|
|
|
Member 21 posts
Registered: May 2007
I have samsung 931BW monitor which has the aspect ratio of 10:16. I wanted to set the resolution from 1440x900 to something lower but it doesent strech the image to fullscreen. Here is the picture situation (480x300) : Any idea?
Moderator 1329 posts
Registered: Apr 2006
Yes.
Your graphics cards and the monitor really need to support these resolutions. For example my TFT refuses to display ANY resolution below 640*480 even if the gfx card supports it.
So first thing to do is to go display properties, click advanced tab and search for the "list all modes..." button under the monitor/graphics adaptor tab. If the resolution is supported, then you can try using it with the client you are using. Also don't forget to enable monitor scaling from your TFT or video card drivers, otherwise you're not getting full screen on any other resolution than the native one.
Member 21 posts
Registered: May 2007
I checked it out and u were right, my card (GF6600GT) doesent support resolution under 640x480.
Scaling still doesent work with any resolution under 1440x900, nvidia control panel gives the option of scaling, or fixed aspect ratio scaling but It doesent make a difference... :/
What I want is either to have a 10:16 ratio resoluton (native) to be scaled fullscreen, or a normal 4:3 like 640x480 to be streched with a fixed aspect ratio. With the latter one I would have two black stripes one the two sides of the screen, but that I dont mind... I searched a lot a forums on the net but so far couldnt find a solution, althought this could be an issue with any game.
Why I need this is for fps increase.
Any idea what I could do?
Moderator 1329 posts
Registered: Apr 2006
Try other (older/newer) drivers if there is no option for scaling in the TFT menus. The newest NVIDIA drivers seem to be broken on the scaling part, at least some of the releases are. Since you have 6600GT I'd recommend trying 169.21 WHQL or 94.24 WHQL. You might go as low as 81.98 WHQL if needed or use 84.43 betas.
Member 21 posts
Registered: May 2007
I tried 8 different drivers including the ones u listed but it still doesent scale the picture, even if it does something its not right I think I will just give up, it seems there is no solution to this... Anyway thanks a lot for the help!
Administrator 384 posts
Registered: Dec 2006
To be honest you are likely to be better off using native resolution as this should help to minimise input lag. When running non-native resolutions, there is typically a small delay while the monitor applies scaling to output the desired image.
Obviously this is assuming that you don't run into framerate issues, but I would hope that a 6600gt can push 1440x900 at stable fps in GLQW.
Member 685 posts
Registered: Jul 2007
I can run 16:10, 1440 x 900 on a GF6600 TD, not even a GT (!), on a 19" Acer tft. So if you're sure your monitor supports the resolution, it should be possible.
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
Just got myself a 931BW 19'Wide .. and i'm wondering how to get it properly set.. despite all reading i did on these forums and wiki.qwdrama, i still got some doubts about it.. i was using these settings: vid_mode "8" vid_customwidth "" vid_customheight "" vid_conwidth "400" vid_conheight "300" fov 105 and converted to these: vid_mode -1 vid_customwidth 1440 vid_customheight 900 vid_conwidth 720 vid_conheight 450 fov 112.53 (accordint to the math above) its cool. . but its not really as i used to play.. i wanna have the exact setup i used to, but if a little higher resolution, gaining some extra viewing on the sides.. tried to set the original vid_conheight "300" and vid_conwidth "400" from previous setup, but then i get image a bit too strached and not as balanced as it should be.. since it is meant for 4:3 resolution.. wich vid_conheight / vid_conwidth shouldi use to get my qw to run just as it used to at 1280x1024 but gaining some extra view space? i've just tried one last different config that was: vid_conwidth 640 vid_conheight 400 looks nice.. but shouldn't vid_conheight remain 300 ? accordint to this: * For 16:10 monitor you need to change the default aspect ratio by editing vid_conwidth and vid_conheight. * By default vid_conwidth is 640 and vid_conheight is 480 * Use the following formula to calculate new vid_conwidth:
16/10=x/480 x=480*16/10 x=768
* Now you have values for 16:10 aspect ratio (768/480) * Use vid_conwidth 768 and vid_conheight 480 where am I doing wrong?
Member 228 posts
Registered: Mar 2007
con=console. Has nothing to do with the playing FOV afaik.
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
con_ commands are related to console.. vid_con* comands are related to conchars i guess.. and it totally changes all aspects of the game/resolution.. getting it smaller, fatter, or whatever...
changing vid_con values is vital to anyone that wants to get their 16:10 resolution to work properly at QW....
I just need some help to get that right.. its cool now.. but i think it may get just a little bit more improved.. once i define wich values i can set for my 1440 x 900 resolution to act as old 4:3 ( 1280x1024 / with aspects of 400x300 ) .. only gaining the new Wide-Fov advantage.
Member 228 posts
Registered: Mar 2007
I cant see where conwidth and conheight change anything but the console resolution. Fateful, are you saying it effects the customwidth and customheight also?
I sure don't see it.
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
it does.. and that's the reason why it is stated as a vital part for your vid setup / wide screen settings as shown here : http://wiki.qwdrama.com/Widescreen_Guide and why i noticed that problem before: font size messes up with resolution ?
Member 89 posts
Registered: Jul 2007
as far as i know you need widescreen res for the console to get the right aspect
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
as far as i know you need widescreen res for the console to get the right aspect yeah.. and that's the whole point here.. i'm trying to figure wich wide resolution FOR the conchars i should use to get the best image result for my 1440x900.. considering that i like stuff big as def's config.. ( width 400 height 300 )
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
Just had de insight that was missing.. I took qwdrama's wiki as an exemple and forgot that in that exemple the WIDE screen is a 22' and it does not decrease in height such as my 19'.. so i should be doing the maths for both sizes .. to make that easier i put some simple rule of three.. 400 - 1280 x - 1440 x = 1440x400 / 1280 x= 450 300 - 1024 x - 900 x = 300x900 / 1024 x= 263 so i guess my new vid_con* for that new resolution should be 450x263 ... well.. lemme go try that.
Member 21 posts
Registered: May 2007
I used to have these settings:
fov "119.47" vid_conheight "300" vid_conwidth "480" vid_customheight "900" vid_customwidth "1440"
I dont know how u got from 105 fov 112.53... With the formula its 114.80! ( FOV=2*atan((16/10*3/4)*tan(105/2) = 2*atan((48/40)*tan52.5) ...)
Concerning conheight and conwidth, I think the main point is that u use the same 16:10 aspect ratio.
Member 66 posts
Registered: Feb 2006
omg its hangtime! hello!
Member 21 posts
Registered: May 2007
Just had de insight that was missing.. I took qwdrama's wiki as an exemple and forgot that in that exemple the WIDE screen is a 22' and it does not decrease in height such as my 19'.. so i should be doing the maths for both sizes .. to make that easier i put some simple rule of three.. 400 - 1280 x - 1440 x = 1440x400 / 1280 x= 450 300 - 1024 x - 900 x = 300x900 / 1024 x= 263 so i guess my new vid_con* for that new resolution should be 450x263 ... well.. lemme go try that. Since u used 400x300 which is 4:3 when u want this in 16:10 its 480x300 .. 16/10 = 1.6 , 480/300 = 1.6 > same aspect 450/263 = 1.711... its definetaly not good
Member 121 posts
Registered: May 2006
yeah.. i kinda figured that this setup i mentioned above wasn't good.. so i set something like vid_conheight "300" vid_conwidth "448" and tought it was nice.... ur setup seems right.. altought i guess im getting a weird feeling from the widescreen.. feeling that it could have a bit more of height .....
do we really loose height compared to a 17' 4:3 ?
|
|
|
|