Widescreen Gaming Forum

westinghouse just seem to have cheaper panels.

Dell probably uses a nicer panel. Most of theirs are PVA's...

As far as the AA, if you mean the in game setting, that's not real AA, they just call it that. It's actually a smoothing algorithm that was created along with the dynamic lighting algorithms in that rendering engine so that AA it could be closely simulated. If you actually forced AA through the control panel, I would like to know what you are doing :). For me, with all settings max and the weather mod (which has higher resolution textures and enables some of the "ultra" settings you can't get to in the in game menu):

No forced AA: 40-55 fps
2x forced AA: 15-25 fps
4x forced AA: 4-5 fps

I have an 8800GT on 32 bit Vista and the latest almost-bleeding edge drivers (177.39).

Hi Mergatroid! I know about that smoothing thing ingame, it's crap (and not real AA) I turn it right the way down, and let my graphics card do the AA. I get pretty decent frame rates - very playable! Here are my settings:



EDIT: I just noticed, I have Multisampling Transparency AntiAliasing, not Supersampling, sorry! Oh any my texture filtering is set to performance, instead of quality so that might give ya a boost! Also Float32 installed![/img]

Actually, we are both wrong.

Nope, I defined it correctly.

Oh yeah, I had the numbers backwards on the monitors. The dell has the lower dot pitch.

Kinda proves your method of measuring isn't accurate or a proper definition doesn't it?

[quote]Actually, we are both wrong.

Nope, I defined it correctly.

Oh yeah, I had the numbers backwards on the monitors. The dell has the lower dot pitch.

Kinda proves your method of measuring isn't accurate or a proper definition doesn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean by my method of measuring not being acurate. I used the website you posted and a conversion table. There are 25.4 millimeters in one inch. Using that site, I find that there are 99.06 Pixels every inch in my 20 in monitor. So if we take the number of millimeters and divide it by the number of pixels we get a width of 0.2564 (which the site you linked also shows). The problem with your conclusion is that if the dot pitch really is just the width of the pixel, it allows for absolutely no room between the pixels, meaning the entire display would be seamless, which it isn't. Therefore, the dot pitch is the measurement from a point in one pixel to the same point in the next pixel, including the space between them. On LCD's, that is the very next pixel. On CRT's, it is the next similarly colored phosphor.

So, since math has been working for at least since the time of the ancient greeks, I'm going to go with that, the guy who gave me the information (since he's been working with lcd monitors for the last 6 years), and the rest of the world.

LOL, there is no measuring between the pixels, the pitch IS the pixel width. There's no other way to say it. Your "way", if you can call it that, is a needless waste of time. All you need do with that calculator is enter the res width, height, diagonal measure of the screen and it gives you the pixel width in mm. It even shows it's giving it to you in mm. How could you even imagine you need do any further math, much less try and "school" me on ancient mathematicians? LOL

You're making a ridiculously absurd fuss over this very simple thing. :roll:

Play nice. And, according to the picture the pixels are round dots in a hex pattern. That does leave a gap between each dot, and it appears that the gap is being measured as well.

Example, a 1024x768 res with a 20" diagonal is a .3969 dot/pixel pitch. It's also a 64 PPI (pixel per inch) measurement. 25.4mm being one inch divided by 64 = .396875. If the result is the same then each pixel measures .3969mm across and 64 of them entirely span a 25.4mm (one inch) width.

In other words though there is indeed space between pixels it is not something measurable width wise as the shapes of the pixels and the space are different. If the space were measurable width wise there would be fewer than 64 pixels in an inch in the above configuration rather than filling the entire one inch width.

Though the two have physical area they occupy, the focus should be and is in all the measurement tools on the pixel itself because that's what's illuminating the image and therefore is the level of graininess you see.

Play nice. And, according to the picture the pixels are round dots in a hex pattern. That does leave a gap between each dot, and it appears that the gap is being measured as well.

That picture is actually how a crt is laid out. lcd's are essentially a giant grid of squares, but the measurement definition is still the same. It was more important on crt's because if you know both the dot pitch and the PPI, you could determine how big the pixels were and how much space there was between them. The less space, the better the image. It's not as important for lcd's since the technology dictates that the width between pixels is almost identical regardless of the pixel width. The measurement was carried over, however, so that they wouldn't have to call it something else and start confusing people, since the 'pitch' between 2 of anything (pixels, html elements, etc) is always the distance from a point on one element to the same point on the next element.



Also...


Osuperman, I tried it again today with those settings and I'm still getting 4 fps with 4xAA. I'm going to yank out my gamedata directory and see if it runs well with just vanilla Stalker.