whatever, all those arguments aren't going to change anyone's mind i guess, just make them more confused. i give up.

PAGE CLAIM :D

Pageclaim!

EDIT: For the record, I was earlier than ThA BLiNG BLiNG RaBBiT

How about you start replying to all of Fquist's posts (and other people's posts).
Do you not reply to them because you know they're right and you can't make a snappy "linear" comeback?
Of course not- You only argue against the low points of other's arguments.

I'm not worried that higher resolutions are going to make the game look worse or mess up the layers in a level. People are playing beyond what a level, and the game, was designed for when using anything above 640x480, so it's not the levelmaker's fault but the player's own choice to sacrifice graphics for resolution (actually, for a standard 17" monitor, full screen 640x480 looks pixelated...a higher resolution could actually bring about the same pixel sharpness that windowmode does).

A bigger issue is that higher resolutions would ruin the carefully balanced gameplay of levels which people have designed to work for 640x480 and of course the simple fact that people can see you before you see them.

There's also a minor risk that people may start downrating existing levels/tilesets because they don't look good in 1024x768 full screen, but I think that's just them being unfair, not a fault of higher resolution. What if you are a 320x120 user? Will you be allowed to downrate a level's eyecandy because your resolution prevents you from seeing anything?

Higher resolutions would mean that different levels could be made, with a new style of gameplay, long-distance face-offs, among many other things. Its current disadvantages are crippling, however, and I don't think it should be released in such a free and un-limited fashion. If possible, a resolution changer should become a new version of JJ2, compatible only with itself and no other ones, and not just done by a simple value change in Jazz2.exe, which you can just revert back to 1.23/1.24 with a hexeditor.

Ok, here's a status update for everyone. I'm still stressing about the release of this program every day, and I still am no closer to releasing it. However, I have a few questions for you to think over.

1.) What if it worked only in offline games? SP and Splitscreen, I mean.

2.) What if it was, as WR suggests, its own version?

If the first option can be done securely in a way that's not possible to hack, great.

The second option doesn't convince me. It might just create another split within the community - with differing versions playing online. If we're going to do extra versions they should work only for sp (and not be easily editable) or it should be reserved for a real game update.

We have the capability to release a seperate "1.23res" version. That sounds like a great idea. That way, duelers can't cheat without consent of the other player.

That might cause a community version split, Odin.

I like the second option a lot and don't care about a split, as most people who are against the patch don't even play the game actively.

[19:17] <Fooruman> My plan is, as of now, to make an SP-only hi-res game and see what people think
[19:17] <FrankQ> can people hexedit the mp back in?
[19:17] <Fooruman> No. The MP will be completely removed.
[19:17] <FrankQ> and if you just merge the versions again?
[19:17] <Fooruman> It would take more than some stup with a hex editor to re-add it
[19:18] <Fooruman> Trust me, it would be all but impossible to get MP to work.
[19:18] <FrankQ> If that's true, then great

I challenge that ;)

keep voting yes guys :Z

Overlord affirms that he is more than a stup. :o

I've also thought about the implications of a third online multiplayer version of JJ2 but the situation right now is that people can either play together, unfairly, or play on equal terms but separate from each other. I prefer the latter although I know that either way, the people who don't have the resolution changer lose out, so I support an SP-only release (but I hope you mean offline-only because this will remove the benefits of high-resolution splitscreen and...even multiplayer over TCP/IPX :p).

If anyone's going to challenge that, I hope it's not you, Overlord ;p

You mean:
[IMG]http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/images/Objection1.thumbnail.jpg[/IMG]

1. No more than the 1.23/1.24 split.
2. Any split would be eliminated since a 1.23res patch is publically available.

Do you expect everyone to play on 1.23res?

Actually guys there IS a resolution program available, jam's JazzRes.
You shoulda known before this thread was even made. :lol:

But that doesn't support resolutions larger than 640x480 ;o

No, but since it is publically available, there should be no reason for community splits, since theoretically everyone can play in 1.23res.


1. JazzRes cannot be downloaded anymore, because of Quist's censorship of the program.
2. As stated before, JazzRes cannot go above 640x480 (IIRC it can go to 800x600 and maybe 1024x768 in the menus, but it will crash as soon as it starts a gameloop, i.e. playing an actual game).
3. Even if JazzRes could go above 640x480 and still work, BN's new resolution changer is supposedly superior to JazzRes.

If someone, lets say, a... a... lemme think... computer geek, had an old version of windows on his computer and didn't know about a new one, lets say Windows 2000 and he didn't know XP existed. He meets another computer geek, right, and after a bit of talking the 2nd computer geek asks him what the best version of MS Word is. The 1st computer geek says MS Word 2000 because (to him) that's the newest and the 2nd computer geek calls him dumb because Word 2003 was newer. As we all know, Word '03 is only on Windows XP, and of course the 1st geek, only knowing Windows 2000 is the newest, is confused. So the 1st computer geek asks what this Word 2003 is, and the only reply he gets is "Stupid."

So, basically, the 1st computer geek doesn't know that there's a newer version of Word than Word 2000, and he is confused and is trying to find out what W03 is and all the other computer geeks call him stupid because they all have the newest version.

Get it? If you don't, well, I can only reword it as I'm not too good at explainng.

[Previous quotation edit - FQuist]

Hello, everyone. I'm not ready to make any kind of release yet, but I'd like to clear up some misconceptions on what this patch is and also what it is not.

This version of JJ2, shamelessly called 1.foo (yeah, so sue me), will FULLY support resolutions up to 1024x768. It will also have partial support for resolutions up to 1280x1024. More info on specifically what I mean by that later on, when I feel like releasing it. The program will allow you to choose the high resolutions using the ingame menu, or the dropdown video menu if you're playing in a window. You'll even be able to change resolutions during a game with no problems at all. I MUST point out, however, that it takes an amazing computer to run the game at 1024x768, or even 800x600. I also must point out that, while high resolutions are extremely appealing on paper, the game is not without its flaws when run at a high resolution. Some sprites were not meant to be resized, and they will look pixelated. Some things, on the other hand (like textured backgrounds), look amazingly better. It's really a give-or-take thing. I still plan to release a single-player only version of the patch, but I don't have a set release date or anything. It's mind-numbingly difficult to work on this. In any case, I promise I'll have some concrete info and screenshots for you guys in the near future. Just bear with me for a little while - you can't rush perfection.

I am still wondering how it requires a very good computer to run higher resolutions. If a heavy 3D game like Oblivion runs smoothly in that resolution, why wouldn't Jazz2? Are you using some "trick" like adjusting the resolution every second because JJ2 automatically changes it back, or something?

And, will a widescreen reolution like 1280x800 (my screen's native resolution ;)) be supported?

Either that, or bad coding on Epic's part =P

When the game was made, I gather 1280x1024 was like... impossible... to even think of.

Point of order: Word 2003 runs fine on Windows 2000. I should know, I use both.

Yes, I do get what you're trying to say

Ok, in response to questions: Yeah, it's bad coding on Epic's part, and no, I don't use any "trick" like that. Also, that particular resolution isn't selectable ingame, but you *will* be able to kind of "create" your own resolution if the ones ingame aren't good enough. As always, more on that later.

Epic recommended the use of 8-bit colour, hardware acceleration and no textured backgrounds when running JJ2 on a weaker computer. How significant is the performance gain in higher resolutions when these 7 year-old suggestions are taken?

Believe it or not, WR, those suggestions still make a huge difference. My computer, which can run UT2004 at 120 FPS at full detail, can run JJ2 at 1280x1024 at 40 fps or so. If I turn on hardware acceleration and 8-bit, that goes up to about 60 fps.

As an interesting side note, my patch will also have an option to change the games FPS cap to 120 fps instead of 70 fps. The game is beautiful at 120 fps, let me tell you.

the problem is, computer geeks don't use Micro$oft Word.

1. Yes, they do. The other, more popular alternative (OpenOffice.org) runs much slower on even high-end computers.

2. Never, ever, use $ in Microsoft again. I will seriously hurt you.

Good, I was afraid that they would look somthing like this:
[img]http://www.freewebs.com/birdie8d/pictures/bge2.png[/img]

I remember that screenshot. No, props to Arjan or whoever it is that fixed it - it looks fine.

I got that screenshot myself by memory editing :(
I have more ;D

I must've seen some other screenshot. I seem to remember some pic of Carrotus where there were textured BG problems. Ah well, my bad.

Long live 1996.
 

?

:O Ooh I've got to try to get that to happen.

I wish to revive this discussion.

The prime argument of the people opposing the release of the high resolutions hack was the so-called unfair advantage. However, earlier in the thread I pointed out that the 800×600 resolution expands the view by 2 tiles and a half, which no one exactly seemed to notice. 2.5 tiles is a distance that a player's rabbit beats in split a second if he's running, and people are running more often than not in games like duels on clanwars.

If that doesn't convince you, tell me if this looks like potential unfair advantage:



This image is not fake.

Furthermore, I arranged a battle1 duel with SuperJazz to see if there is any unfair advantage. I played in the 1024×768 resolution and lost 0-5. Granted that 1024×768 is glitchy as far as I can tell, and that I'm far from a great player, but there was little to no advantage at all that I personally felt.


I believe that 800×600 would be a resolution safe enough to be made public.

I agree with Cooba.

Bring it on.