So, let's talk aiming habits

(Gi.Am) #101

Size isn’t increasing with stretching. Example lets say you have a scene with a Skyhammer in it. The Skyhammer is taking up 50% of the scene height.

He will take up the same ammount of space wether you render to 720p or 1080p. Ofcourse a 720p image is smaller compared side by side to a 1080p image. But if you stretch them to the same space, Skyhammer will take up the same 50% screen space. Only thing that changes is that one image has less pixels to describe the scene (lower resolution) potentialy smudging fine details together, and by scaling up making everything either blockier or if the scaling routine does some kind of interpolating blurred.

Aside from this HUD elements could be unaffected because they are images themself and a dev can choose to not scale them up to always take up the same amount of screenspace (to prevent image interpolation blur), those would apear bigger when stretched.

(Vampwood) #102

I actually think this game does scaling correctly with resolutions so you playing at 720p might not look any different than 1080p other than the obviously quality increase. Also the HUD will be bigger since it doesn’t scale with resolution change and is defaulted to 720p IIRC. I’d need to test this though…does anybody else have information on this?[/quote]

Thing is the game didn’t scale for me, I had to use nvidia to do it, whenever I played at 720p it was a small box in the center of my screen.

I’ll do some size comparisons tonight with a ruler and post my results.

(RadicalMac) #103

[quote=“Gi.Am;70903”]Size isn’t increasing with stretching. Example lets say you have a scene with a Skyhammer in it. The Skyhammer is taking up 50% of the scene height.

He will take up the same ammount of space wether you render to 720p or 1080p. Ofcourse a 720p image is smaller compared side by side to a 1080p image. But if you stretch them to the same space, Skyhammer will take up the same 50% screen space. Only thing that changes is that one image has less pixels to describe the scene (lower resolution) potentialy smudging fine details together, and by scaling up making everything either blockier or if the scaling routine does some kind of interpolating blurred.

Aside from this HUD elements could be unaffected because they are images themself and a dev can choose to not scale them up to always take up the same amount of screenspace (to prevent image interpolation blur), those would apear bigger when stretched.[/quote]

You don’t know how GPU scaling works do you?

(Gi.Am) #104

@RadicalMac I think I have a pretty good grasp. It takes the current frame and scales it either up or down to match your current resolution in GPU before displaying it. The alternative is to let windows do it in software on the CPU or switch the actual resolution on your monitor. which in the case of an LCD would mean that the firmware/hardware of the monitor would pretty much do the same thing.

Doesn’t change the fact that an image showing the same scene will look the same wether you rendered that scene in a smaller resolution and stretch it to match your monitor or render it to the monitor resolution directly. one will have less information in it tho.

(Amerika) #105

That’s exactly what I am talking about. However, I am not educated enough on the topic to be certain which is why I asked if anybody has actually tested this. I remember reading somewhere that the Q3 engine and Source will scale image sizes up and down based on the resolution causing you to get a zoom effect when going down in resolution. However, with UE, I think I read that the engine doesn’t do this and still keeps your scene the same size regardless of resolution (or has the option to do this).

I’ll just test it when I get home as I’m curious if I am not remembering correctly or the source wasn’t correct…or perhaps I am just crazy. So before a few of you get a bit ansy with your responses just stop with the insult hurling already. It was an idle question and I’ll answer it for myself later.

(RadicalMac) #106

[quote=“Gi.Am;70918”]@RadicalMac I think I have a pretty good grasp. It takes the current frame and scales it either up or down to match your current resolution in GPU before displaying it. The alternative is to let windows do it in software on the CPU or switch the actual resolution on your monitor. which in the case of an LCD would mean that the firmware/hardware of the monitor would pretty much do the same thing.

Doesn’t change the fact that an image showing the same scene will look the same wether you rendered that scene in a smaller resolution and stretch it to match your monitor or render it to the monitor resolution directly. one will have less information in it tho.[/quote]

Well actually to be fair 1280x720 isn’t much of a difference but since it’s only a certain fraction it has different size in comparison while stretched, but like I said in an earlier comment, the best to use as a stretched resolution is 4:3 1280x960, everything is wider/taller/shorter/etc. You see the most difference without getting horrible visual quality. (i.e. you wont be playing Duke Nukem or Doom at like 4:3 600x400.)

(watsyurdeal) #107

I tried to set it up but I don’t think windows 10 will allow that anymore.

Or I just messed up something in the options menu for Nvidia

(RadicalMac) #108

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;70968”]I tried to set it up but I don’t think windows 10 will allow that anymore.

Or I just messed up something in the options menu[/quote]

Set up what I was talking about?

(watsyurdeal) #109

Yea, I can’t set up a 4:3 res on my 1080p monitor, I can set it in game but it won’t stretch.

(RadicalMac) #110

Are you using Nvidia or AMD? You’ll have to turn GPU scaling on and have it set to either “full screen” or “Aspect Ratio”. And perform scaling on: “Display”

(watsyurdeal) #111

Nvidia, I set it to aspect ratio and tried to set it 1600x1200, and I kept getting black bars.

(RadicalMac) #112

Don’t do 1600x1200. Only recently that option showed up for me about a week ago and when I try to set it, my game just glitches out. Use 1280x960.

(Gi.Am) #113

@Amerika don’t worry no insult flinging here. Just trying to explain whats going on, linear perspective, and the transition from RL/3D to a flat image is a subject I’m kinda fond of.

That Source and Quake handles it differently sounds weird tho only way you would zoom in or out is by changing the FOV or the position of the camera,… after a curtesy check, I think what happend in those engines is that they had horizontal FOV switching resolutions in that case could change the FOV. Not sure on that tho.

@RadicalMac true scaling aspect ratios will stretch the image agreed. 2 little nitpicks tho. only one dimension should get stretched i.e. things get wider. it shouldn’t help with aiming (aside from helping you with not being able to see things) the target gets visually bigger but so does the crosshair. i.e. the target is say 10 pixel wide after stretching it is still 10 pixel wide just that the pixels are wider, the movement form one side of the target to the other stays the same. Not sure if I explained that well.

On second thought scretch all that. Scaling a different aspect ratio could result in a zoom effect. By keeping the original aspect ratio and doing an overscan scaling. That would be indeed a zoom that makes the image uniformaly bigger.
One trade off. You would loose information on the top and bottom (4:3 -> 16:9) or left and right (19:9 -> 4:3) would be the same as lowering your FOV and similar to the horizontal vs vertical FOV thing, people complained about going from 4 : 3 to widescreen (or bad cinema to tv conversion).

Could be interesting if you already bottomed out on minimum FOV and want more.

(Vampwood) #114

So I tested this, I didn’t use a ruler but it was obvious by eyeballing it, that upscaling from 720p did not increase the size of objects, at least from using in game settings.