Dunno if this should go here or the benchmarking section(?), so if a mod thinks its in the wrong section, feel free to move it. Anyways, just a quick one. Loaded up Lost Coast again, and ran through it's "video stress test" I ran it at the "recommended" settings and got 137fps. Hmm, in Source I always get around 308fps. Anyways, I set the settings to whats in the picture, and I was getting around 68/75fps. Just wondering if that's an ok'ish fps to be getting? I'll post a couple of screenshots I took later. Some sections have really bad jaggies. Forgot to mention, this is at 1280x1024.
Above 60 is fine IMO. Some harcore gamers feel like they need hindereds of FPS and turn all the settings down, what your getting should be fine and more than playable.
68 is fine so long as the minimum isn't hindering you by going massively lower then that(a good minimum FPS is about 40). I really can't understand how you're getting jaggy edges if you're running with 4xAA, unless that is, you're using a huge monitor. You don't say how big your monitor is, which is a very important factor. I've got a 21" CRT, and while 1024x768 looks hunky dory on my brothers 15" LCD, it looks god-awful on my 21". If you're using a monitor around 20 or bigger, you really should be using 1600x1200 with lower settings. I always feel that higher resolution is more important then AA, so if you can, flick the res up to 1600x1200, drop the AA if need be, and see how it goes.
Using a 19" Dell. It's playable, just meh.. Me expecting everything! Here's the screenies I was on about: Jaggies! More so on the 2'nd picture.
hmmm, i downloaded lost coast and i have to admit it makes my system crawl, so maybe its not very efficient or something, it its just a complete sytem hog
Jaggies, what jaggies? It looks pretty good from where I'm sitting. You must have pretty darn high standards that's all I can say! Lost Coast barely runs on my system (A643000+ @ 2.8GHz with a 6600GT) so I have to turn all the nice stuff off :'(
a 19 at 1280x1024, I think it's possibly just the low resolution. I assume 1280x1024 is the native resolution for your monitor? If not, I'd suggest thats the problem, if so, I'd just say you've got too high a DPI, and that AA isn't effective enough in lost coast.
It's not the native no, max the monitor can do is 2048x1536 at 75 hertz. Guess it just be my standards then, cheers chaps!
It's not the native. Theres your problem. The screens not going to look perfect in anything other then its native resolution. You can plaster as much AA on as you like but if the screen isn't capable of producing a perfect image at that resolution it's going to make no difference. It'd be kinda like upgrading from a tape deck to an audio CD deck when your speakers are absolutely terrible. I'm not saying your monitor is terrible, just that if you're after the best you're not going to get it from an LCD running outside its native resolution, regardless of what your PC does to the image before it reaches your monitor. Sorry dude.
1280x1024 isn't the native? I'm guessing you must be running a CRT then? The cause of your problem is the resolution. CRTs have a different aspect ratio to LCDs (4:3 vs 5:4 I believe) and as 1280x1024 is 5:4 the image is going to be distorted (as mine is 5:4 that probably explains why the sceenshots looked ok to me!). I suggest using something like 1600x1200 (given the power of the machines in your sig).
I know, that's why when he mentioned that the native wasn't 1280x1024 I guessed he must have a CRT as I don't know of any 19" LCDs with a higher res. My point was that although CRTs don't have native resolutions, they do have native aspect ratios... I'm suggesting that the aspect ratio of 1280x1024 is 5:4 and that CRTs have an aspect ratio of 4:3 (AFAIK) meaning that by running 1280x1024 on a CRT the picture will be distorted (hence causing image quality problems).
