orcinhell

Yea tried with and without. nothing seems to work.

So I was not sure were to put this topic as it involves quite a few things. I have a BenQ XL240G monitor, and a strix 970 graphics card. For shooters I prefer low FOV, somewhere around the 70 mark. Recently I got back into counter strike, which forces FOV... I use to play it in 1.6 days and found 16:9 to be too much. So I decided to play at my old resolution 1280X1024 and its much much better. The problem is I prefer to browse the web and play other games such as racing games at 16:9 1080P or given the option shooting games at 1080P with a low FOV. Currently if I set CSGO resolution to "1280X1024" it scales vertically, i.e. stretches 1024 to 1080 giving me a blurry image, I have tried launching with "-w 1280 -h 1024" in launch options... I have made sure its "4:3" and in my Nvidia control panel definitely have "no scaling" selected. The only way I can get "1280x1024" in CS GO with no scaling to work is by setting my desktop res to "1280X1024" then I have to run CS GO in borderless window mode. I have asked on the CS GO forums with no luck. So figured I would give here I shot because I cannot work out how to run my desktop resolution in 1080P and get CS GO running fullscreen 1280X1024 with no scaling. Thanks for any help.

The thing I just read too was that people set their DPI to what is native too the sensor the mouse uses... meaning some mouses really have a DPI of 400 and to make it 1600 it uses software, they believe keeping it at native means its better and then use the in game sensitivity to get it where they want it... I have a deathadder Chroma and cannot find this native DPI anywhere on the web. Found it 10,000 DPI natively without any software interpolation. Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/razer-deathadder-chroma-gaming-mouse-review_151810/2#MDQm2IUZ0tQftrF8.99

So I originally asked this on a cs forum and wanted to ask here as this is a technical question. So I am a bit confused with mouse settings and cs go. First off I know what DPI stands for (Dots per inch) and how to work out your total sensitivity (also called true sensitivity) i.e. DPI X Sensitivity. I am hoping to get someone who knows what they are talking about and not really looking for suggestions on the best settings but rather trying to understand the relationship between DPI, Sensitivity and how they effect each other i.e. 400 DPI with in game sensitivity of 2.5 is the same as 1000 DPI and in game sensitivity of 1.0. I have been reading tips and articles and came across an interesting one - http://www.tobyscs.com/optimal-mouse-settings-csgo/ I have read other guides that state the same but lost their link... anyway as the guide (and others) have said the best "true" sensitivity and the one most pro's/high rank players use is 1000. I currently have my DPI set to 1000 with raw input on of course in cs and a sensitivity of 1.... This would give me a "true" sensitivity of 1000 (this was my setting before guides). Yet all the guides seem to say that 400 with 2.5 in game sensitivity is what you should start with and tweak. It also goes on (same with other articles) to recommend a minimal in game sensitivity of 1.3.... So if all things are fair isn't 1000 dpi with 1 sensitivity and raw the same as 400 dpi with 2.5 sensitivity and raw? or is there something at play I am missing... Edit: not added on the post is that sensitivity in cs go (not sure about other games) is explained as being a multiplier of your DPI controlled by software or CSGO in this case. Raw input removes windows effects, so windows sensitivity becomes irrelevant at this stage (mine is at the default 6 on windows 10). This might seem like a big waste and who really cares, I doubt many do but I was interested because the guides seemed admit that 400 with 2.5 in game sens is the best way to go as if it matters, i.e. 1000 DPI with 1.0 sensitivity is not the same. I always thought having 1.0 would be best as it would be like the raw setting for windows meaning CS GO would not effect how the mouse operates. Can anyone clear this up?

Thanks! No legacy edition anymore I found out but I can buy.... Metal Gear Solid... Metal Gear Solid HD Collection which includes Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Then I can also buy Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. All up its going to cost a bit but the games themselves are cheap and to be honest there is more tittles on the ps3 I wouldn't mind checking out but I am going to be up to my eyeballs in Metal Gear Solid Just to triple confirm the play order is (in order of release)... MGS 1 (the ones before I am told are take it or leave it and MGS 1 does a great job of filling in the gaps). MGS 2 Sons of Liberty MGS 3 Snake eater MGS Portable ops (not playing this) MGS 4 Guns of the Patriots MGS Peace walker MGS Ground zeroes MGS Phantom Pain And I most likely will play Revengeance but I hardly see this mentioned when talking about cannon/lore that is relative. Without revengeance its like still 120 hours of Metal Gear according to Howlongtobeat.com lol going to have to pace myself.

So I really want to play MGS 5... but I also want to play the series and decided just to do it the right way after seeing what the emulator looked like (textures were off performance was fine but it crashed once in a 30 min period). I am getting myself a ps3 with The Legacy Collection. As for portable I read that you can take it or leave it but might watch a playthrough on youtube.

Yea I got the grunt to do it, but found out that it can be a bitch... people also recommended Subsistence over Snake Eater as it has the new camera. I found a guide to get it running well however. As long as I back up my saves even if it crashes and I require a different emulator (I plan to use PCSX2) I should be able to keep the progress.

Hi guys. So I was over a friends house and saw MGS 5 and it looked like insane fun played it a bit and decided I wanted to get it for PC. Then i learnt about the insane back story. I know you can read an online summery but I was thinking of playing the games themselves. Playing through release date would take a long time, and I only have a PC currently so what i was thinking of doing is using a ps2/psp emulator playing MGS 3, then Portable and Peace walker moving on to ground zeroes (got it today) and then Phantom Pain (yet to get it as I won't be able to resist playing it). Then once I complete all of that, I plan to get myself a PS3 and get the legacy version (think that's it's name anyway it has most of the games) after taking a break so I don't burn out playing just MGS... I know that MGS 1 will be dated but have already tried it (friend had it) and didn't mind it and the story will get me hooked. I know the basic outline of the story now too. So do you think its worth doing? I know some might say release order is the only way and if that is the majority opinion then to be honest Ill just play GZ and Phantom pain and then get a ps3 down the road. As playing 3 games before the newer ones is doable and will put me off playing 5 most likely for a month with the time I get to play... playing 6 or 7 games before 5 will put it so far away that I most likely will burn out before I get to it... I decided to ask on the PC part because that is were I am playing 5 and emulating the games to begin with.

Wow yea good call on skyrim not sure why but it totally didn't occur to me. Great game suggestion and I already have it.

Lol... I showed him doom 3 and he was scared (tried acting brave)... I don't think he would ever sleep again after outlast.

So recently I have been spending more time with my nephew. I pick him up from school because his dad works late, I help with his homework and then we play some PC together before he goes home. Last time I was at his house he showed me his games on xbox, all of them had very low or no progression, he is not very good at games, and expects them to be easy or fails to understand the concepts. He loves arcade style games mainly because I feel they already have things unlocked i.e. with racing games most tracks are unlocked with a good selection of cars. I decided to teach him how to play games, and purposely choose harder more grown up games. The last game we played and finished was Tomb Raider 2013. It had great mechanics, such as ledges being painted white to tell the player they can climb there... boss battles were easy to solve. I never beat something for him but paused the game and explained the situation and the problem... Why are you dying here? too many enemy... What weapon are you using? the bow... So what weapon should you use? he would go Ahhh the rifle (ak47 style gun)... Now what do you see? barrels... exactly. use the environment. At the start he would often dye using the same tactic and weapon over and over until he beat it, by the end while every so often he would do that he started using more weapons and trying different tactics when one failed a few times. It might sound boring but he had a blast while I helped him understand how games communicate with the player. For our next game I was thinking fallout 3 but wanted some opinions on a good second game to play with him. Control support is almost a must, while I plan to build a pc for him when he is older his hands are still a bit small to use WASD and shift to run while also using his other hand to control the mouse so he uses an xbox one controller i got.

at the end of the day developers are not going to release a game that only supports a specific feature of DX12. Just like most games having DX11 having also DX10 support, I imagine games will have DX12 support and 11. especially for the next few years, PC gaming is break neck with hardware releases compared to console but I doubt we will see a single game in the next 2 years that has only DX12 support with features a certain company can't use. Nvidia has dx12 features that AMD don't have... both companies don't fully support DX 12 as far as I know.

Yea people tend to overreact, I have pulled my pitchfork out of the shed but I still only have it sitting next to me... What I am pissed about is the image this gives PC. I have converted mates over recently because they had yet to upgrade to the next console and all 3 have Nvidia cards. They knew they were going to need or want to upgrade in 2 years anyway but its not good image. PC is about freedom and its so modular but if the companies are lying to the lay people about what they are buying, I knew they didn't have full support thanks to Linus but not everyone does we talk about how corrupt console companies are holding games hostage and giving users a raw deal with the hardware and things like this start to spread.

Link to a post on PC master race https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3j2wpj/x_post_rpcgaming_nvidia_gpus_do_not_support_dx12/ What do you guys think? I have a 970 and while pissed to the point that I might never buy a nvidia card again I am also waiting to see before I pick up my pitchfork. Everyone is saying that the maxwell series is dead and in a year your going to have to upgrade... I don't see adoption going that fast, maybe in 2 but by that time I will be ready to upgrade anyway and will be going AMD again if true It seems I swap companies every upgrade because of lies lol. People have to adopt windows 10 first, and developers have to make games for it. On a moral level, if this is right, I am pissed. On a omg my card is now shit level I am pretty claim, the few games that will have dx 12 I assume (I know makes a ass of you and me) will also have Dx 11 support just like games now that have DX 11 tend to have DX 10 support. Anyone know the latest on this? I am mostly pissed from a PC fan point of view... We are gaining momentum as a platform with really strong pro points over console and now a company like Nvidia decide to start (possibly) being shit heads and start giving PC a bad rep... PC prices are coming down and more people are switching from console to PC which is fantastic but now some of those poor guys/girls forked out 1000 bucks or more for a good gaming rig got a 970 and find this out... not a good image.

Yea, I get that part but was wondering if the old reason they tie physics to framerate is true? and if so why? I am honestly fine with the 60fps its a great game and well optimized, but it got me thinking and I wanted to know for once and for all. Maybe when building a game engine allowing high frames i.e. over 60fps has to be there from the start, and its not about tying physics to frame rate as much as allowing the engine to run that fast does weird things because it was never designed for it.