Could somebody with a copy of FS2004 tell me what resolutions are available in the options menu? I'm looking for 1280 X 720 because I'd like to display the program on my HDTV.
Thanks,
Joe
Could somebody with a copy of FS2004 tell me what resolutions are available in the options menu? I'm looking for 1280 X 720 because I'd like to display the program on my HDTV.
Thanks,
Joe
1280*768 is the closest I see. But you can also go a lot higher.
Ladamson
??? I thought the monitor/graphics hardware determines that.
i5 2500k / Asrock P67 Extreme4 gen3 / 8800GTS 512 / 8GB DDR3 1600 / CM hyper 212 / antec 550W / ASUS 23" VH232H / Windows 7 - 64
FSX UTX GEX REX TEX MEX SEX
You are right, it depends on the graphic features of your system. It's like that with 2002, so it leads to believe it should be the same in 2004. Same goes with the reflections. It happend in FS 2002 with me after installing the water effects & textures. Need better card to show those details, etc. But, as far as fps, the CPU provides the best performance in that catogory. When I updated my video card, my frame rates did't double with the video RAM, but only 5 or so fps. But when I switched computers, my fps don't drop hardly at all from the locked rate until I fly in areas like NYC.
hi
Plz dont think the speed of a graphics card is like the size of its video ram.
Thats totally wrong!!!
From what card did you upgrade?
And what do you have now?
btw: A GeForce FX 5200 with 256MB video ram isnt faster then a Radeon 9800pro with 128MB - no - in many situations the Radeon gets 80 fps, but the fx5200 with its 256mb gets only 15fps!!!!
I didn't confuse the video ram with the "speed" function of the card. If you note that I even mentioned that the frame rates did not double or even greatly increase when I upgraded video cards with twice the ram. Which has always lead me to believe that processing power is a big part of having great frame rates.
I am also not saying the card has nothing to do with it either, it determines what kind of resolutions, amount of colors, etc that you are capable of setting and will help increase frame rates. But not to the extent that a better processor can. That's all I am saying.
The video processor chip in the card is more important to video performance than the amount of ram as well. Just as you mentioned.
I was comparing two ATI All in Wonder cards, one with 8MB & the other with 32MB and one class chip better than the other and gained only 5-6 fps better on the same system. (this system had 384MB RAM)
Now I am running a Dell Dimension 8250 with a P4 2.8Ghz system with 512MB RAM and a GeForce 4 with 64MB RAM and am getting very high frame rates, even with the sliders set to max.
I think normally a game will first use the resolution that the desktop is, but that is usually 800 X 600, 1024 X 768, and so on. Windows doesn't have 1280 X 720 (which is widescreen) in the settings menu. So some games have that option in their settings menu. Otherwise some people have custom resolutions for their desktop, set through a program called powerstrip. Possibly I could set the desktop resolution to 1280 X 720 via powerstrip, and then hopefully FS2004 would use that resolution when I boot it up.
The whole point of this is so I can play FS2004 on a widescreen HDTV that has 720p input capability.
Joe
Bookmarks