Screen resolution

[Zanza]

I consider to reinstall Victoria, but I need to know which screen resolutions it supports first. Does it only supported some fixed rates (e.g. 1024x768, 1280x1024 etc.) or can you set whatever you want? My laptop has a 16:10 screen ratio, so I would need a 1280x800 resolution.

 

[noddysseus]

I consider to reinstall Victoria, but I need to know which screen resolutions it supports first. Does it only supported some fixed rates (e.g. 1024x768, 1280x1024 etc.) or can you set whatever you want? My laptop has a 16:10 screen ratio, so I would need a 1280x800 resolution.

Only the fixed ones you state, as far as I know.

 

[Zanza]

Well, I tried it and put the numbers into settings.cfg, but the game crashed. Does someone know what to change in the exe-file to make it work? Apparently people figured out how to do it with HoI2/Doomsday.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

The only thing I've seen around here that might help you is this guy's sig:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/member.php?u=18537

 

[Sgt Bash]

My best advice is to ask Castellon in the Tech Services section above.

 

[Zanza]

My best advice is to ask Castellon in the Tech Services section above.

Well, changing the resolution to something not supported by Paradox is hardly a tech support question. The game runs on the computer just fine, it just looks like shit because of the warped resolution.

The only thing I've seen around here that might help you is this guy's sig:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/member.php?u=18537

I'll look into that. Looks promising. I'll report back if I can get it to work.

EDIT: Couldn't figure out how it works. Always crashed... I got the windowed mode tool to work though. At least I can play the game in a non-warped resolution now, even if it is not full screen. Perhaps the game only supports the normal 4:3 screen ratios?

 

[jdrou]

EDIT: Couldn't figure out how it works. Always crashed... I got the windowed mode tool to work though. At least I can play the game in a non-warped resolution now, even if it is not full screen. Perhaps the game only supports the normal 4:3 screen ratios?

I know with the other games unknown gives res mod info for 1280x800 mode didn't work well. When I do widescreen modes (1920x1200) it works OK as long as I don't use the mouse to scroll the map down. Arrow keys work though.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

Why do you "need" 1280x800? Can't the laptop run 1024x758 or 1280x1024 (the other one Vic supports, I think)?

I just bought a monitor yesterday, and considered going with widescreen, but decided against it. Great for movies (which I won't be watching on my computer), but other than that, I just wasn't sure about how much use I'd get out of it, with compatibility issues like this. There's just not too many applications (games) I play, that would not use it, so, why pay more...

Anyway, I'd imagine that if you somehow did get Victoria to 'stretch' to 1280x800, it would be exactly that - stretched. Simply because, like so many others, the game isn't designed to accomodate a 16:9 format.

16:9 is what movies use. The fact that TV networks now support it, since many people have bought widescreen TVs (for movies), is nice, so it fills up their Tv when they watch TV... but that doesn't mean the whole world is converting to 16:9, especially PC applications. So, you may be asking for something that's just simply out of place here.

 

[Zanza]

Why do you "need" 1280x800? Can't the laptop run 1024x758 or 1280x1024 (the other one Vic supports, I think)?

1280x800 is the native resolution of the display. Other resolutions look crappy. E.g. if you display 1024x768 pixels on a 1280x800 display you will have to stretch the pixels horizontally by a factor of 1.25, but vertically only by a factor of 1.04. Obviously that warps the image and makes it look horrible, especially fonts.

Anyway, I'd imagine that if you somehow did get Victoria to 'stretch' to 1280x800, it would be exactly that - stretched. Simply because, like so many others, the game isn't designed to accomodate a 16:9 format.

Well, I would be happy if the game would just show a bit more of the map and everything else just stays the same. That's how it seems to work for other resolutions (e.g. 1280x1024) . I don't expect the menus etc. to stretch. That's possible however as Galactic Civilisations II demonstrates. And I think it is the future as producers can't rely on their customers having a specific screen ratio. Applications will have to support whatever screen resolution the customer has. Shooters do that just fine already I think.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

1280x800 is the native resolution of the display. Other resolutions look crappy. E.g. if you display 1024x768 pixels on a 1280x800 display you will have to stretch the pixels horizontally by a factor of 1.25, but vertically only by a factor of 1.04. Obviously that warps the image and makes it look horrible, especially fonts.

"Horrible"? Really? I've never experienced anything that bad with LCD (even somewhat aged) monitors, nor CRTs. Maybe my eyes just aren't keen enough to notice. But, I've used 19" CRTs, LCDs, and I just bought a brand new 20.1" LCD, plus I've used projectors, etc. Never seen such a problem with changing resolutions, ranging from 640x480, up to 1600x1200 (even higher, for projectors). I wonder if maybe the real culprit is your onboard video card in the laptop. I always insist on having a high-quality card, maybe that's made all the difference.

Well, I would be happy if the game would just show a bit more of the map and everything else just stays the same. That's how it seems to work for other resolutions (e.g. 1280x1024) . I don't expect the menus etc. to stretch. That's possible however as Galactic Civilisations II demonstrates. And I think it is the future as producers can't rely on their customers having a specific screen ratio. Applications will have to support whatever screen resolution the customer has. Shooters do that just fine already I think.

Hey, what's wrong with more screen? I would think eventually over time, what you just said should happen. But right now, (I know, since I just got done with some extensive shopping for monitors), that the widescreens are still sort of a premium... a different animal, so to speak. There's less selection, and overall I chose to go 4:3 to valid reasons. But, as for the future, perhaps I've already bought my last 4:3 screen. However, I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't think it would have a reasonable life span, starting now. But, I am aware of what might happen, and my long-term plan, from the beginning, is to ultimately use this monitor as an auxillary screen, in my "Stock Trading Operations Center" (STOC). But, main thing was, to finally get away from the CRT.

Anyway, good luck.

 

[Gwalcmai]

"Horrible"? Really? I've never experienced anything that bad with LCD (even somewhat aged) monitors, nor CRTs. Maybe my eyes just aren't keen enough to notice. But, I've used 19" CRTs, LCDs, and I just bought a brand new 20.1" LCD, plus I've used projectors, etc. Never seen such a problem with changing resolutions, ranging from 640x480, up to 1600x1200 (even higher, for projectors). I wonder if maybe the real culprit is your onboard video card in the laptop. I always insist on having a high-quality card, maybe that's made all the difference.

Maybe the fact that you are talking about 4:3 ratios while the OP was asking about widescreen has something to do with it not looking horrible in yours, more than the quality of the display and adapter.

Also, different people might have slightly different definitions of horrible. HOI2's fixed 1024x768 looks a bit kooky in my LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024. Uneven resizing, and the resizing itself, makes the image a bit blurry, especially the text. But I don't mind all that much, and play it just fine, while other people think the game looks horrible when that happens. Even the brightness and contrast settings can make some amount of difference as to how people see display problems.

 

[Zanza]

It looks a bit like this. A bit blurrier though.

 

[MarkShot]

I just finished evaluating a high end 21.3" LCD as a replacement for my failing 21" CRT. Looking at EU2, Victoria and other games at resolutions other than 1600x1200 (native) ... I came to the following conclusion:

Any interpolated resolutions (expecially for fine text) on an LCD (even the most expensive) will not be equal to the clarity of a decent CRT of the same screen dimensions. It was too bad, since I desparately would like to switch from a 85LB to 25LB display unit on my desk given the difficulty of moving around the former.

Of course, at native resolution nothing beats an LCD. Now, you can always play your games with no interpolation at 1:1, but then you end up with a postage stamp on your big monitor. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a big display to begin with.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

I just finished evaluating a high end 21.3" LCD as a replacement for my failing 21" CRT. Looking at EU2, Victoria and other games at resolutions other than 1600x1200 (native) ... I came to the following conclusion:

Any interpolated resolutions (expecially for fine text) on an LCD (even the most expensive) will not be equal to the clarity of a decent CRT of the same screen dimensions. It was too bad, since I desparately would like to switch from a 85LB to 25LB display unit on my desk given the difficulty of moving around the former.

Of course, at native resolution nothing beats an LCD. Now, you can always play your games with no interpolation at 1:1, but then you end up with a postage stamp on your big monitor. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a big display to begin with.

I just bought a 20.1" LCD (Samsung 204B to be exact), w/ native resolution 1600x1200. So, you're telling me I won't be able to read the text in Victoria on it?

Just when I thought technological advancement was finally getting it's act together. Wake me up when it's 2012. Maybe then, we'll finally have 'display issues' figured out.

 

[MarkShot]

You will certainly be able to read the interpolated text, but it is not going to be as sharp as it would be on a CRT of the same size.

Or you could skip interpolation and your text will be very sharp, but the image is only going to use maybe 50% (just guess estimating) of your screen area and have a big black border around it.

My point is with a 21" CRT, you are going to get a crisper image of most games full screen with the exception of those that are running at 1600x1200 or 800x600.

The big improvement that LCDs have made in terms of gaming over the last five years is response time. When I tested the NEC LCD2190UXi (which is pretty much the top of the line in this field for general use), I didn't really see any problems with handling moving scenes. {Of course, that was never an issue for CRTs to begin with.}

 

[MarkShot]

Final comment:

So, if I only did technical work and/or played games at a native resolution, I would definitely prefer an LCD. However, given that I play games (a lot of inflexible old ones) at many different resolutions, I think I am going to stick with a CRT.

 

[Zanza]

Final comment:

So, if I only did technical work and/or played games at a native resolution, I would definitely prefer an LCD. However, given that I play games (a lot of inflexible old ones) at many different resolutions, I think I am going to stick with a CRT.

CRTs aren't really an option for laptop users though Oh, and I doubt that there will be CRTs in the future. I don't think that there is really a market for them anymore soon. LCD/TFT are better for working and good LCD/TFTs are also excellent for gaming. It's only some old computer games that have fixed resolutions. As soon as those are gone, there is no reason, not to use a LCD/TFT for computer games.

 

[unmerged(17277)]

There's some things I don't understand about this thread.

I have a 17" LCD monitor, native resolution 1280*1024. When I play games at 1024*768, I don't get any of the "stretching" you guys are mentioning. Nor does the game fail to cover the entire screen. It covers all 17 inches of screen, with no distortion. Everything looks crystal clear.

Do I just have a really good LCD monitor, or what? I doubt it--it was the cheapest monitor of its size I could find at Best Buy. But is my monitor, nevertheless, doing something others' monitors generally can not do?

(Meanwhile, on my old CRT, switching between 1024*768 amd 1280*1024, in either direction, did cause stretching and distortion, and I always had to mess around with my monitor's native vertical and horizontal stretch settings. Just a really crappy CRT monitor then?)

Also, I've played around with a few widescreen laptops. In each one, there was an option to have lower resolutions display in just a portion of the screen, instead of stretching to fit the whole screen.

Is this not available in the OP's laptop? Is this not standard for widescreen laptops?

I've been thinking about getting a laptop, so if I need to watch for this, then I need to know to watch for it!

 

[MarkShot]

Well, I agree that this issue becomes largely irrelevant if you play newly released games. I have quite a few olders games that are simply inflexible.

The other issue with the LCD I just tested at 1600x1200 is that some of the games which I have which could support that:

(1) Even displayed native and thus very sharp on a 21.3" LCD will have text that is too small for my eyes.

(2) My current hardware simply cannot push all the extra pixels around around at that resolution.

Well, Victoria and EU2 looked find on my 15" laptop LCD at the native 1024x768!

 

[wryun]

I have a 17" LCD monitor, native resolution 1280*1024. When I play games at 1024*768, I don't get any of the "stretching" you guys are mentioning. Nor does the game fail to cover the entire screen. It covers all 17 inches of screen, with no distortion. Everything looks crystal clear.

If you don't mind the image quality, then it's not a problem...

However, do the calculations. 1280x1024 is a different aspect ratio (horizontal pixels vs. vertical pixels) to 1024x768, so slight distortion is most definitely there, though nowhere near as extreme as in the 1280x800 case. This is _not_ the problem of black areas appearing on the screen (which I think you were talking about with the CRT); in fact, it's the opposite, in that you should have black areas for the image to appear with its correct aspect ratio.

What most people find more of an issue, though, is that LCDs have very clearly defined pixels, and unless your chosen resolution divides equally into the LCD's native resolution there is no way it can be represented accurately. In essence, some pixels on the smaller resolution have to occupy two pixels on the higher resolution, whilst others occupy one: the kind of effect you'd get if you stretched an 1024x768 image into 1280x1024 in a graphics program. Now some monitors - just like some graphics programs - can do this more intelligently than others, and - just like with mp3s and CDs - some people don't really notice the difference.

If you don't notice the difference, don't worry about it. And let the silly people who do worry about it spend extra money on fancy graphics cards to run games at high resolutions, or strain their eyes with CRT monitors

Of course, the _real_ fanatics about image quality argue about whether anti-aliased (edge smoothed) fonts are better than 'normal' fonts, but it's really a waste of time going there.