Commonly supported resolution by all monitors?

caff · 26 Apr 2007 at 23:51

Does anyone know what the most commonly support resolution by most monitors is?

I'm thinking it could be 800x600...

The reason I ask is that I'm currently developing a game and I need to know what resolution I can rely on most. I hope to be able to go for native resolution on most setups, but it'd be good to know if there's a standard I can fall back on.

Interested in all panels and CRTs, so any feedback on your own monitor is helpful.

fish99 · 27 Apr 2007 at 00:03

Have a look at this-

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Obviously that's for steam users only, so people who are gamers, but it should still give you a good idea. 1024*768 is first followed by 1280*1024. Scroll down to where it says primary display resolution btw. I think among non-gamers 800*600 would be quite common too.

It'd be better to support multiple resolutions though, or at least a small subset of common resolutions rather than just one. Whatever game type and whatever API you're using it shouldn't be difficult to program support for several resolutions. If this is a game you're going to try and sell, and people are forced to use their screen at non-native res, or use them in 4:3 stretched mode when they've got a widescreen monitor, it's going to hit your sales.

caff · 27 Apr 2007 at 00:16

Thanks for that - quite interesting results from that Steam survey, although as you say it's primarily run by people using Steam for purposes such as HL2. Unfortunately I won't be coding something quite as complex as that

(think more something like Darwinia, in a DirectX7 engine).

My gut feeling is that the majority of desktop owners have something like onboard Intel graphics - now I've no real idea what these are capable of in the 3D trouser department...

Ideally I'd like to support 3D at the native desktop resolution. The engine I'm using can test all 3D resolutions and modes, so I can check whether it'll work before automatically assuming it'll work. I just need to know what a 'safe bet' to fall back on could be.

Zefan · 27 Apr 2007 at 00:23

Onboard graphics can run things like WoW at 1024x768 on medium settings.

Lyon85 · 27 Apr 2007 at 02:19

I would assume anyone slightly interested in playing any kind of PC game (even a technically dated, or simpler one) would have the resources to run it at 1024x768 or beyond.

caff · 27 Apr 2007 at 12:06

Lyon85 said:
I would assume anyone slightly interested in playing any kind of PC game (even a technically dated, or simpler one) would have the resources to run it at 1024x768 or beyond.

I'd agree, I'm less concerned with the graphics card capability and just more concerned with whether LCD flatscreens can actually support lower, non-native resolutions.

For example my LCD monitor runs at 1680x1050 natively, but happily switches to different resolutions (800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 etc.) if a game forces it.

I just don't know if all monitor manufacturers have agreed to implement the ability to show resolutions of 800x600 or 1024x768

Lyon85 · 27 Apr 2007 at 13:01

caff said:
I'd agree, I'm less concerned with the graphics card capability and just more concerned with whether LCD flatscreens can actually support lower, non-native resolutions.

For example my LCD monitor runs at 1680x1050 natively, but happily switches to different resolutions (800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 etc.) if a game forces it.

I just don't know if all monitor manufacturers have agreed to implement the ability to show resolutions of 800x600 or 1024x768

Ah I see. My experience with LCD isn't exactly huge, but my guess would be all support 800x600. It is still a valid resolution, I have a few old apps that force those kinds of resolutions, there should be no reason it would not be accesible to other LCD monitors. I don't see 800x600 being removed anytime time soon, ever in fact.

I've never known a monitor unable to support lower than it's native res, I don't think they exist. If they do, that is some crappy ass hardware!