360 screen resolution

[soi]

Not quite my first post here, but almost. (long time lurker, joined for MW2 discussion, kept lurking).

Anyway, I'm loving Reach and have a question: does the 360's display resolution affect the frame rate of Reach?

The 360's scaler is supposed to be "free", but in practice it isn't for some games -notably Capcom's games that suffer from tearing at 360 resolutions above 720p.

Halo 3's frame rate was pretty solid and I never noticed (or heard of anyone noticing) a difference between 720p, 1650x1050, 1080p etc on frame rate. But Reach is a different beast and suffers from more frame drops than H3 ever did (easy to see on some poorly made community Forge Maps).

Anyone got idea of how we could make a proper test to see if resolution affects the frame rate?

[mannon]

Like CoD and most games it probably renders at 720p or less (in CoD cases less) and upscales if your resolution is higher rather than actually rendering in higher resolution, so my guess is it won't affect framerate too much. Would be nice to know the native resolution, though.

[soi]

According to this excellent article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article) it is 1152x720.

[acidsnow]

Sept 23, 2010 9:45:50 GMT -5 soi said:

According to this excellent article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article) it is 1152x720.

Yeah that's probably the correct resolution, I def heard Reach runs at 720-horizontal (which makes the game look a lot better than most other sub-720 games).

[xeros612]

They must have really upgraded the engine this time around. I remember Halo 3 and ODST rendering at 640p and being locked at 30 FPS. My question now is, is the framerate really having issues, or is it just fluctuating? I've heard Reach doesn't have the framerate lock, so it might just be having the "issue" Quake IV on the 360 had: unlocked framerate, it fluctuates(Gee, almost like... PC games!), and critics blasted it for having "bad framerate issues". Well, the first part of the issue anyway, I can see something like Halo getting away with "bad framerate issues" as far as critics are concerned.

But aren't nearly all 360 games -required- to natively render at 720p, with the only known exceptions being Call of Duty(600p) and the other 360 Halo games(640p)? I don't know of any other games on the system that is below the 720p rendering. (Arcade ports of Doom/Duke Nukem/etc. need not apply.)

[acidsnow]

...Although M$ wants us to think they have a strict 720p requirement, it's just not true. Many games are sub 720p, but if you ask me it's not a big deal. As for Reach: it generally runs very well, but when it comes to the campaign, there are some places that skip a lot. ...More so due to the types of texture mapping that is done in certian parts of each map - but it's rather rare for Reach to otherwise skip.

[skitrel]

It depends on the screen you use, most definitely, there has been a lot of discussion on this matter over at MLG.

Different televisions suffer from different lags dependant on the input types. Many people have found that reverting to using 420p opposed to 720+ gives them higher scoring games. The general consensus is that certain televisions gain some latency on higher settings.

The pros recommend using a monitor if you want to make this problem disappear.

[mannon]

Hell yes use a monitor... Going from an HDTV to a monitor made the difference between the Holographic being a useless piece of trash to a sweet ass sight for me in MW2 due to the reticule translucency or in the case of the HDTV lack thereof.

Xbox + Monitor + HDMI = Love

I did go ahead and drop back down to 720p from 1080p though, simply because next to no games run in 1080p and I figure the less it has to upscale the better. I haven't really noticed any difference in Netflix either so I doubt it goes up to 1080p, though with streaming it doesn't much matter anyway.