EPTJust wondering since my 5770 can only support 1680x1050 and I'm wondering if I'm handicapping myself in some way by doing so.
Does resolution matter (gameplay-wise) for SCII?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
Just wondering since my 5770 can only support 1680x1050 and I'm wondering if I'm handicapping myself in some way by doing so. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
In the end, it doesn't affect your play as much as you would think. edit: wait, I might be entirely wrong. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
SirazTV
United States209 Posts
 has the largest field of view. To get this you probably would need a new monitor. | ||
|
SirazTV
United States209 Posts
lol | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
5770 can do 1920x1080 someone here made screenshot comparisonswhere you do see more of the screen on a 16 | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif) | ||
|
Tschis
Brazil1511 Posts
//tx | ||
|
JMSLEX
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
aidnai
United States1159 Posts
| ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
On February 11 2011 04:20 JMSLEX wrote: Does that mean 1600x900 is bad ? i'm new to all this stuff , and i was about to buy a 20 inch monitor before i saw this and that's the resolution :/ any help ? You want to buy the one that supports 16 : 9 aspect ration, I think that resolution doesn't matter much in this case. Just buy 16 : 9 (standard) and pick the one that supports the resolution you want to play in or even higher than that and your golden.  edit: ^ beat me to it >< | ||
|
scFranco
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On February 11 2011 04:46 scFranco wrote: TLO actually plays on the lowest graphics settings because high graphics are distracting Most pro gamers do.. I believe they play on high resolution however. Graphic settings are more about the glow on minerals and stuff like that, you know the "low medium high ultra" thing, wheras resolution is the pixels basically  | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On February 11 2011 04:57 branflakes14 wrote: Can't say I'm a fan of having a disadvantage purely because of the monitor I use. Hell, I actually use 5:4 myself so I'll have even less on screen than any of the images in that gif. Wow where did you get that screen? O.o Sounds like a super old battery driven TV or something like that | ||
|
IPS.ZeRo
Germany1142 Posts
I usually play with 16 but sometimes also with a 5:4 and its really not a problem.16:10 to 16 isn't even much of a difference in terms of space.But for an LCD you usually want to use the native resolution. With most screens it looks a little bit off when you use a different resolution and also tasking in and out takes more time. | ||
|
ishboh
United States954 Posts
| ||
|
optical630
United Kingdom768 Posts
edit: at least now i know im seeing the best i can ^^ gotta get used to 1400x900 now ;/ | ||
|
deanyo
United Kingdom206 Posts
| ||
|
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
Why would 16:10 be SMALLER than 16 ?16x10 > 16x9 ...? | ||
|
Daavee
Germany11 Posts
On February 12 2011 00:50 ensign_lee wrote: Wait...something intrisically doesn't make sense with that pic showing the differences. Why would 16:10 be SMALLER than 16 ?16x10 > 16x9 ...? 16:10 is a ratio, not the size of the screen SC2 has fixed height. the wider your screen, the more you see ratio = width:height width: higher = "better" height: lower = "better" or you can divide both values by the height: 16:'9 = 1,7777:1 16:10 = 1,6:1 4:3 = 1,3333:1 5:4 = 1,25:1 | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Use the native resolution of your monitor. No reason to use anything different. i hear this a lot, but what is the reasoning for this? My 'native resolution' is 1280x720, I have it set to 1280x768 because my widescreen display looks weird at native resolution (screen doesn't fit yet everything is oddly too big) yet my nVidia control panel recommends I set my resolution to 1900x1080 (which in and of itself is weird because my monitor is 720p). i just figured to set my resolution to the resolution that's closest to my native resolution, seeing as how it doesn't fit things properly at native and I'm not smart enough to know if there's a way to fix that. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
and I notice hardly any difference whatsoever. | ||
|
Archontas
United States319 Posts
On February 12 2011 00:50 ensign_lee wrote: Wait...something intrisically doesn't make sense with that pic showing the differences. Why would 16:10 be SMALLER than 16 ?16x10 > 16x9 ...? ............. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
lolololol :> | ||
| ||
