Author Topic: Hi res question  (Read 738 times)

Offline hgtonyvi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1935
Hi res question
« on: July 05, 2015, 01:44:48 PM »
Hey guys including skuzzy, I wanted to know something about the high res pack. I have never used it and since I'm building a computer with a AMD R290 card I would have the performance to run high res and aces high on max eye candy. My question is when I download it, do I need to place it in a special folder like when downloading skins? Or does it automatically detects and goes into the appropriate folder?
CO of the Hell Hounds. In Game: Rud3boi
*Ain't no grave can hold my body down.*

Top German Ace of Pantelleria 1943
            6./JG 27- 109G-2

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17637
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2015, 02:12:08 PM »
it installs to the right folders on its own. You do have to go into the video setting to change the settings to hi-res tho.

Offline hgtonyvi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2015, 03:02:06 PM »
it installs to the right folders on its own. You do have to go into the video setting to change the settings to hi-res tho.
meaning like 1024 or 2048 settings right?
CO of the Hell Hounds. In Game: Rud3boi
*Ain't no grave can hold my body down.*

Top German Ace of Pantelleria 1943
            6./JG 27- 109G-2

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17637
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2015, 09:28:51 PM »
right

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9530
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2015, 01:00:07 AM »
I've been using the HiRes pack for about a decade with much weaker video cards than the AMD R290 without suffering from any major frame rate loss. Environment bump map is the divider between good and ultimate graphics.
Quote from: BaldEagl, applies to myself, too
I've got an older system by today's standards that still runs the game well by my standards.

Kotisivuni

Offline hgtonyvi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2015, 12:32:12 PM »
Ty fugitive and Bizman. I have been using the minimum graphic setting which is 124 or something like that, not even the 256 lol...the one below that. I also been using a 17inch monitor that I purchased back in 2004 lol. It's about time to build my own comp. I plan on using windows 8. Is that better than windows 7? Even tho my graphics sucked I still manage to beat most players with their top notch equipment and graphics. I can't wait until this build and to see all the details I was missing out on. Also gonna purchase a 24 or 26 inch monitor. It's gonna be hell when I return. :salute
CO of the Hell Hounds. In Game: Rud3boi
*Ain't no grave can hold my body down.*

Top German Ace of Pantelleria 1943
            6./JG 27- 109G-2

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9530
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2015, 01:52:18 PM »
Please correct me immediately if I've understood wrong, but I get the picture that you're not the most computer savvy player? If that's the case, let me explain some basics.

I believe your 17" monitor has been the key for you being able to play this game, because its resolution is so low. A 17" CRT usually worked best at 1024x768, a TFT of the same size 1024x1280. If you do the multiplication and compare it to the current mainstream 1920x1080. Your monitor only needs to draw less than two thirds of the pixel count of a Full HD monitor which is much easier for your computer. For speed, it doesn't matter how large your monitor is, the pixel count is what matters. Thus a 65" television will stress your video card exactly as much as a 15.4" laptop screen if both run at 1920x1080.

An AMD R290 should be able to run this game with most settings enabled. When buying a new monitor, you can choose from two different product lines, both of which will improve your gaming experience. You can choose a higher resolution which will give you a more detailed picture, or you can choose a 144 Hz one which is able to make the motion even more realistic. Way back then it was a common belief that anything above 30 FPS would fool the eye enough for a fluidly moving picture. That is still true for movies, but in today's fast paced realistic looking games even 60 Hz can seem jerky. Then again, if your video card isn't up to the task, it'd be better to have a stable 60 FPS than something bouncing between 44 and 144. The R290 should be able to run the current AH at both alternatives without issues, though, and even the upcoming AH3 which has been said to be more video card dependent.

Lately there has been talk about which processor line to choose. Again, there's more than one right answer. If your purpose is playing only, a cheaper processor with a high clock rate should be enough. But if you'd like to stream your playing in real time, or record your playing with a third party program, you'd need something more powerful. Thus a Pentium G3258 overclocked can run games almost equally well as the i5-4690K or the i7-4790K despite its two-digit price tag. But if you're into sharing your gaming experience in real time, you'd probably need the more expensive versions. Good thing is, they all can be seated on the same motherboard, giving you the opportunity to start with a budget build and upgrade if needed.
Quote from: BaldEagl, applies to myself, too
I've got an older system by today's standards that still runs the game well by my standards.

Kotisivuni

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2015, 12:50:57 AM »
Just one small detail that needs to be added here. It is not always true that rendering to additional pixels will force the video card to work harder, particularly at the lower resolutions. You may find that in the case of your new video card (I have no experience with the R290) that the 1920 x 1080 resolution suits your card better than the lower resolution.

I have never read it stated that a non-HD resolution causes a card to work harder, but I believe it is true that it does with the later generations of GPUs especially.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9530
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2015, 05:22:47 AM »
If I have understood correctly, the actual pixel count is what matters. The more pixels, the more load for the GPU. IIRC someone successfully reduced the resolution of his HD monitor in order to get better playability.

Another thing is, that using other than native resolutions may reproduce a jagged or blurred picture. Here's a very simplified example I've used with people without any technical thinking abilities: In the flat screens we're using today there's a lamp for each pixel, 1920 lamps horizontally and 1080 vertically in HD screens. So when the video card sends a signal for drawing one single pixel, one single lamp gets lit. If you change the resolution to have less pixels, drawing one pixel will try to light one and a half lamps. Even a total tech noob knows that lighting only half a lamp is impossible.

So if I'm correct, lowering the resolution from the native one should lessen the burden of a video card with the cost of image quality. Other resolutions may also have different refresh rates than the native. That could cause a major FPS drop which might incorrectly lead to thinking that lower resolutions were more stressful for the GPU.
Quote from: BaldEagl, applies to myself, too
I've got an older system by today's standards that still runs the game well by my standards.

Kotisivuni

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2015, 06:35:09 AM »
Just a nit Bizman, but there are a 1,080 rows, with 1920 lamps in each.

Also note, NVidia and ATI/AMD have optimized the video cards for specific resolutions.  It is quite possible to get better, or the same, performance at 1920x1080 than 1280x720.  It may not be logical, and it is not, but it is quite possible to accomplish it.

Here is why.  Parallelism.  Today's video cards are designed to be massively parallel.  They have many parallel pipelines, which can efficiently handle a set number of pixels for each frame.  I think you can figure it out from there.
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Bizman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9530
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2015, 11:31:13 AM »
Just a nit Bizman, but there are a 1,080 rows, with 1920 lamps in each.

Also note, NVidia and ATI/AMD have optimized the video cards for specific resolutions.  It is quite possible to get better, or the same, performance at 1920x1080 than 1280x720.  It may not be logical, and it is not, but it is quite possible to accomplish it.

Here is why.  Parallelism.  Today's video cards are designed to be massively parallel.  They have many parallel pipelines, which can efficiently handle a set number of pixels for each frame.  I think you can figure it out from there.
Thanks, didn't know how much effect they might get through optimization, and the parallelism thing goes way over my dandruff.

Also, I thought there's 1920 columns, with 1080 lamps in each.
Quote from: BaldEagl, applies to myself, too
I've got an older system by today's standards that still runs the game well by my standards.

Kotisivuni

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2015, 11:47:25 AM »
Thanks, didn't know how much effect they might get through optimization, and the parallelism thing goes way over my dandruff.

Also, I thought there's 1920 columns, with 1080 lamps in each.

By jove, you are correct.  I stand corrected and thank you for diminishing my ignorance.  Every little bit helps. :)
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Pudgie

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Hi res question
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2015, 05:55:51 PM »
Ty fugitive and Bizman. I have been using the minimum graphic setting which is 124 or something like that, not even the 256 lol...the one below that. I also been using a 17inch monitor that I purchased back in 2004 lol. It's about time to build my own comp. I plan on using windows 8. Is that better than windows 7? Even tho my graphics sucked I still manage to beat most players with their top notch equipment and graphics. I can't wait until this build and to see all the details I was missing out on. Also gonna purchase a 24 or 26 inch monitor. It's gonna be hell when I return. :salute

Hi Hgtonyvi,

The AMD R9 290 vid card that you've chosen should run AH very well w/ hi graphics settings & AH using hi-res pack as Bizman has already noted. I own an AMD R9 290X vid card & am currently using it w/ AH (in sig below) & am very pleased w/ it's performance in AH (can't say as to other games as I only play 2--Aces High & Warbirds--& this vid card can easily handle both these games in hi-res).

I noticed that you're also considering to purchase a new monitor to go w/ your new set up.........

I would like to suggest to use at least a HDMI or better yet a DisplayPort cable to connect your new vid card to your new monitor instead of DVI as thru my experiences w/ my AMD card I've found that it seems to perform much better when connected thru HDMI or DP. I recently discovered this as I was using my existing DVI cable when I did my prior testing some time back comparing this card to a Nvidia GTX 780Ti vid card that I also own. I bought a Cobac HDMI 2.0 18Gb\sec w/ Redmere tech cable to use since I noted the new AMD R9 FuryX sers cards do not ship w/ a DVI port (planning on getting 1 of these to test it out) & ran this 290X again & noticed the card performing better than it did prior even though I used the exact same driver (Cat 14.12 Omega) as before so it could be due to the cable or due to AMD tuning the HDMI\DP port thruput better than DVI (these cards are touted to provide good 4K performance which would be thru the HDMI\DP ports to get at least 60 FPS @ 4k res).

Just thought I'd suggest this to you.......................... ..

Hope all turns out well for you.

 :salute
Win 10 Home 64, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus, GSkill FlareX 32Gb DDR4 3200 4x8Gb, XFX Radeon RX 6900X 16Gb, Samsung 950 Pro 512Gb NVMe PCI-E SSD (boot), Samsung 850 Pro 128Gb SATA SSD (pagefile), Creative SoundBlaster X7 DAC-AMP, Intel LAN, SeaSonic PRIME Gold 850W, all CLWC'd