Blur Busters Forums

interesting, I've played at 640 x 480 and 1280x800 and never noticed any differences with long range rails, but then again I've never had to worry about headshots in quake.

Would it be possible to show a screenshot that shows the advantage of long range targeting with higher resolutions? I'm not saying you're wrong, but a picture may help illustrate the advantage.

I also like to be able to run at 250 fps rock solid, and that might be challenging at higher resolutions (though perhaps not, with today's GPUs).

sharknice wrote: It is much easier to hit long range targets using 2560x1440@144hz than 1600x900@144hz or whatever resolution you need to lower the FW900 to get that refresh rate. In certain circumstances using the higher resolution you'll be able to make out a head and arms and at the lower resolution you'll only be able to see a tiny blob of pixels. Instead of landing a headshot you'll just be hoping you get a hit.

hm probably depends on the game.
in csgo, I don't find aiming easier with higher resolution; 1280x720 is fine for me. I think the fact that the scaled image is softer makes it easier for me to play the game since there's less visual information.

in cs1.6 640x480 works completely fine, and some people claim that it's easier to headshot with 640x480 due to the game engine.

flood wrote:

sharknice wrote: It is much easier to hit long range targets using 2560x1440@144hz than 1600x900@144hz or whatever resolution you need to lower the FW900 to get that refresh rate. In certain circumstances using the higher resolution you'll be able to make out a head and arms and at the lower resolution you'll only be able to see a tiny blob of pixels. Instead of landing a headshot you'll just be hoping you get a hit.

hm probably depends on the game.
in csgo, I don't find aiming easier with higher resolution; 1280x720 is fine for me. I think the fact that the scaled image is softer makes it easier for me to play the game since there's less visual information.

in cs1.6 640x480 works completely fine, and some people claim that it's easier to headshot with 640x480 due to the game engine.

It depends a lot on the game. In CS:GO you're locked to a lower FOV and most of the levels are designed so most encounters aren't at long range.
If you're playing a game like Red Orchestra 2 you can use a higher FOV and the battles take place in large outdoor areas so you can have engagements at extreme ranges. I have literally gotten a kills where the player I shot was invisible on my screen because at 1920x1080 they took up less than a pixel. I used binoculars to spot the enemy which was only a few pixels even at that zoom level, then switched to my rifle with iron sites and took a shot.

rabidz7 wrote: I can't even use G-Sync because I have a 290X. The FW900 can unofficially do 150Hz-200Hz at its 1024x640 and 60Hz-85Hz at 2880x1800.

just noticed this - not sure where you're getting your info from, but I'm pretty sure the FW900 does not have the capability of going up to 2880x1800, and even if it could sync at that frequency, you almost certainly couldn't resolve that resolution, given the electron optics and aperture grille/phosphor pitch dimensions.

200hz?!?!? pretty sure mine only goes to 160hz

spacediver wrote:

rabidz7 wrote: I can't even use G-Sync because I have a 290X. The FW900 can unofficially do 150Hz-200Hz at its 1024x640 and 60Hz-85Hz at 2880x1800.

just noticed this - not sure where you're getting your info from, but I'm pretty sure the FW900 does not have the capability of going up to 2880x1800, and even if it could sync at that frequency, you almost certainly couldn't resolve that resolution, given the electron optics and aperture grille/phosphor pitch dimensions.

Most CRTs can go above their max specified resolution. I'd expect the FW900 to do 2880x1800, but it might max out at 2560x1600. 2560x1600 has been tested and found functional.

rabidz7 wrote: Most CRTs can go above their max specified resolution. I'd expect the FW900 to do 2880x1800, but it might max out at 2560x1600. 2560x1600 has been tested and found functional.

Even if you were able to generate a clean video signal at that resolution, the image quality would be utter garbage. Many people would not consider that functional.

p.s. are you ever going to respond in the FED/SED thread? A lot of people have responded with questions, but you haven't said anything beyond your initial post.

well my fw900 can do 2880x1800@60hz

tried for a few seconds and then my eyes started hurting from the flickering.

but as spacediver pointed out, it's quite pointless since the effective resolution is limited. it's like increasnig the megapixel count on a camera that is already limited by its lens

here;s a picture of text at that res:
http://i.imgur.com/mE1qBDi.jpg
1920x1200 looks the same if you scale down text to 67%

thanks for sharing that flood. I'll do some loupe experiments with various resolutions including that ridiculously high one, and hopefully share results if I can take a picture.

3840x2160 interlaced (with tweaked blanking intervals) was reportedly working on the FW900.

It is less bandwidth than 2880x1880.

Not usable. Blurry.

But, amazingly, it works.

But it has no GSYNC ... A single stutter, and it can be worse than the VG248QE GSYNC or the ROG PG278Q if you are super sensitive to stutters.