Hi guys, I just wanted to ask if any of you agree that we should really only support the more up to date screen resolutions going forward. Myself, I only design to the minimum screen resolution of 1920x1080. If it still works in a lower resolution then that’s just a bonus, but not supported! - I know we can change this with lua. I just mean dropping this in the core of game guru.

Name Horizontal x Vertical pixels
8K 7680 x 4320
4K 4096 x [unspecified]
UHD 3840 x 2160
2K 2048 x [unspecified]
WUXGA 1920 x 1200
1080p 1920 x 1080
720p 1280 x 720

I'm sure we all want to unlock the potential of game guru for multicore, 64bit processing with full support for GPU and CPU base on the type of game you design, taking full advantage of DirectX 11+. I know we are all making assets at a minimum of 2K; so why is this not our focus. Forget the lower resolutions. Even my micro laptop performs best at 3K.

The reason for this question / statement is; if we still try to support older out of date screen resolutions it will make game guru stagnate. I believe this may hold up development of the core system over time.

I’m sure there will be a few members who will disagree with this, which I understand. They may want to make games supporting all these old screen resolutions, just so they can target that market.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you really thing... don't hold back now!

But be nice lol.

Thanks guys... gd - Ed.

Really? GG still support xp and we talk about screen resolutions?
Another question:

What the hell of micro PC you have? I have problems to run GG level in Full HD with 60 FPS.

Also a development platform should not be exlusive for high end. Even Cryengine is also for low end devices. If you not support this settings, it is ok, but you mess with your customers!!!! And never mess with your customers

well for me its just simple math
that keeps me working in a mid-range resolution with a
GTX 650 video card and a small map with not too much in it compared
to what I could put into an Unreal map 18 years ago.
In game guru I get.......
at 1440 x 900 = 50 - 62 FPS
at 1920 x 1080 = 29 -33 FPS

So if I can get a map to be very efficient at 1440 x 900
it MIGHT barely be playable at 1980 x 1020 but , at lower
than 1440 it should run very smooth , even for those with older cards.
FOR NOW it seems to be all simple math,,,with a hope for the near future for better FPS's
coming our way as we continue to make our levels.

Keep at it !

Thx

UNIRD12B

I hardly notice a difference with resolutions these days. I can run a GG game at lower resolutions and see not a jot of difference. Of course that is mostly down to my video card. I run at 1080p res generally, and am happy enough at that as long as I'm getting 45+ fps in general. If I had a better CPU I would probably see a far better boost, but as I see it, getting a game running well on an older CPU is a way to get it running on a good chunk of peoples systems. As soon as I upgrade to an I5 or I7 computer, chances are my game will end up needing a faster machine to run as I get carried away

I don't see the benefit for GG not to support lower resolutions.
It's just a question for the gfx card. But the high resolutions won't get faster or something when some low resolutions are missing.

I am new here, but I tested a stand-alone Zombi game's performance on lower screen settings with my laptop. Resolution can make a big difference.

At my laptops maximum screen 1366 x768 I could not aim the gun and Zombies stuttered very badly. (UNPLAYABLE) By just changing screen resolution to 1280 x 720 it made a 100% difference in the game play. I bet if I went down to 1024 x 764 my game would play even better.

Laptop Spec:

Windows 10
i7 2670Q
12 GIG RAM DDR3 @ 655MHZ
GeForce GT 500M

I had 8 MB of ram and went up to 12 this made NO difference....

So I am in favor of support for lower resolutions. I do wonder if its not just best to support 16:9 aspect ratios more than 4:3 since the latter is dead.

I don't see the benefit of going higher than 1920 x 1080 at this time. I pointed out in another thread that screen resolutions in the default MENU folder go as high as 1920 x 1200 and 12 screen resolutions for Menu options seems excessive.

How many resolutions does GG now support?

That's because GG is 32 bit only at the time of this writing. We can keep hoping, though!

I'm surprised you can even run Windows with 8MB ram I think you mean GB.

Going from 8 to 12 gig also will not do anything to speed up GG, unless you want to run several other programs at the same time. Memory only speeds up a system that is having to resort to page filing and so is bottle necking. For speed you need a better CPU and/or video card.
As said above, removing support for lower resolutions is not causing higher ones to run slower. Using a low res can speed things up, it really depends on your machine. But on a fast PC it barely makes any difference at all.

LOL, I didn't even catch that! Yep I think that's what he meant. At least I hope that's what he meant!

More memory can make a difference when you want to play on higher resolutions.
Probably you have to set the allocation of how much onboard memory is reserved for your GPU in the bios.
But onboard DDR3 is always slower than GDDR5 on GTX cards, hence gaming laptops have a GTX card on board.