low res vs high res
•
16 Jan 2007, 11:42
•
Journals
I've just heard about a high-skiller who uses low-res (although he has the resources for a high-res).
What are the pros and cons of playing like this? I mean, when I've played in 640 (now I am in 800, 30-40 fps), I just couldn't spot opponents further away very well; forget about aiming for their head. When I was home (to be read, had a decent video card), I played way better in 1024. Or was it just because of the constant FPS (76)?
What are the pros and cons of playing like this? I mean, when I've played in 640 (now I am in 800, 30-40 fps), I just couldn't spot opponents further away very well; forget about aiming for their head. When I was home (to be read, had a decent video card), I played way better in 1024. Or was it just because of the constant FPS (76)?
As for ET, I've been playing with the same resolution ever since it came out, well most of the time.
so money = skill
yea, long live the money :P
L.E. oh, and i almost forgot... money = evil :)
and dont forget:
more gline = more fun!
oh i forgot... ur the headcoder of nC
And with 3 I cant see shit.
r_mode 4
++ hz
++ close distance
- far distance
r_mode 6
+ far distance
+ close distance
+ hz
r_mode 8
++ far distance
- amount of hz (and therefore mode 8 especially sucks for close distance imo)
r_mode 6 is perfect for me, enough hz, and good for both short as far distance aiming. but ofcourse it depends on your hardware and personal taste
but really, r_mode 6 is the most liked resolution. why? average hzz (85-120) + really nice visibility + low xhairsize is possible. i like rmode 6 too, just like i like rmode 4 and rmode 3. rmode > 6 is sucky. imo
another problem is that the pixelsize can not change on a lcd, so various resolutions can only be achieved through interpolation, so i lose quality here too. when i use the native resolution it's just superb, but i get shitty fps...