A Question about the Resolution

[Bopig!]

Hey,
I was just wondering if anyone knows the resolution that a REAL dreamcast runs it's games at. 1024X768? 800X600? Or that nasty 640X480 crap?
I'm just curious about it, as I'd like to run the games I play on Chankast at their correct resolution. Thanks in advance.

640x480;
just like (most?) ps2, xbox and gcn games....
why? You don't see it on a TV.

[Bopig!]

Whoa. All those systems display those games at that low of a resolution eh?
Blah. Well, that's another benefit with emulation I suppose. The higher the resolution, the prettier.
Thanks for the info.

[General Plot]

Some low-res games on DC actually run at 320x240. Most of those have to use the NTSC cable type in the emu, as they are not large enough resolutions to meet the minimum for VGA. Now that's really low-res

[Bopig!]

Heh, that's nasty.
Speaking of cable types, I recall "tricking" my dreamcast back in the day to use the VGA cable with games that didn't usually allow it. (That screen that says it doesn't support that cable type) You'd set the cable to NTSC, and then at the sega logo, turn it back to VGA. Heh, it usually worked too and that way I could always play my games on my computer monitor.
Good Times.

[KanedA]

I can't see the problem with the 640 480 res when gaming, I'm just on my bed about 3 meters from monitor with my dual shock in hand

Edit: almost only game I play in front of monitor is Q]I[A but then I can play it on 1024x768 without slowdowns also I can't see much difference in fps when playing chankast on 640 or highier res

[Bopig!]

The games slows down enough to annoy me in any resolution higher than 800X600. Must be my video card, cause your Processor is slower than mine. Also, which game are you referring too? What is Q]I[A?

Anyway, to stay on topic, other than slowdown, I don't really notice much a difference with a higher resolution either. I guess since the games native resolution is 640x480 as Samor mentioned, raising the resolution doesn't do anything for a console game. Still, it's a habit I've gotten from PC games so once I get a new video card, or a new version of Chankast comes out with some speed tweaks, I'll stick with 800x600.

[KanedA]

Q]I[A -> Quake 3 Arena

as for resolution the difference is much smoother image on monitor /9when you sit in front of it ) because I almos don't use FSAA and realy, don't like it too much

[deamonhunter]

i really didnt notice any difference in performance when increasing resolutions
to 1024*768 at least (all that my monitor supports)
but the visuals can change alot between 640 *480 and any other resolutions
i've noticed that textures will get really better and the edges between models wil have less points or pixels (dunno what they call them )
but i think good graphic cards (totally not my crappy 5200 )can use fsaa to make the visuals in lower resulution as good as high ones

[Riskbreaker927]

The native resolution of any system that came out after the dreamcast, including the dreamcast, is 640x480. Anything before the dreamcast ran in 320x240; the Saturn hovered thereabouts with several different resolutions in that ball park. The N64 ran in 320x240 with an optional 640x480 mode in some games that supported the use of an extra RAM pack. The 16-bit era consoles ran in 256x224... anything before that pretty much ran in resolutions that could be counted on fingers and toes.

I don't think any Dreamcast games ran in 320x240. Every game I played certainly ran in 640x480. Unless maybe you mean like a King of Fighters game, which is ported from a NeoGeo, which does run in 320x240 and so all the graphics and such in that game are made for that resolution. However, the dreamcast probably still runs it in 640x480.

As for the benefits of increasing resolution, yes, it will drastically improve the visual quality. However, it won't make a difference in a game like Capcom vs SNK 1, where everything is rendered in sprites and static background images. Increasing the resolution will increase the graphic quality of 3D rendered games, like Ecco the Dolphin, or Sonic Adventure, or Soul Calibur. However, any sprites in those games will still look like crap up close; that's just a general rule of sprites. An increased resolution results in better clarity in textures and sprites that are far away. It also does naturally make aliasing (the pixelation in between polygon edges and such) less noticable. At a resolution like 1024x768, FSAA isn't really really necessary.

[General Plot]

If you check the developers toolkit text files on www.dreamcasthistory.com you will see that the specs for the system allowed for 320 x 240 resolutions. Most of these being the ones that utilized the built in Windows CE. These are games that are not graphic demanding (such as south park: chef's luv shack, where action wasn't fast or detailed). Check out some dev sites like I did, and you'll be surprised.

[Bopig!]

Wow you guys are very knowledgable. Thanks for the info.
BTW deamonhunter, what are you doin crying about a GeForce FX 5200? Heh, I have a Geforce4 MMX 440.

KOF 98 and 99 (and other early SNK ports) use true 320x240 on DC... But later KOF's display 320x240 graphics on 640x480. Bangai-O also uses 320x240....

[Kane]

>Anything before the dreamcast ran in 320x240; the Saturn hovered thereabouts with several different resolutions in that ball park.

The PSX too had a lot of funny resses, going up to som bizzare 720x something or other mode used for a lot of dating sims and similar games. The 3d was almost invariably in 320x200 tho.

[~akujin~]

i guess most (all?) consoles would not handle resolution over 640*480 that well. on my ps2 for example the framerate drops a fair amount in ffx when i get a camera close up and an aeon dies and all that transparency stuff is going on...
who knows what would happen @ 800*600 or above ^^

[General Plot]

Originally Posted by ~akujin~

i guess most (all?) consoles would not handle resolution over 640*480 that well. on my ps2 for example the framerate drops a fair amount in ffx when i get a camera close up and an aeon dies and all that transparency stuff is going on...
who knows what would happen @ 800*600 or above ^^

Yeah, I've noticed this too. But I did read a rumor in a gaming mag that the PS3 was being designed with larged resolutions in mind. They didn't suggest any specifics, but it's enough to make you wonder if Sony has such detailed graphics in development, that 640x480 wouldn't be high enough to take advantage of such fine detail.

[Cid Highwind]

I recall reading a preview which compared all three big consoles which was written before they were released: The name Gamecube wasn't even confirmed yet, so it was named Dophin.

In this article they were praising the Xbox for being able to dislay resolutions in the range of 1900x1600 or something, which old tv's weren't even able to display. I wonder if it has already displayed this resolution in games...

What about the ingame artwork of Soul Calibur? These pictures look like they are in a higher resolution than 640x480, but ARE they also higher res?

[ssj4]

my friend said that he knows a guy that can change the resoloution of the xbox, what the hell is the point of that anyways?...

[Bopig!]

Higher resolution equals prettier is what I've learned here. Now you know too.

[Vahid]

well i heard xbox can support different resolutions, the max is 1024x res