Colour Depth

[jonesey2k]

Indeed, my 9800GTX earns its keep nicely by running all games at my native resolution of 1920x1080
My old 6800GT would have been reduced to a slideshow!

[DaveB]

Out of interest why are people running at anything other than the TFT's native resolution?

Well Skip.. as it happens, 1280x1024 IS the native res of my Neovo F-417 TFT

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[nigelb]

Hi Nigel

Well.. you seem to be running FS9 at a lower res than you need to (and the opposite way round to Peter.. quote.. My Desktop is running at 1280x960x32 and FS9 is at 1600x1200x32 unquote).. but if you're happy with it, then don't worry ;-) As an aside.. I can't recall hearing about anyone running FS9 NOT fullscreen which as Peter points out is how it is designed to run.. that is fullscreen. FSX has been @rse about face in that I have seen better performance windowed and to get an outside prog to run alongside it on a separate monitor, the only way I've found to do this is by using windowed mode :roll:
Anyway.. by having my desktop and FS9 (fullscreen) at the same res, the change from desktop to FS is seemless. If I had a 21" monitor.. I'd go for a higer res but 1152x864 on the 19 gives me the same visual effect as the next higer res (as is Peters) on a 21" (CRT). I'd not be able to see the icons if it were any higher on the 19

BTW.. all the Samsung tft's I've seen have been crackers so I can understand why you're happy with the one you have ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Hi Dave

I do run in full screen mode - window mode is rubbish and the only time I ever have used it is when making a flatten polygon where I needed to switch back and forth in a hurry between FS and whatever I was using to do that job.

I might try running FS at a higher resolution, but doesn't it distort the gauges on panels - especially round gauges? Also many panels state they are designed for 1024x768. I'll give it a try and answer my own question!

I did a bit of research before I brought my monitor, and Samsung came up fairly well in my price range in the reviews I read. Maybe the US models are different from the UK models - the voltage is different for a start but I know that should not make any difference in picture quality. I know there are better monitors out there but probably not for $170 (after a $30 rebate). My old CRT died right at Christmas so I really couldn't spring for anything more expensive. Anyway, that's my story and I am sticking to it! ;-)

Nigel²

[DaveB]

Hi Nige

I understand what you're saying mate. For my part, the 19" monitor is a little big for 1024x768 which is, I guess, the natural res for a 17" monitor (as 800x600 was for a 15"). 1152x864 is the next natural step up and looks no different on the 19" to 1024x768 on a 17 so for CRT's (which tend not to be widescreen).. the standard resolutions fit proportionally each monitor size. TBH, my 17" TFT is only half an inch smaller diagonally than the 19" CRT but is sharper due to the increase in pixels. However, I prefer the warmer.. less sharp look of the CRT for everything that doesn't include reading text.
As for flightsim.. I'd have thought widescreen tft's suffer more distortion.. especially panels unless the model you are flying has a purpose built widescreen panel

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[jonesey2k]

Running in widescreen doesn't affect VC's and that is what i use almost exclusively these days.

When I used to use a CRT, I would run the resolution that offers the highest refresh rate. Ie, I'd go for 1024*768 at 85hz rather then 1280*960 at 60hz. But that's just me as I cant stand flickering.

[DaveB]

Running in widescreen doesn't affect VC's

I think that goes without saying mate and for lovers of VC's.. widescreen is probably the monitor of choice. However.. if like me you're a die hard 2D fan, it's a recipe for what Nigel was hinting at above.. a bitmap of a given size being stretched to fit the wider monitor and all associated parts of it (gauges) stretched accordingly. Not a pretty sight :roll: ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[nigelb]

Well, I tried running FS at 1440x900 and so far I like it. I can't detect the distortion I thought I would see - maybe a slight amount but nothing I can't live with. The plus side is numbers and lettering on gauges are a lot sharper, and it looks better than having the black areas surrounding the view with 1024x768. It may be wishfull thinking on my part but I think FPS improved somewhat. I rarely use virtual cockpits and still prefer 2D. Thanks Dave for encouraging that experiment.

Of course, I still don't really know the answer to my original question about colour depth - at the moment I set it too 32 bit on the theory that graphics cards work harder to render 16 bit depth form what I have read.

Nigel²

[speedbird591]

I got fed up with cyberbrat coveting my laptop and getting annoying. So I bought myself a new one and gave him the old one. I've bumped it here because it's got a 16:9 ratio widescreen which is more extreme than the standard laptop. It's got a resolution of 1366x768, which really pulls the 2D panel apart but ,as Jonesey suggests, it doesn't make any difference to the VC. I'd go so far as to say it enhances it with a wider angle of view. Although at first glance the 2D looks weird, it only takes a few minutes to not notice it. I now find that a 2D panel on a squarish monitor looks very cramped and I would be reluctant to go back. I suppose I'm saying that the aspect ratio gives such a wide view that the distortion of the instruments could be considered a reasonable trade-off. Though there will be some who disagree ...

Anyway, I just thought you might like to see the effect.




Ian

[nigelb]

Ian, thanks for your response and the screenshot. I am finding the same thing with 1440x900 = same ratio as your new laptop. In a few minutes I get used to it and anywhere there is lettering or numbers - it is a lot easier to read, which is a big plus at my age. ;-)

I think my original assesment of FPS was probably off - they are a bit lower than with 4:9 ratio and i am guessing it is because there are more pixels on the screen.

Nigel²