🚀 go-pugleaf

but the artwork in Q2 isn't as hirez as this... Surely the textures are at a
fixed res. Above that, the only thing you are changing in resolution is the
polygons themselves. That just means smaller if not invisible jaggy lines.
1024x768 looks bloody sharp to me. The text in Unreal for instance is almost
too small to read. I reckon anything over 1024x768 is gonna be at the
expense of framerate. Thats an awful lot of extra pixels to render for a
teensy small return in image quality.

I've got a 2x12mb sli voodoo2 setup, and *nothing* in the way of chipsets
has even slightly tempted me to sell em and replace with a new graphics
chipset. TNT and Unreal for instance ? Nah, don't think so...   :)

I have no problems with the passthrough arrangements. I have a decent
passthrough cable though....

--
*Joshua*
ICQ <18008940>

Phil Webb <phil.webb@i.am> wrote in message
news:MPG.10f05cb2cc522b11989854@news.clara.net...
>In article <7651v1$6g$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>Joshua@burntisland45.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> One thing confuses me (well, lots actually....)
>>
>> Why would anyone actually want a higher resolution than 1024x768.....
>> (???)
>>
>> I play at that res, and I fail to see how it could actually look better.
>
>If thats on Voodoo then you will know that it could look a whole lot
>better. Drop down to 640x480 on a Voodoo2 and it looks as blurry as hell
>now, even tho it was way ahead of anything when V1 first set the
>benchmarks at that level. 1024x768 goes some way to removing that
>blurriness, but it is still noticable. That is one of the reasons that
>TNT's are getting such good image quality reviews, they do not have the
>same problem and produce a much sharper image. Voodoo3 with it's lack of
>pass-thru cable may attempt to correct this, but, seeing as it is merely
>an 'evolution' of the current chipset, I am not building my hopes up too
>much.
>
>
>> It might be nice from a "My computer can" point of view,
>
>Ya bet yo damn sweet booty it would   8^�
>
>
>> but surely noone
>> actually plays at 1600xwhatever....
>
>Only because it's not practical to do so yet. Even V3 looks like it's not
>especially up to the job at that high, 1280x1024 will prolly be the next
>common resolution.