Can't set vid to 320x200 under win2k

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.

Can't set vid to 320x200 under win2k

Postby Anonymous » Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:57 pm

The wife and I do a lot of co-op. Since I upgraded her machine to win2k from win95, I cannot get her zdoom to run at 320x200 like mine does under 2k.

Her vid options in zdoom are 640x480, 800x600, and 1200xwhatever.
Did this under our original 1.x setup; I tried going to zdoom 2.47 but it made no difference.


Ideas?

I looked through the ini/cfg files and tried to force the default resolution, but no go.
Anonymous
 

Postby Ultraviolet » Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:40 pm

Your video card doesn't support it. Why not just use 640x480 anyway?
User avatar
Ultraviolet
AKA "Faint"
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Location: PROJECT DETAILS CLASSIFIED.

Postby Graf Zahl » Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:44 am

Ultraviolet wrote:Your video card doesn't support it. Why not just use 640x480 anyway?



More likely it's the monitor or Win2k, not the video card. 320x200 is a standard VGA resolution and supported by all cards. I have this 'problem' myself on my secondary machine but honestly, who is still using such a low eye-strain inducing resolution unless there is no other way?
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Postby Enjay » Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:16 am

Not to be especially helpful at all... but I can set 320x200 in XP which I understand (at least "under the hood") is very similar to 2000.

Or in other words - "I have a different machine and a different OS and it works for me". Wow, not very helpful. Sorry!

Anyway, what I really meant to ask, is what happens when you start Zdoom without an ini file. Zdoom defaults to 320x200, or at least I thought it did. Perhaps it defaults to the lowest resolution available?
User avatar
Enjay
Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. Twain
 
 
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Location: Scotland

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:42 am

Ultraviolet wrote:Your video card doesn't support it.


It did under win95. Same hardware.


Ultraviolet wrote: Why not just use 640x480 anyway?


Because her machine drags horribly at that rate. Like playing on on a 386/16 or a 2400 baud modem.

Also upgraded to the latest DirectX, in case it was related to that. No change.
Anonymous
 

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:45 am

Enjay wrote:Not to be especially helpful at all... but I can set 320x200 in XP which I understand (at least "under the hood") is very similar to 2000.



I think that *is* helpful. Indicates it can be done under win2k.



Enjay wrote:Anyway, what I really meant to ask, is what happens when you start Zdoom without an ini file. Zdoom defaults to 320x200, or at least I thought it did. Perhaps it defaults to the lowest resolution available?


Same thing. Defaults to 640x480. My guess is that zdoom probes the video setup to come up with a default. If I were really motivated I guess I could grep the source. (Use the source, luke!)
Anonymous
 

Postby Hirogen2 » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:01 am

Sounds more like a DirectX problem then. Does 320x200 windowed mode (zdoom -width 320 -height 200 +fullscreen 0) work, anyway?
User avatar
Hirogen2
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Central Germany
Github ID: jengelh
Operating System: RedHat-like Linux (RHEL, Fedora, CentOS, etc) 64-bit
Graphics Processor: Intel (Modern GZDoom)

Postby HotWax » Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:01 pm

Did you grab the latest video card drivers specific to her card and Win2K when you upgraded? If you're using a more generic driver, it might specifically block 320x200 because it has to assume the card may not support it. It's also possible that WinNT/2K doesn't support 320x200 as that resolution is pretty obsolete, but I don't know that for a fact. (WinXP being able to do it doesn't mean 2K can... remember, XP was designed to merge the 95 and NT cores, so they may have added 320x200 back in to allow for more compatibility.)

I should also point out that if her machine is struggling with 640x480, it might not perform all that much better at something lower. At resolutions that low, it's doubtful that you're going to gain too much of a speed boost by making it even lower. Maybe it's 2K itself that is causing the loss of speed? Just a thought.
User avatar
HotWax
Do what you must, and pay the price later.
 
Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Postby Lexus Alyus » Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:42 pm

You play Doom co-op with your wife? That's so cute! I'd like to do the same with my Girlfriend, but she can't play computor games. She thinks she's crap and refuses to practice on them, damn shame cus I'm a major obsessive of computor games (Then again, i'm a major obsessive with everything :-D)

:twisted:
User avatar
Lexus Alyus
One day, I may actually release something...
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Location: Nottingham, UK

Postby Ultraviolet » Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:11 pm

Lexus Alyus wrote:You play Doom co-op with your wife? That's so cute! I'd like to do the same with my Girlfriend, but she can't play computor games. She thinks she's crap and refuses to practice on them, damn shame cus I'm a major obsessive of computor games (Then again, i'm a major obsessive with everything :-D)

:twisted:
You should make a dark, atmospheric set of maps for her, with no monsters, more of a puzzle sort of layout thing. If possible, make it like Unreal so she can run across people's journals and stuff like that. Make it like... she (the player) is stranded somewhere weird and has to find a way back home, but the only way is through a bunch of weird stuff or whatever. You could gradually make her come across TINY groups of weak monsters, and make the game long enough that she eventually ends up fighting a cyberdemon, but make sure she's well-equipped. Anyway, that might be cool enough to gradually introduce her to FPS combat while keeping her interest.
User avatar
Ultraviolet
AKA "Faint"
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Location: PROJECT DETAILS CLASSIFIED.

Postby Bio Hazard » Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:19 pm

Ultraviolet wrote:You should make a dark, atmospheric set of maps for her, with no monsters, more of a puzzle sort of layout thing. If possible, make it like Unreal so she can run across people's journals and stuff like that. Make it like... she (the player) is stranded somewhere weird and has to find a way back home, but the only way is through a bunch of weird stuff or whatever. You could gradually make her come across TINY groups of weak monsters, and make the game long enough that she eventually ends up fighting a cyberdemon, but make sure she's well-equipped. Anyway, that might be cool enough to gradually introduce her to FPS combat while keeping her interest.



i would so love to play a map like that :)
User avatar
Bio Hazard
Lord of the Lord of Nitpicking.
 
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: ferret ~/C/ZDL $

Postby Lexus Alyus » Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:31 pm

That's a good idea for a map in general, or how about no monsters... simply, no monsters in a single player map, turn it into more of a first person adventure (FPA anyone?). No, honestly, that's a good idea :-).
User avatar
Lexus Alyus
One day, I may actually release something...
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Location: Nottingham, UK

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:15 pm

Hirogen2 wrote:Sounds more like a DirectX problem then. Does 320x200 windowed mode (zdoom -width 320 -height 200 +fullscreen 0) work, anyway?


Starts in 640x480. Weird.
Anonymous
 

Postby Anonymous » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:23 pm

>Did you grab the latest video card drivers specific to her card
> and Win2K when you upgraded?


Win2k had a driver for it, and there appears to be no other ones specific to win2k on the net.

>that WinNT/2K doesn't support 320x200 as that resolution is pretty >bsolete, but I don't know that for a fact. (WinXP being able to do it

One of the other win2k folks in this thread confirms it works.

>oesn't mean 2K can... remember, XP was designed to merge the 95 and >T cores, so they may have added 320x200 back in to allow for more >ompatibility.)

I would be exceedingly surprised if there was any win95 in XP; win2k and XP are built on the NT kernel and have no DOS underneath (unlike win95).


>I should also point out that if her machine is struggling with 640x480, it >might not perform all that much better at something lower. At

It was doing fine under 95.

>resolutions that low, it's doubtful that you're going to gain too much of a >speed boost by making it even lower. Maybe it's 2K itself that is causing >the loss of speed? Just a thought.

Quite possible. I'll keep messing around. If all else fails I'll buy her a modern video card.

Thanks for your input.
Anonymous
 

Postby Bio Hazard » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:12 pm

Lexus Alyus wrote:That's a good idea for a map in general, or how about no monsters... simply, no monsters in a single player map, turn it into more of a first person adventure (FPA anyone?). No, honestly, that's a good idea :-).


i would rather have a level that is pleasing to the eye than adrenaline packed any day
User avatar
Bio Hazard
Lord of the Lord of Nitpicking.
 
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: ferret ~/C/ZDL $

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xim and 5 guests