| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
   |
Posted - 2007.10.03 18:55:00 -
[1]
OMG I LOCKED SOMETHING!1!1!1
AND IM SHOOTING IT!1!1
OMFG! I R WINNING THIS WARZ FOR MY TEAM!
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 19:41:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Wainak
SERVER IS WORKING FINE! NO LAG @ ALL!
You really shouldn't be running a Widescreen monitor with a single-core CPU. It will kill your performance.
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 19:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Nlewis
Originally by: Ms Tolarri
Originally by: Wainak
SERVER IS WORKING FINE! NO LAG @ ALL!
You really shouldn't be running a Widescreen monitor with a single-core CPU. It will kill your performance.
what
Less pixels = less effort
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nlewis
Originally by: Ms Tolarri
Originally by: Nlewis
Originally by: Ms Tolarri
Originally by: Wainak
SERVER IS WORKING FINE! NO LAG @ ALL!
You really shouldn't be running a Widescreen monitor with a single-core CPU. It will kill your performance.
what
Less pixels = less effort
please cite some sources
Well logically, the fewer pixels there are being told to do things, the less strain it will put on hardware. Running at that resolution on your "core quad 6600(o/c up to 3Mhz)" is going to take more effort than running a resolution which is lower. This is also why Anti-Aliasing reduces FPS - 2x AA will render at twice the size and scale it down, giving it smoother edges. 6x AA does the same at 6x etc.
And if you do have a Core[b]2[b]Quad 6600, overclocked to 3mhz (lol, I'll overlook this and assume you meant Ghz  Underclocking ftw), why not record at full size? Fraps will run at more or less the same speed at that size, due to load being shifted to a different core.
Just fyi, I run a core2quad and frapsed that entire 'fight' at full resolution with max effects on, 6x AA, 16x AF and zoomed in quite often, getting 10 - 20 fps.
Kay 
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Boomershoot
how's the battle goin'?
post sum pics
It ended a half hour ago
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:22:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Hummer H3
Why on earth with BoB+allies tied up in FAT, goons haven't swarmed into Bob homespace and started attempting to drop cyno jammers or reinforce POS instead of putting even more ships into an already overloaded system.
Because I'd imagine BoB are smart enough to adjust stront levels in their towers so that they don't come out of reinforced at the same time as the ones in FAT-.
Of course, they may have just survived 4 years by not being intelligent
|
Ms Tolarri
Tolarri Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Nlewis
1280x1024 has more pixels than 1280x800 and doesn't run any different than 1024x768 in eve. sure you could use full graphics during that fight, eve currently does not use your graphics card and you have a good processor. this has nothing to do with widescreen over non-widescreen. Even with AA and AF running with(outside of) eve, it still shouldn't make much of a difference performance wise since your graphics card already has little to no load put onto it
I tried to edit this into my other post but it wouldn't work for some reason
/cuts the quote-pyramid
Anyway
"1280x1024 has more pixels than 1280x800 and doesn't run any different than 1024x768."
Lawl wtf? It will run slower at a higher resolution, just not noticeably slower. Besides, 1280x800 isn't a widescreen resolution, just a wide aspect ratio. The original res of that video, by doubling the half-size res, is 1680x1048. That's 1.7 million pixels, as opposed to 1024x768 / 1280x800 running at under 1 million. 70% more pixels to render makes no difference?
|
| |
|