• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does it hurt to play games on LCD's not in native res.?

Not a bit. The video card and monitor just scale up lower resolutions by creating in-between pixels to fill the gaps (a lot like anti-aliasing).

Depending on the resoltion you pick you mght see a little blurriness, just try both 1024x768 and 800x600 to see which works best on your LCD.
 
I haven't played the game myself, but I'm pretty sure that there's a file in My Documents\LOTR Batle For Middle Earth Data (or something similar) called options.ini. Open it up and change the two numbers after "Resolution = " to 1280 1024. It should work, not sure though.
 
It will only hurt the visual quality and if the scaling is done on the VPU/CPU side then it could presumably hurt performance a tidge too but not if by monitor. One may be better than the other quality wise. However, in this case of 960 on a 1024 max panel, the solution is simple: set the monitor and/or graphics not to scale. Sadly, many monitors lack the option and in the case of analog, the graphics option may not be available either. With NVIDIA select centered output under FPD and with ATI disable scale image to panel size under the FPD button on the Displays tab.
 
Hmm since its from EA Games go to My Documents. Than the LOTR folder than Options and it should eitehr say 1280-960 or Height = xxx length = xxx. Unless EA has changed since C&C Generals. C&C Generals didnt support 640x480 but I edit the config....same with FarCry
 
My 2001fp still looks great at lower than native, at least in Half-Life 2 which is the only game I've really run much below 1600x1200.
 
Originally posted by: everman
My 2001fp still looks great at lower than native, at least in Half-Life 2 which is the only game I've really run much below 1600x1200.
Click to expand...

ditto!!!
 
It depends. My 19" has a native of 1280x1024 and for games that don't have that I can play at 1280x960 and not really tell much of a difference. There was one old one I tried to run at 800x600 once though and it looked like ass.
 
An LCD will look best running at either it's native resolution, or half of it.

IE 2001fp has a native resolution of 1600x1200. Run it at 1600x1200 or 800x600.

Some of the refresh forcing programs are able to remove resolution modes for a given monitor - I don't know how nVidia graphics card behave, but when a game tries to run a mode I've deleted, a gray box appears around the game graphics to fill in the rest of the resolution.

This behavior is observed on a Radeon 9700 Pro with Radeon Omega drivers 2.5.36b. I have a fixed frequency second monitor (1152x864@75Hz), so all modes but that are deleted and everything works fine.
 
So what if a monitors native resoultion is 1280x1024 and you play a game in 1600x1200 does it upscale the same way it would downscale to 1024x768.

My Sony e400 has a native res of 1280x1024 and I play many games at 1600x1200....Glad I saw this post I was wondering this the other day
 
Originally posted by: YabbyU
So what if a monitors native resoultion is 1280x1024 and you play a game in 1600x1200 does it upscale the same way it would downscale to 1024x768.

My Sony e400 has a native res of 1280x1024 and I play many games at 1600x1200....Glad I saw this post I was wondering this the other day
Click to expand...

There's no reason to run 1600x1200 if the LCD's resolution is lower; your video card is just rentering pixels that the monitor will drop. Try running your desktop at 1600x1200 with your monitor (turn off clear-type too) and look at what happens.
 
YabbyU, that's clazy. Performance suffers for no benefit and yer prolly vertically stretching the image as well.
 
Originally posted by: TerryMathews
An LCD will look best running at either it's native resolution, or half of it.

IE 2001fp has a native resolution of 1600x1200. Run it at 1600x1200 or 800x600.

Some of the refresh forcing programs are able to remove resolution modes for a given monitor - I don't know how nVidia graphics card behave, but when a game tries to run a mode I've deleted, a gray box appears around the game graphics to fill in the rest of the resolution.

This behavior is observed on a Radeon 9700 Pro with Radeon Omega drivers 2.5.36b. I have a fixed frequency second monitor (1152x864@75Hz), so all modes but that are deleted and everything works fine.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks good at any resolution not just 800x600. Ask anyone who owns one. Different LCD's are better at scaling than others.

To the guy who said going from 1280x1024 to 1280 x 960 looked like crap is because you are actually changing the aspect ratio.... thus smushing the image... as will any 5:4 screen being forced to a 4:3 resolution...
 
only thing it hurts is your sense of being treated fairly😛 why they didn't support such a common resolution who the f*ck knows? now u get to see your expensive lcd's image quality waste as it interpolates some other resolution that it obviously doesn't divide equally into. course this also wastes your video cards capabilities, its all being turned into sludge. course the higher your lcd resolution compared to the game res, the more pixels it has to play with...the better it might come out. if its close.. ick.
 
Originally posted by: JBT
Originally posted by: TerryMathews
An LCD will look best running at either it's native resolution, or half of it.

IE 2001fp has a native resolution of 1600x1200. Run it at 1600x1200 or 800x600.
Click to expand...
Actually it looks good at any resolution not just 800x600. Ask anyone who owns one. Different LCD's are better at scaling than others.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that it will look good - the higher the resolution (or more accurately the higher the DPI), the less you are able to notice the imperfect scaling. That said, I said best. Simple mathmatics dictates that 1600x1200 LCD will look best running that, or 800x600 (or 400x300). It's a simple matter of integer division - the LCD has no ability to display half a pixel, so the native resolution must be evenly divisible by the desired resolution to produce the best results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top