I've updated the OP with what we've found through our discussion so far. I'll be making more videos in June when I get back home from visiting my family.

sanddbox_sc2

United States173 Posts

May 24 2013 17:03 GMT

#24

Optimizing sound settings around exclusively "proactive" mechanics only makes sense for a hypothetically perfect player. It fails to take into account the reality of a real game. I can see doing so for training, though.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

May 24 2013 17:56 GMT

#25

@sanddbox
I agree. I failed to be specific in the video and will fix it when i get back to my own computer.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 14 2013 15:17 GMT

#26

Just checking in to let everyone know I'm still alive, just got hit with a bunch of higher priority things so I haven't had a chance to work on this for a while. Let me know if you have any other ideas about settings to share

thurst0n

United States611 Posts

June 14 2013 17:10 GMT

#27

I'm confused on the resolution thing. The gif in OP is very misleading I think...

this picture is better imo.
http://cdn.skattertech.com/files/2009/12/monitor-resolution-sizes.jpg

There are many height and width options that keep these ratios but if you're comparing apples to apples then 16 : 9 and 16:10 should have the exact same width... (16=16 right?) with the latter you simply get more height lines (more=better). The only reason I can think of where 16: 9 would be actually better is if the Sc2 game engine was not able to output to 16:10 natively for whatever reason and was stretching the 16: 9 image instead of filling it with more picture.. I'm not sure if this happens because I don't have a 16:10 monitor currently to test.

Please note that if your monitor is NOT a native 16:10 then you should not set starcraft to this option, that's not what i'm trying to say... If, however, you have a 1920x1200 monitor why would you ever ever want to reduce your playing field height to to 1080 lines?

Maybe I'm missing something but that GIF just makes it look like 16:10 is losing screen space when in reality it should be gaining height not losing width....
10>9 right? Maybe in SC2 this doesn't happen, but if you do the same test in windows you'll find that I"m right.

Does this thread just assume no one has the 1200 line monitors? I know that typically people who have those are doing office work/programming etc where those extra lines are actually amazing..

Note: if you have a 1920x1080 (16: 9) monitor I would not suggest running it at 1680x1050.. this is not my point.. I'm just wondering why 1680x1050 was used for comparison instead of 1920x1200 as the former not a common native resolution to my knowledge, and also 1920x1050 what, who has that? It should be 1080 right?

Could someone with a 1920x1200 monitor do some tests and let us know? Or someone who already knows the answer post?

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 14 2013 19:26 GMT

#28

I am fairly certain that 16:10 loses width and doesn't gain height. I don't understand the inner workings of it all, but I am pretty sure that is the case. Anyone have more insight into this?

Whirligig

United Kingdom77 Posts

June 18 2013 01:29 GMT

#29

The gif is completely accurate, sc2 does not gain additional height when using 16:10 and instead loses horizontal information.
If you have a 16:10 monitor, just run at the next 16

resolution down with black bars.

ie, 2560x1600 can be black bared down to 2560x1440, lopping off 80 pixels top and bottom. This maintains the sharpness of a native resolution without the disadvantage of losing vision.

alex``

Germany13 Posts

June 18 2013 20:48 GMT

#30

when will you continue with this series?

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

June 18 2013 21:51 GMT

#31

As soon as I can. I have stuff with TheCore, TheStaircase, and a new video series with Yegalisk TV that I'm working on. This project is currently at the lowest priority of the 4 projects I'm working on right now. I wish I could have a more exact answer for you, but I don't

I'll try to slip in a video soon.

Whirligig

United Kingdom77 Posts

July 01 2013 08:25 GMT

#32

What is the rational for low textures? I've swapped between low and ultra and I can't find anything that is obviously easier to see. Performance penalty is zero.

If anything, low is some what distracting as the resolution is out of wack with the rest of the game.
Perhaps widow mines are slightly easier to see when under creep? It's very minor if so.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

July 01 2013 14:15 GMT

#33

Textures create more noise on the ground which gives the widow mines more to blend into. Its much easier to see the widow mine crater on a plain background than one with many textures, IMO.

Aelonius

Netherlands432 Posts

July 02 2013 11:40 GMT

#34

On July 01 2013 17:25 Whirligig wrote:
What is the rational for low textures? I've swapped between low and ultra and I can't find anything that is obviously easier to see. Performance penalty is zero.

If anything, low is some what distracting as the resolution is out of wack with the rest of the game.
Perhaps widow mines are slightly easier to see when under creep? It's very minor if so.

Personally I feel that seeing things like cloaked units are easier. Also you've got less 'useless' things in your vision like extra glow, which for the practicing player aren't important most of the time. It lowers the distraction environments can give you. That, and generally a better FPS/performance due to not taxing the graphics as much in a 200/200 engagement.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

July 02 2013 14:23 GMT

#35

^ this

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

July 29 2013 21:59 GMT

#36

Found something new for graphic settings. On Ultra/Extreme it is very difficult to see the build grid in comparison to low/medium. Give it a try and you will see what I mean. The build grid may not be 100% necessary but it definitely is a great failsafe for ensuring no mistakes are made with building placement, and makes it so you do not have to memorize every single maps terrain and optimum building placements

MarlieChurphy

United States2065 Posts

July 30 2013 07:21 GMT

#37

I'm not exactly sure what all the sound settings do, but building and unit command sounds are important right? If you build a structure and it fails because you macroed something else or a unit blocked it, it will make an error sound and/or alert the advisor to say require minerals etc doesnt it>?

And isn't reverb important when hearing where an attack is coming from? Like hearing DT swipes or tank shots (assuming you are wearing headphones)

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

July 30 2013 14:40 GMT

#38

I haven't fucked around with reverb, got any sources on it? That's definitely something I want to look into.

For the sound settings these are for practice. (see explaination in OP) to increase visual awareness and proactive macro.

JaKaTaKSc2

United States2787 Posts

July 31 2013 16:59 GMT

#39

2.0.10 has just been released, and with it, a color blind mode for the build grid. I think this is actually more clear than the colored mode, what do you all think?