+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: What resolution do you prefer?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member vurun is on a distinguished road vurun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    520

    What resolution do you prefer?

    I have a 24" Iiyama with 1920*1200. Tried to alter res but picture gets all blurry.
    What resolution do u use?/What do u think is best for QL?
    Any known resolution pro players are using?
    Is there any advantage of using extra low res, like 800*600 (AFAIK, many strong CS players use it)

    Just being curious

    P.S. Can I run QL at smth like 2560x1440?
    Last edited by vurun; 01-29-2013 at 05:58 AM.
    VG278HE@144Hz + EC2evo + Manticor + Lycosa+ SS Siberia v2

    QL doesn't need more tiers, it needs more players (С)

  2. #2
    Senior Member megaman3 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    800x600, for life and since years before it got popular (same about wmo+qckheavy combo for that matter). I'm just completely used to it on this specific type of fps games, but don't have any problem with the others in different games (lets say black ops 2)

    What pros use is their liking, which is mostly 4:3 resolutions (640x480 included), or the monitor's native resolution (which is the optimum in lcd screens)
    Last edited by megaman3; 01-29-2013 at 06:13 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolzy View Post
    Real, true CA is a game of chess

  3. #3
    Senior Member vurun is on a distinguished road vurun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    520
    So what's the advantage, in your opinion?
    VG278HE@144Hz + EC2evo + Manticor + Lycosa+ SS Siberia v2

    QL doesn't need more tiers, it needs more players (С)

  4. #4
    Senior Member megaman3 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    I know there's a technical explanation somewhere lol, can't remember it but it isn't only related to dpi.

    Changing 4:3 to 16:10 or something does change sensitivity though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolzy View Post
    Real, true CA is a game of chess

  5. #5
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,392
    Quote Originally Posted by megaman3 View Post
    Changing 4:3 to 16:10 or something does change sensitivity though.
    I disagree.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,392
    A resolution that handles 125 fps and 120+ Hz. That narrows things down.

    The other issue is aspect ratio. 4:3, 5:4, 16:10 or 16:9.

    Here I suspect that it is similar to crosshair size, some would say a small size is more precise, while a large size helps a person "chunk" the screen geometry better.

    I feel like 16:10/16:9 are the precise versions, and 5:4/4:3 the "chunk geometry" versions.

    These two extremes used to be clearly demonstrated by Cypher and Rapha. Rapha always prefers a small crosshair, high fov, high resolution and 16:10 or 16:9.

    Cypher seems to prefer 4:3, larger crosshairs, low fov (93) and lower resolutions. They both are world champion level players, often taking top 2 in tournaments.

    They've since brought their settings closer together clouding the issue, but I still think it demonstrates that perhaps it is not just a matter of preference, but also one of style.

    Personally I think 4:3, lower resolutions are better. I wonder if 1280x1024 on a 5:4 display might be better still, or even a 1:1 if such a thing existed. Wish I could test that out.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Dr_Mr_Ed will become famous soon enough Dr_Mr_Ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    954
    I've been using: seta r_mode "17" // 1280x1024
    My LCD is 1920/1080 native, but this one looks good. There's something funny about the lower 16:9 resolutions that don't work right for me fullscreen.

    Honestly, I just tried a bunch when I got a new screen and picked something that filled the screen properly, and then tweaked my mouse sensitivity to feel comfortable again. I haven't touched the resolution since then. Like anything else in Quake, it's more important you're comfortable with it versus what any random pro player uses.

  8. #8
    Member YourDead is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    93
    I accidently setup my screen size in QLPrism larger then my monitor supported
    and it fubared...would not start.

    I had to reinstall everything, so be carefull.

  9. #9
    Senior Member NEPHIREM is on a distinguished road NEPHIREM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Varazdin, Croatia
    Posts
    306
    I use 1650x1080 @60Hz. I could switch to lower resolution, but max refresh rate my monitor allows is 75Hz... Is there any significant difference between 60 and 75Hz? Should I switch to 1440x900 @75Hz?
    Last edited by NEPHIREM; 01-30-2013 at 11:32 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member AXxXxO is on a distinguished road AXxXxO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,303
    800x600 120Hz CRT 4:3? 100 fov
    i like it and i stick with it....
    Quote Originally Posted by Downlink View Post
    Add A Killcam Maybe?
    Only available for COD MW3 owners!Coming soon i next update....

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts