screen little small [Archive]

Grimmy

07-31-2003, 05:27 AM

This happened last night as well. It appears I have like a border around my viewable area. I just noticed it last night, but monday night, it was fine. Any idea what caused this and/or how to fix it? :bandhead:

Dan2

07-31-2003, 05:33 AM

Maybe try changing the screen resolution on the options menu. :hmmm:

edit: correction- Setup then system menu.

Grimmy

07-31-2003, 05:45 AM

Found it. There is a setting for screen size and it was down a notch. But I did adjust my resolution. It was at like 640 by something, and not it's like 1200x1000 or very close to that. Can't remember the exact numbers. Ok, I am happier now :D

Death Engineer

07-31-2003, 01:40 PM

I can't seem to get good framerates at the higher resolutions, so I just play at 640x480. I figure if I wanted eye candy, I would play a different game. :P

Fragetti

07-31-2003, 04:05 PM

Yah If I play @ a higher res I cant read the chat. I run @ 600x800

Grimmy

07-31-2003, 04:22 PM

I still get my frame rate of 125, no matter what resolution I am on (I mean as I stepped them up and up) but I see no difference, other then the size of the text. :WTF:

Death Engineer

07-31-2003, 06:01 PM

Higher res should look better as there should be less visible blocks from normal viewing distance. Any suggestions as to why my XP2000+ with a GF3 TI200 and 256MB of ram can't do 1024x768 @ 125fps? (now THAT was an engineering sentence :P)

FUS1ON

07-31-2003, 06:09 PM

Maybe check that the Vertical Sync setting is set to Always Off

Grimmy

07-31-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Death Engineer@Jul 31 2003, 01:01 PM
Higher res should look better as there should be less visible blocks from normal viewing distance. Any suggestions as to why my XP2000+ with a GF3 TI200 and 256MB of ram can't do 1024x768 @ 125fps? (now THAT was an engineering sentence :P)
:hmmm: I had that vid card in an old puter, and well I thought it sucked monkey balls. Got to the point where it wouldn't even run sam. New vid card I would suggest, and would think you could have a better resolution then :cool:

melonhead

07-31-2003, 06:59 PM

DE, I never liked the nVidia cards much anyway, but I've seen many problems with those cards and Quake. Every nVidia card I had had issues. Especially for the open GL, ATI has the better product. I have a Radeon 9000 pro 128MB, which should be comparable to your card, and I get a steady 125 fps in almost any resolution. I run the same resolution as you do, with Win 2000pro. I also have most of the bells and whistles turned off, but even running full bore I get 125 fps. Good luck. :thumbs:

Pure_Evil

07-31-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Grimmy+Jul 31 2003, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Grimmy @ Jul 31 2003, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Death Engineer@Jul 31 2003, 01:01 PM
Higher res should look better as there should be less visible blocks from normal viewing distance.  Any suggestions as to why my XP2000+ with a GF3 TI200 and 256MB of ram can't do 1024x768 @ 125fps?  (now THAT was an engineering sentence :P)
:hmmm: I had that vid card in an old puter, and well I thought it sucked monkey balls. Got to the point where it wouldn't even run sam. New vid card I would suggest, and would think you could have a better resolution then :cool: [/b][/quote]
If you didn't let your monkey hump your tower, your computers performance should greatly improve. :hmmm:

Grimmy

07-31-2003, 07:17 PM

:rolleyes: flattery will get you nothing :baby: :P

OUTLAWS The Machine

07-31-2003, 11:46 PM

I play every game at 1600 x 1200. If I can not then I upgrade. :cool:

MR. SLiK

08-01-2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by OUTLAWS The Machine@Jul 31 2003, 03:46 PM
I play every game at 1600 x 1200. If I can not then I upgrade. :cool:
damn how do you read the text?

if its like all the other id games, i believe + and - control the screen size. its funny doing the smallest cause it runs so damn fast.

Death Engineer

08-01-2003, 02:51 PM

I got it up to 1024x768 last night. But I couldn't get used to it and went back to 640x480. I think I must have just had some memory problems the first time I tried it...a reboot works wonders on those issues. :)

MR. SLiK

08-01-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Death Engineer@Aug 1 2003, 06:51 AM
I got it up to 1024x768 last night. But I couldn't get used to it and went back to 640x480. I think I must have just had some memory problems the first time I tried it...a reboot works wonders on those issues. :)
you should set your com_hunkmegs to 128.

Death Engineer

08-01-2003, 07:04 PM

Awww. Come on SLiK. You know my hunk vaules are already maxed. :ghey:

MR. SLiK

08-01-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Death Engineer@Aug 1 2003, 11:04 AM
Awww. Come on SLiK. You know my hunk vaules are already maxed. :ghey:
;)

Grimmy

08-01-2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by MR. SLiK+Aug 1 2003, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MR. SLiK @ Aug 1 2003, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Death Engineer@Aug 1 2003, 06:51 AM
I got it up to 1024x768 last night.  But I couldn't get used to it and went back to 640x480.  I think I must have just had some memory problems the first time I tried it...a reboot works wonders on those issues.  :)
you should set your com_hunkmegs to 128. [/b][/quote]
what is the default setting for this? Would it help game play at all? I have a gig of ram, but haven't messed with that setting at all. :unsure:

MR. SLiK

08-01-2003, 07:17 PM

that command sets how much ram quake uses. the default is 56, i reccommend setting it to 128. game runs faster (especially the load times).