what resolution do you play doom on

[OniriA]

 

 

[Bytefyre]

On 7/19/2021 at 8:49 PM, Charlie Love said:

I play DSDA-Doom at 1440x1080 resolution in 8-bit color software mode. Gives me that trademark color crushing and banding at a resolution that doesn't make me squint so dang much.

How did you get 1440x1080 to work properly?  As far as I know, you can't select that resolution inside the program.

[Bytefyre]

Had to remove a double-post here...sorry about that.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Bytefyre
Double posted by accident

[Charlie Love]

28 minutes ago, Bytefyre said:

How did you get 1440x1080 to work properly?  As far as I know, you can't select that resolution inside the program.

You have to add it as a custom resolution to your system. Just Google adding custom resolutions online. Pretty easy these days through Nvidia or AMD. 

[Bytefyre]

1 minute ago, Charlie Love said:

You have to add it as a custom resolution to your system. Just Google adding custom resolutions online. Pretty easy these days through Nvidia or AMD. 

Believe it or not, I actually JUST figured that out right before reading your reply. LUL  Thanks for replying so quickly, though!  I appreciate it!

[Rakuen]

800x600

[Captain Ventris]

1920x1080. Couldn’t imagine playing in 4:3 to be honest.

[Teo Slayer]

1920x1080. I'm a GZDoom user plus widescreen is cool

[ducon]

Fullscreen 1920x1080 with *zdoom and prboom+.

[DeletedAccount]

On 7/20/2021 at 9:36 AM, BerserkerNoir said:

1366x788.
My monitor cant keep up with higher resolutions.

Yeah even mine one

[FourLoko Salad]

I almost always play 320x200, even on modern source ports.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

I may be crazy but I play mostly on the *high resolution* crispy offers. So, 640x400, windowed, I think. And the same in all other ports. That's what feels most comfy. Feels super weird when it's too high

[DeletedAccount]

5 hours ago, Bitchass McGrass said:

I almost always play 320x200, even on modern source ports.

Even I started playing on the same resolution. I want to be a historian, i.e I want to play doom with the oldest resolution of Doom ever..

 

It gives you a classic 1993 feel in 2022, when you play with 320×200 resolution, that to with, software renderer, Aspect Ratio 4:3 and Status and Menu Bar Appearance to **Doom Format** and with fullscreen mode enabled.

 

I am going to record demos in the same resolution on DSDA.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Heck Yeah
🤨🤪

[DeletedAccount]

5 hours ago, Bitchass McGrass said:

I almost always play 320x200, even on modern source ports.

Also, Old is Gold..🏅🪙

 

Recording demos on 320×200 resolution, with DSDA Doom and submitting it to DSDA Archive is my favourite activity.

[Grassy chunks]

640×480

Stayin true to the dos ( or windows 3.11 original release for that matter) releases. 

[TasAcri]

I used to play with the internal resolution being the same as my native (1080p or 4k, depending on the screen used).

 

But after playing KDIKDIZD in Woof, i realized that a slightly lower resolution with visible jaggies and slight pixellation adds a lot to the overall look.

 

It's not like DOOM or any of it's wads have high resolution textures (except for the HD textures mod). And it's not like any wad has that much geometry detail that needs very high resolution to see it. Even the most dense looking wads are still pretty low-poly compared to a modern-ish game that needs HD to see it's details clearly.

 

Most of the time in DOOM (and especially with the original maps), HD ends up making it look too "clinical". Big, flat surfaces, straight walls with sharp edges, low res textures, etc, don't look particularly nice in HD. I see the same results when i upscale PS1 or N64 games as well. They look nice at 2x because it makes them look a bit cleaner and less blurry but higher than that they get the same clinical look that i ended up disliking.

 

It's almost as if the pixels and jaggies add to the visual detail a bit, whenever the game itself has low detail. Kinda like how CRT scanline shaders add a bit of "texture" in old console games IMO. Even the low color palette transitions in software DOOM add something to the overall picture. Without it it looks too flat, as if an additional visual effect is missing.

So basically, something in between the original resolution (which is too low) and native (which is too high).

Edited December 14, 2022 by TasAcri

[fai1025]

1440x810, because my monitor is 1440x900 and I like 16:9

[Nikku4211]

320x200, usually scaled up to 1024x768 because when I moved to another state, I got a 1366x768 monitor. I really love how 320x200 is, it really puts Doom into perspective for me.

[Lucius Wooding]

I play on an inverted cross shaped monitor, so it's a portrait 1440p at the biggest but around 200p in the narrower stretches. It's the best of both worlds tbh.

[DeletedAccount]

On 12/15/2022 at 12:45 AM, Nikku4211 said:

320x200, usually scaled up to 1024x768 because when I moved to another state, I got a 1366x768 monitor. I really love how 320x200 is, it really puts Doom into perspective for me.

Yeah, even I.

[Ulukai]

Usually 16:9, 1920x1080.

 

[ZeMystic]

I usually play in 640x400 unless im streaming to some friends, then it is 1920x1080. I like it chunky.

[Ennello]

1920x1080, just a matter of habit mostly. Never had the chunky doom experience, even as a kid.

[Fluuschoen]

640 x 480 @ 144 Hz | uncapped fps | OpenGL/Shaders most of the time.

 

Sadly software mode is a bit more input laggy in DSDA, and Crispy doesn't have complevel 9/11/21 + advanced demo tools.

 

The monitor is 24" LG 24GM77, which I adore and don't want bigger. More like I'd love to have an ASUS ROG Strix XG17AHP (17,3", 240 Hz), if anything, but it's a real shame it's too pricey for my wallet. : (

Edited December 24, 2022 by Fluuschoen

[DeletedAccount]

9 minutes ago, Fluuschoen said:

640 x 480 @ 144 Hz | uncapped fps | OpenGL/Shaders most of the time.

 

Sadly software mode is a bit more input laggy in DSDA, and Crispy doesn't have complevel 9/11/21 + advanced demo tools.

 

The monitor is 24" LG 24GM77, which I adore and don't want bigger. More like I'd love to have an ASUS ROG Strix XG17AHP (17,3", 240 Hz), if anything, but it's a real shame it's too pricey for my wallet. : (

Dude, turn Vsync off if your screen doesnt tear, that will give you a solid 300+ fps. 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Heck Yeah

[Fluuschoen]

6 minutes ago, Heck Yeah said:

Dude, turn Vsync off if your screen doesnt tear, that will give you a solid 300+ fps. 

 

I never ever used any kind of sync in the last almost 30 years, in any game; it just adds input lag, which is a huge no-no. (Was a 'highly' competitive quaker before.)

I play on average 800-3000 fps (it's usually four digits, except on very detailed slaughter maps, but it's just a measly GeForce GTX 950, so I'm not complaining), zero screen tearing. : >

 

Occasionally having fun with 35 fps @ 105 Hz, or different resolutions, but my de facto standard is the settings I mentioned in the previous post.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Fluuschoen

[DeletedAccount]

Yes, turning Vsync on, just drops your fps like hell, true.

 

I usually get an 350 to 500 fps if I play on Software renderer, 320X200 resolution, Aspect Ratio 4:3.

 

I don't play slaughter maps so, I don't think its a problem for me.

 

But dude, high resolution means low fps right ?

[Fluuschoen]

1 hour ago, Heck Yeah said:

Yes, turning Vsync on, just drops your fps like hell, true.

Yeah, and therefore adds input lag.

 

1 hour ago, Heck Yeah said:

I usually get an 350 to 500 fps if I play on Software renderer, 320X200 resolution, Aspect Ratio 4:3.

 

I don't play slaughter maps so, I don't think its a problem for me.

 

But dude, high resolution means low fps right ?

 

Software is generally 700-1100 here with 640 x 480 / 640 x 400, but big slaughters can go down to the low 200s, even to the 100s, which is meeeh, as the renderer is CPU bound (R7 2700 @ 3.5 GHz), and increasing the resolution will result in lower frame rates. Your processor does all the work, and your VGA does nothing. Could raise the fps a bit with using fix 4-4.1 GHz instead of fix 3.5 GHz, but this is a silent rig, so no, to get better results I need a better processor on single core performance (and multi for 64 bit source ports), than a Ryzen 7 2700. 

OpenGL on the other hand is basically same on 640 x 480 and 1920 x 1080, frame rates in the multiple thousands are not exactly rare, meaning it's GPU bound, and I only can get better results with a better GPU/VGA, than a GeForce GTX 950 (or marginally with overclock, but I don't want more heat in the case). I just generally like lower 4:3 res more.

 

The general benefit of low res in both renderers however are the better frame times. <2, or even <1 ms is yummy.

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Fluuschoen

[Mr Masker]

On 7/20/2021 at 6:37 PM, viti95 said:

 

Spoiler

 

LOL, didn't know that LZDoom supported that resolution. FastDoom goes even lower, the new release can go as low as 40x25 with 16 colors 😂.

 

 

I usually play at 80x200 on my 386, and 320x200 for everything else. If a mod requires mouse and vertical aim, I usually play at the maximum resolution the monitor can provide.

 

 

 

I unironically thought from the thumbnail that that was like classic Dwarf Fortress or something for a few seconds.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Mr Masker

[kaleb.]

depends on my mood and the aesthetic of the wad im playing. either 640x400 or 2560x1440