DescentBB

here's the thing. My monitor is 1920x1080

I set the res and aspect via line commands: -width 1920 -height 1080 -aspect 16:9

That's a direct cut and paste.

However, in game it looks like the monitor got put in a vise grip. That is, the image is horribly distorted veritcally.

There was a thread that discussed this very thing, but I can't seem to find it now.

Thx.

p.s. Alter-Fox .. that's why I bailed out of that game .. my visuals were making my nauseous.

First of all, people that cut and paste are lame. Secondly if you have a 1080p monitor you're clearly compensating for something. Now take your fancy monitor and your ineffectual command lines and stick them you-know-where you no-flying, pusillanimous, pack-dropping lowlife!

...Oh I'm sorry. this is abuse. You want the Tech Forum right down the hall.

You got the -aspect command line wrong: use -aspect 1.78 instead.

I never change resolution to avoid mess up. I use only only 1280x960 in my 1920x1080 LCD.

I hope someone creates a source port for Descent 3 like Zico did.

why would you use anything but the native res for a LCD monitor?

Thx Krom! , can you point to the \"why\" behind that? If not, no worries.

LOL Sarge ... (he said \"pusillanimous\")
(thx!)

Paskiewicz. Yeah, but we first need the the source eh? Mr. Bently is currently in possession of that and is \"working\" on the 1.5 patch; after which, he said he might release it.

Duper wrote:Paskiewicz. Yeah, but we first need the the source eh? Mr. Bently is currently in possession of that and is "working" on the 1.5 patch; after which, he said he might release it.

Patch 1.5 exploded my computer up into thousand pieces because the patch isn't finished fully.

MDs, call me 'Glowhyena' please.

i meant a finished version.

The 1.5 you loaded was a beta that was released a long time ago. And yes, it is buggy.

Duper wrote:Thx Krom! , can you point to the "why" behind that? If not, no worries.

He who divides 16 by 9 shall be enlightened.

AceCombat wrote:why would you use anything but the native res for a LCD monitor?

1. Performance. If I had a 1900x1200, but my game ran choppy at that resolution, I'd lower it.

2. Because in Descent3 at any aspect wider than 4:3, you LOSE some vertical field-of-view (e.g. your up/down view angle gets reduced). Sucks, but that's how it is.


Personally, I have a 1680x1050 LCD. However, I play at 1400x1050 (4:3 aspect, with black bars on the sides), because otherwise I lose some up/down view.

The loss of view from switching to a non 4:3 aspect is pretty much the only real reason left to run D3 at something other than native these days. Performance is pretty much a non-issue for any computer less than 6 years old anymore. Anything built for mid-range performance built in the last 3 years would probably be able to handle D3 at 2560x1600 resolution without issue.

thats what i was wondering, any of this new hardware should beable to run D3 easily.


at least i still run a 4:3 CRT C220P IBM


oh Krom guess what.......


i now have my very own eVGA 460GTX FTW Edition 1GB GF104 based GPU card! i gotta install D3 and see how it works on this machine...

Krom wrote:

Duper wrote:Thx Krom! , can you point to the "why" behind that? If not, no worries.

He who divides 16 by 9 shall be enlightened.

ooOOoohhh...

what a weird convention. all the same, thanks.

Actually it makes sense and is a bit forward thinking since D3 can support pretty much any aspect in existence, so if they make yet another aspect monitor D3 will be able to support it without needing any weird aspect hacks like a lot of games do. Granted the only different aspect to think of these days would be a triple monitor setup and D3 on that would be vertically clipped so badly it would definitely require a FOV hack. Doing so could give someone an unfair advantage, but as long as anyone could buy three monitors and use the hack I don't think people would complain.

The common ratios for most monitor types are:
1.78 for 16:9
1.6 for 16:10/8:5
1.33 for 4:3 (default)
1.25 for 5:4 (1280x1024 LCDs).