it just me? Well you be the judge and do your own experiments to see if you are in the same boat as me or not. But I have to say that this makes no sense at all.

Last edited by ECH (2007-04-20 09:39:27)

2007-04-20 12:08:30

#25

XxxMerliNxxX: Member; +5|6575

this is perfect news!! I cant wait to hook up my 20" WS.......stupid EA

BF2S Forums 1280x1024 the best resolution for BF2? That makes no sense

max wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Jemme101 wrote:

dead_rac00n wrote:

Moggle wrote:

SargeV1.4 wrote:

SargeV1.4 wrote:

Jemme101 wrote:

SargeV1.4 wrote:

Board footer