Make the minimum resolution for the game 800x600?

[bornemix]

Switching your old intel video card isn't really a complete system replacement

You'll be surprised how cheap used GFX cards are.

[Zarax]

I think the main problem here is with cheap integrated laptop cards, which are not replaceable.

[Zarel]

Is the next major release (with OpenGL 2.0) you refer to 2.4, or something slightly higher? I was hoping to continue testing/playing warzone without a complete system replacement (at least for a while). What specific feature/function needs the OpenGL 2.0?

Yes, it's the one that will be 2.4 or 3.0.

Although the good news is, if i-NoD stays with us, our graphics requirements will remain at OpenGL 1.4.

[Ai_Tak]

Is the next major release (with OpenGL 2.0) you refer to 2.4, or something slightly higher? I was hoping to continue testing/playing warzone without a complete system replacement (at least for a while). What specific feature/function needs the OpenGL 2.0?

Yes, it's the one that will be 2.4 or 3.0.

Although the good news is, if i-NoD stays with us, our graphics requirements will remain at OpenGL 1.4.

I have 73% support for OpenGL 1.4, so at least there is a chance. Do you know what specific OpenGL 1.4 features are required, and what warzone will use them for specifically? Is there any way that the new warzone could fall back to the old style is the absence of an OpenGL 1.4 feature?

[Endy]

If the minimum goes above 640X480, I think I'd have some trouble seeing the UI.

[Trifler]

I vote "Yes" for setting the minimum screen resolution to 800x600. For those of you who voted "No", you should know that Windows 7 doesn't support desktop resolutions less than 800x600.

[Emdek]

For those of you who voted "No", you should know that Windows 7 doesn't support desktop resolutions less than 800x600.

So why game available for different operating systems should care about decision of one vendor (their various limitations are sometimes strange)?

And back to topic, couldn't it be draw depending on resolution? Then there would be also less complaints about very small menu when resolution is bigger (mostly panoramic screens).

[segg2]

Voted for 640x480 because it comes in handy if you want to create a video of WZ and you can choose to capture a ~640x480 window

agree

[macuser]

(Voted for 640) What about ppl who don't have big honking graphics cards? what will they say if the min res is 800 x 600?

[BunkerBlaster]

Improvements should not be hampered by computers that are extremly outdated or bare bones. Not just the min resoulution but also Map size, Netplay, etc..

[KukY]

(Voted for 640) What about ppl who don't have big honking graphics cards? what will they say if the min res is 800 x 600?

Well, even lamest Intel integrated GFX are enough to run the game at ~30 FPS on 1024x728 without shadows.
So, if there is somethin worse then Intel, and isn't SIS, at which game won't run at all, your argument is valid.

Improvements should not be hampered by computers that are extremly outdated or bare bones. Not just the min resoulution but also Map size, Netplay, etc..

Totaly agree. Technology goes on, and it won't wait for you.

[Zarel]

And what about netbooks? Cell phones? People who run 800x600 but want to play windowed? Modern technology is not necessarily powerful technology.

[macuser]

I am not the one who has the dinosaur computer (I have dual core and 512MB vram geforce 9300 GT). However, I know a bunch of ppl that play warzone that do. BTW good point zarel.

[KukY]

And what about netbooks? Cell phones? People who run 800x600 but want to play windowed?

Netbooks are for net.
Mobile and PC versions aren't and won't be the same.
What about people who run at 400x200 and can't play the game at all because you made the menu too big? -.-

[macuser]

Well you can't support everyone, but you can at least continue to support those you already do. Besides what is a good reason to up the min res anyway?