This week I bought a second-hand monitor from eBay - an Iiyama ProLite E511S, native resolution 1600x1200. It replaced a 15 inch Benq with a 1024x768 resolution.
What a difference! The finer detail given by the bigger monitor allows me to really nail those suckers with a military laser at a distance of 22 or 23 km. I was worried that my Mac Mini's GMA950 would struggle to keep up the screen refresh, but the only stuttering occurs when I climb or dive with a planet that's close by in view.
Do any other Oolite players use a large display?
Right, that's enough talking. I'm off to shoot something!
Not got a mac (a PC running Ubuntu) - but for some reason the nvidia restricted drivers only offer me a horribly flickering 50Hz at 1600x1200 on my monitor for my FX5900XT even though under XP it works fine at 60Hz at 16x12 - odd.
Not so bad though - I'm still getting about 50-100fps at 1024x768 so I've opted for smoother over clarity!
Ahruman, I couldn't detect which size screen you're using from the link that you posted. 'HDTV' - must be big...
Wolfwood wrote:
Yup, a 22" Samsung 226BW on my desk. Widescreen display, wonderful picture, pretty Oolite!
If you're running at 1680x1050, you must be enjoying a similar level of detail to me, Wolfwood.
DaddyHoggy wrote:
Not so bad though - I'm still getting about 50-100fps at 1024x768 so I've opted for smoother over clarity!
Well I checked my frame rate, and I'm getting a maximum figure of 60fps dropping to about 30 if there's some rapid planet-redrawing to be done.
At this new resolution, I can knock out a SuperCobra at a 22km distance, but a really pleasant surprise was killing a Mamba at 10km when it was pointing straight at me. In the past, I've had trouble accurately hitting such a slender craft. Feels good!
Ahruman, I couldn't detect which size screen you're using from the link that you posted. 'HDTV' - must be big...
24" iMac, 1920 × 1200. (But it’s not really the size that counts, it’s the colour consistency. The 20" iMac I have to use at work is horrible in comparison.)
24" iMac, 1920 × 1200. (But it’s not really the size that counts, it’s the colour consistency. The 20" iMac I have to use at work is horrible in comparison.)
1920x1200 means that you have a little more width than me, and definitely a better graphics card. And yes, I've heard that the 20" screen is a disaster if you're not looking at it straight-on.
I'd like to extend my desktop with another 1600x1200 screen, but because the Mini has just the one DVI port, I have had to investigate some clever alternatives...
ScreenRecycler would allow the Mini to use the monitor connected to my MacBook, if the Mini and MacBook were networked together
An EVGA UVPlus+ would allow me to connect a second display to one of my Mini's USB ports
I'd like to extend my desktop with another 1600x1200 screen, but because the Mini has just the one DVI port, I have had to investigate some clever alternatives...
ScreenRecycler would allow the Mini to use the monitor connected to my MacBook, if the Mini and MacBook were networked together
An EVGA UVPlus+ would allow me to connect a second display to one of my Mini's USB ports
Anyway, I'm going completely off topic here....
Staying off topic, I've now bought the EVGA UV-16 and a Hewlett Packard 20-incher. So after tomorrow's imminent hardware-setup-extravaganza, I'll have a desktop measuring 3200x1200 pixels. Oh yesss...
I'm running dual monitors. Main screen is a 22" HP widescreen LCD at 1680x1050, the other is a 17" CRT running at 1024x768 (I call it my In Cabin Entertainment system).
It's nice for surfing the galaxy-wide web or watching classic movies from the 21st century while on those long, dull Milk runs.
