37 ms·

>my friends and I play at 1280x1024 anyway since it's competitive gaming Can you elaborate on this? Never heard of this.

by rjbwork 11y ago

lewisl9029 11y ago
I'd assume it's because higher resolutions would offer an advantage due to simply having more pixels to aim at, and possibly higher FOV if you're using a widescreen resolution.
- dcl 11y ago
  The player hitbox's aren't defined by what the player can see though right? So having those chunkier pixels will be less representative of what your bullets will actually hit no? Back in the CS < 1.3 days everyone used 640x480 but I never really understood why.
  - raihansaputra 11y ago
    it's not what your bullet hits, but how easy for the eyes to recognise that your crosshair is already aiming the right pixels. some players even use a stretched display mode (4:3 render displayed fully on 16:9 monitors) to further use this advantage.
nwmcsween 11y ago
A model will be larger on a 20" monitor at 1280x1024 vs say 1920x1080 and this makes aiming easier.
speeder 11y ago
1280x1024 is less resolution than 1080p, thus render faster, also it is the "recommended" resolution of many high end CRTs, some that can run that resolution at 160 fps ( or more even... ), with virtually zero latency, thus essentially allowing people with fast enough reflexes to use their full potential.
- hengheng 11y ago
  AFAIK no CRT was ever manufactured in a 5:4 format. To avoid distortion you'd have to use 1280x960, which noone ever did. Also there are plenty of full HD displays with 120Hz+ now ...
  - camperman 10y ago
    ViewSonic CRTs, which I swore by for years, were 5:4 with square pixels. They were optimum Quake deathmatch kit :)
BuckRogers 11y ago
It's common for pros and old timer Counterstrike players. My friends and I have been PC gaming since the mid-80s so we've been in on CS since the earliest days. Here's a spreadsheet of some pro player's setups. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtMnBz7xiao0HL5f-F1zk_CSF4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1762004852 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtM... A little bit of everything but note how common 1024x768 is. It looks a little sharper, enough that it doesn't need AA (which I always felt introduced some strange input lag). Guarantees good performance, makes the models slightly bigger. Gives you a slight edge. You can also run a much slower GPU, that's how I'm getting away with using stuff like Intel Iris Pro. I'd run 1280x1024 with all options on lowest even if I had a Fury X. Other people I know have GF780s and do the same. I only turn up graphics options in single player games, at which point I don't care about FPS dips. When playing competitively I want every edge I can get.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > When playing competitively I want every edge I can get. Jesus christ, I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance. Watching gaming at that level feels like being a civilian in Dragonball Z, just seeing a bunch of blurs zipping in the sky while wondering if I'm about to become obsolete.
  - raihansaputra 11y ago
    The jump from 60 to 100 fps (even on 60Hz monitors) really does make a difference. I haven't experienced playing on 120/144Hz, but I guess it would be even better. Pros demands 300+ fps on top championships (played on 120/144Hz monitors). For me it's more on the confidence that I would not have frame drops (smoke graphics on CS:GO is bad, I drop from 90ish fps to 30-45 fps on the edges of the smoke), perceived smoothness, and input lag. The actual game itself (timeline on the servers) is only played at 64-ticks (64Hz) online or 120-ticks (120Hz) on select community servers and competitive matches.
  - chrisan 11y ago
    > I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance Keep in mind fps are normally given in averages. You can go up to a wall and have nothing on screen and get an insane FPS or you can back out and take in all of the area with max view distance and see a lower FPS. Add in players/objects/explosions etc and your FPS dips and dives. Having an average of 50FPS means you likely ARE going to notice it at certain dips while at 150 average would be much less likely to get a perceivable fps dip

>my friends and I play at 1280x1024 anyway since it's competitive gaming Can you elaborate on this? Never heard of this.

by rjbwork 11y ago

>my friends and I play at 1280x1024 anyway since it's competitive gaming Can you elaborate on this? Never heard of this.

lewisl9029 11y ago

I'd assume it's because higher resolutions would offer an advantage due to simply having more pixels to aim at, and possibly higher FOV if you're using a widescreen resolution.

dcl 11y ago
The player hitbox's aren't defined by what the player can see though right? So having those chunkier pixels will be less representative of what your bullets will actually hit no? Back in the CS < 1.3 days everyone used 640x480 but I never really understood why.
- raihansaputra 11y ago
  it's not what your bullet hits, but how easy for the eyes to recognise that your crosshair is already aiming the right pixels. some players even use a stretched display mode (4:3 render displayed fully on 16:9 monitors) to further use this advantage.

nwmcsween 11y ago

A model will be larger on a 20" monitor at 1280x1024 vs say 1920x1080 and this makes aiming easier.

speeder 11y ago

1280x1024 is less resolution than 1080p, thus render faster, also it is the "recommended" resolution of many high end CRTs, some that can run that resolution at 160 fps ( or more even... ), with virtually zero latency, thus essentially allowing people with fast enough reflexes to use their full potential.

hengheng 11y ago
AFAIK no CRT was ever manufactured in a 5:4 format. To avoid distortion you'd have to use 1280x960, which noone ever did. Also there are plenty of full HD displays with 120Hz+ now ...
- camperman 10y ago
  ViewSonic CRTs, which I swore by for years, were 5:4 with square pixels. They were optimum Quake deathmatch kit :)

BuckRogers 11y ago

It's common for pros and old timer Counterstrike players. My friends and I have been PC gaming since the mid-80s so we've been in on CS since the earliest days. Here's a spreadsheet of some pro player's setups. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtMnBz7xiao0HL5f-F1zk_CSF4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1762004852 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtM... A little bit of everything but note how common 1024x768 is. It looks a little sharper, enough that it doesn't need AA (which I always felt introduced some strange input lag). Guarantees good performance, makes the models slightly bigger. Gives you a slight edge. You can also run a much slower GPU, that's how I'm getting away with using stuff like Intel Iris Pro. I'd run 1280x1024 with all options on lowest even if I had a Fury X. Other people I know have GF780s and do the same. I only turn up graphics options in single player games, at which point I don't care about FPS dips. When playing competitively I want every edge I can get.

knodi123 11y ago
> When playing competitively I want every edge I can get. Jesus christ, I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance. Watching gaming at that level feels like being a civilian in Dragonball Z, just seeing a bunch of blurs zipping in the sky while wondering if I'm about to become obsolete.
- raihansaputra 11y ago
  The jump from 60 to 100 fps (even on 60Hz monitors) really does make a difference. I haven't experienced playing on 120/144Hz, but I guess it would be even better. Pros demands 300+ fps on top championships (played on 120/144Hz monitors). For me it's more on the confidence that I would not have frame drops (smoke graphics on CS:GO is bad, I drop from 90ish fps to 30-45 fps on the edges of the smoke), perceived smoothness, and input lag. The actual game itself (timeline on the servers) is only played at 64-ticks (64Hz) online or 120-ticks (120Hz) on select community servers and competitive matches.
- chrisan 11y ago
  > I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance Keep in mind fps are normally given in averages. You can go up to a wall and have nothing on screen and get an insane FPS or you can back out and take in all of the area with max view distance and see a lower FPS. Add in players/objects/explosions etc and your FPS dips and dives. Having an average of 50FPS means you likely ARE going to notice it at certain dips while at 150 average would be much less likely to get a perceivable fps dip