Has anyone played SC4 on a TV?

[LivingInThePast 364]

I know SC4 is a mouse and keyboard game, which naturally makes it more difficult for a TV session but besides that, has anyone ever played SC4 comfortably by sitting back in a couch and hooking it up to a real television? I like the idea of console games and would like to take my Steam library to the big screen but I'm not sure on ol' SC4. Has anyone taken the leap?

[CorinaMarie 29,857]

I have not, but it seems to me at the appropriate distance from the TV it ought to look just fine.

I'll vote: Yes, try it.

[MeMyself&I 379]

I hooked up my 52" Panasonic Plasma to my computer not long ago just for that reason and it really wasn't what I had hoped it would be.  The graphics were actually distorted in a way.  Not unplayable at all, just not very good. Very pixelated and wavy, I guess.  Didn't scroll across the tiles well either.  It's really hard to explain it effectively though, I'm realizing now, but it wasn't good enough to keep.  Even changing the resolution didn't really help much - just made it slower.  I was disappointed, to say the least.   I thought my big plasma with the 600mhz refresh rate would kick butt but it really didn't at all.  Much better on my 21" LCD computer monitor.  My FSP games, however, were much better on the tv, probably due to the faster refresh rate with faster moving games and more dedicated graphics but I own most of them on console anyway so, what's the point?  Try it yourself and see, if you're curious enough.  Maybe it will work better on your tv than mine.  I should've taken some screen shots but it never crossed my mind to share them here.  Figured most people have already done it lol.

Post some pics though if you do it, please.  I'd be curious to see how you fare with it.

[Prophet42 1,503]

SC4 wasn't really desgned for 2016 high resolution tv's.  It was designed for what was high resolution in 2003.

[rivit 3,402]

SC4 works quite well on high resolution (monitors or TV) as long as you have

a: the grunt in the CPU you need and I mean per core (as it doesn't really like multicore).

b: the size of GFX card that can contain and drive those display resolutions i.e. lotsamem 

    btw. sc4 typically runs at only 30fps (or shall we say tries to) so GFX grunt is not that hard to satisfy. However best run in DirectX mode

c: the correct custom resolution shortcut  eg. --CustomResolution:enabled -f -r1920x1080x32 -d:directx -CPUCount:1 for the display

d: your graphics card is correctly recognised by the startup script in SC4:

look to USERID-config-log.txt in SC4:\\Apps folder which will tell you how it SC4 configured at run time

[I think some has explained this in depth elsewhere on Simtropolis but I cant remember/find the link.] 

e: You set the in-game graphics options commensurately - turning shadows down has the single largest performance improvement. 

 

In my experience this works OK even if it feels a bit weird, but you have to sit some distance back from the screen in order to preserve your perspective of the scene. As it's a relatively static show (there's not that much moving around) you can easily become fixated on the pixels themselves - esp. in closest zoom quality differences between SD and HD content will really be obvious if seen alongside each other. 

You may also need to adjust colors a bit on the big TV display as SC4 has a low saturation palette which looks even paler on big screens.

Like @MeMyself&I I prefer the high quality, small pixel 24" IPS display on my desk running 1920x1080x32. 

[CorinaMarie 29,857]

1 hour ago, rivit said:

[I think some has explained this in depth elsewhere on Simtropolis but I cant remember/find the link.] 

I believe you are referring to: How to configure SC4 to work with your new hardware.

[rivit 3,402]

Thanks CorinaMarie - its certainly a bit of a sprawler but the most important stuff is on the first page of that thread.

[rsc204 21,857]

One thing that I will say, as a person who's had a TV hooked up to my PC for a very long time. TVs do not generally work well as monitors. Because monitors are designed for people to read text, they are made very differently from the screens you get inside a TV, which is optimised for moving images.

Back 15 years ago I first used an SVideo output at 1024x768 to a 28" CRT screen. It worked fine playing some games, not so great with video, because quality wasn't anything like what we have today, but you could forget about reading text on it. Today I have a 42" Plasma hooked up a 1080p, which is great for video. I don't really play games on my PC like I used to, but occasionally I want to pause something I'm watching and check something on the internet without getting off the couch. For me the internet is usable, but no for long periods, again text doesn't display all that well, but it's a huge improvement on this TV. In real terms though, this TV is around 3 times the size of my monitors, with the same resolution. That's why something like SC4 might not look so great on it, because every pixel is much larger. Not to mention, I don't find using a keyboard/mouse from my sofa particularly comfortable either. That's why I would always prefer to play something like SC4 at a desk.

Over the years, I've had the original SimCity on a small Psion Organiser, but my first experience was on the SNES. The SNES version holds up really well, even with the controller, perhaps because it's quite simplistic. In fact it worked well on the Psion too, surprisingly so for such a mobile device. Step forward to SC2000, which I have played on a Sega Saturn and Windows Mobile device (Pocket PC). The Saturn version is not so great, the resolution is a bit low and suddenly the controller just starts to be a serious impediment to enjoying the game. The Windows Mobile version is IMO terrible, even on a device with an 800x600 display (very rare in those times), between constant scrolling and stylus-based input, it simply becomes to cumbersome to be really enjoyable.

So you can play on a TV, depending on the quality of said TV and size, along with the distance you sit from it, your experience may vary considerably. But I'd have to agree with Rivit that in front of a high-quality IPS display (24" 1080p) is where I am happiest playing.

15 hours ago, Prophet42 said:

SC4 wasn't really desgned for 2016 high resolution tv's.  It was designed for what was high resolution in 2003.

Yes and no. Who had a 1080p display back then? For the longest time, my laptop's 1450x1050 display was the highest resolution monitor I had. SC4 will actually go a little higher than 1080p also. It great that such an old game was in some ways very future proof in this regard. It was only 3 years ago I upgraded to a 1080p monitor, before that I had an 18" 1280x768 panel. The improvement in my game was really fantastic when I did upgrade though. Combined with a half-decent GPU where I can switch on all sorts of features to further improve the image, I'd argue you can do things with SC4 today, that simply were unthinkable back in 2003.

[Prophet42 1,503]

I think I read somewhere that SC4 supports up to 1200p very well.  Above that I have heard that people run into issues  My laptop that I run SC4 on is 900p (17") and the game looks great.  With most TVs now at 2K to 4K, I don't think SC4 will work very well.  The OP and MeMyself&I did not state what resolution their TV's were at so, I assumed (right or wrong) that it was 2K or above (especially on a 52" plasma Panasonic ).  That was the reasoning of my original post of SC4 not supporting 2016 TV resolutions.

[MeMyself&I 379]

I had my tv set at 1920x1080 res and changed it around a few times but found that the best picture I could get with the game was at 1366x768, actually.  It was easiest to read the text AND view the pictures but no matter where I set the resolution of the tv, the computer, or the game itself, it still wasn't nearly as good as my computer monitor which is an Acer 23" LCD HD (I know I said 21" earlier but I was mistaken).  I used dvi to hdmi connections and I sat on my couch which is about 9 feet away and, speaking of which, the display was drastic between 4 and 9 feet distance - 9 feet being by far and away the better distance.  I couldn't move any further back as there is a wall behind the couch but I would've liked to try it at around 10-12 feet, just to see.  One thing I did like a lot and I remember well was the look of the water and the colors were pretty cool overall.  I was using vanilla then, hadn't hooked up here yet, but I did have NAM 34 installed.  The roads looked nice too as long as I wasn't moving the picture.  The blacks were beautiful but that's the plasma tv

My computer has dual GEforce gtx 650 GTi video cards, is Intel dual core quad at 3.00 GHz with 8GB ram running on Windows 10 64 bit.  I had just upgraded to Win 10 about a week before that.  The biggest issue I noticed with SC4 on the big tv was definitely the pixels at zoomed in views.  The buildings and roads, trees - and even the cars were just blocky and silly looking.  Not bad zoomed out, actually, it might have been better because you could see more in the screen than on a monitor but overall it just wasn't all that great.  Scrolling was bad.  It seemed to "drag" the picture and stretch it out, distorting it until you stopped moving it and then it would resize quickly.  There were also gaps or gashes in the video, especially when scrolling but these issues were less prevalent in 1080 res.  I probably didn't tweak it all well enough to make it work properly.  Someone with a lot more knowledge of computers and electronics in general, like one of you guys, could probably make it look a little better.  I did everything I knew how to.

To be honest, even my FPS games I have on console looked wayyyyyyyyy better on my plasma tv with my computer than they do with the PS3 or the Xbox.  I have MW, and COD on both console and PC and I've always preferred the PC graphics over the console, myself.  I have the AC series on pc and those games were phenomenal on the plasma big screen!  They just move quick and the faster display and better colors were awesome.  SC4, not so much.  Very happy playing it at my desk with my monitor where the display is always great! I'm actually concerned right now because I have to upgrade my video cards to be able to play the newest AC games but I'm not sure I want to because my rig plays SC4 perfectly and I play that more than anything else right now.  Some of my friends think I'm crazy but they just don't get it

[CorinaMarie 29,857]

4 minutes ago, MeMyself&I said:

I'm actually concerned right now because I have to upgrade my video cards to be able to play the newest AC games but I'm not sure I want to because my rig plays SC4 perfectly and I play that more than anything else right now.

There's a simple solution for this.

Spoiler

Keep your current rig and video cards specifically for SC4. If you want to play other games, get them their own comp. Taking a chance on borking SC4 is simply not an option.

 

[MeMyself&I 379]

7 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

There's a simple solution for this.

Yeah, I know.  I love Assassin's Creed a lot but I think I'm starting to find more solace in SC4 than in the shooters.  I'm pretty much done with the COD games but I like AC because it's much more than just a shooter.  Still, especially now that I've discovered the mods and all the great people on this site I'm very happy and less stressed out with SC4.  It's always been one of my top 3 favorites all time anyway just made 100x better now .  I think that it's as therapeutic as painting.  Seriously.

[rsc204 21,857]

8 hours ago, Prophet42 said:

I think I read somewhere that SC4 supports up to 1200p very well.  Above that I have heard that people run into issues  My laptop that I run SC4 on is 900p (17") and the game looks great.  With most TVs now at 2K to 4K, I don't think SC4 will work very well.  The OP and MeMyself&I did not state what resolution their TV's were at so, I assumed (right or wrong) that it was 2K or above (especially on a 52" plasma Panasonic ).  That was the reasoning of my original post of SC4 not supporting 2016 TV resolutions.

Ah, I must be well out of date. Since 1080p is as far as my mind goes. My 42" Plasma is also a Panasonic, but only 1080p. One of the last in Europe, I think the EU were banning plasmas, not energy efficient enough or something. Not to mention I'm sure Panasonic stopped making plasmas, LED's were selling much better. So when I read plasma, 2k/4k simply didn't occur to me as a possibility.

[MeMyself&I 379]

41 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I think the EU were banning plasmas, not energy efficient enough or something.

Same in the states.  No more plasmas.  This tv is by FAR the best I've ever owned and worth every single penny I paid!  Come to think of it, I didn't pay that much for it in the first place (maybe $700 brand new some 8 years ago)  I love the viewing angles if I'm off in the kitchen making some grub I can still see the screen clearly at around a 60 degree angle, unlike the LCD I have upstairs in the bedroom.  A blu ray movie on my PS3 and my tv with my awesome Onkyo surround sound system is quite the movie experience, especially with these newer movies that have so much "shaky, the cameraman" aspects in their shooting now.  Watching the same movie on one of my LCD tvs isn't the same.  Not bad, mind you, just not as good as the plasma.  I think the plasmas are touted to have upwards of 100,000 hrs of viewing time on them before the screens let go too. The screens do get very hot though!  I've had mine for around 8 years and I will miss it sorely when it's time is up   I like the LCD for computer monitor but I won't have one for a tv again.  Only LED after my Panasonic goes away.

[rsc204 21,857]

I'd have to agree with you, I love my Panasonic too. 10 years ago I had a 32" Flat/Wide CRT Panasonic, I wouldn't have parted with it, but I moved country, so there was no realistic way to bring it with me. I hastily purchased an Aldi-brand Flatscreen LED but always sort of regreted it. It was great with my XBox and for films, but useless with my old consoles and SD content. So begrudingly I replaced it with the Panasonic I wanted but couldn't previously afford maybe 5 years ago. I was lucky to find a 2-year old model which still had Scart Sockets, because with the amount of stuff I've got to hook up, I really needed them. The newer ones don't have anything but HDMI these days, I'll be screwed when I have to move on from this one. Likewise I've a decent surround sound system, a Technics receiver and set of Mission speakers. Those are probably turning 15 years old now, aside from some earthing issues with the receiver I'm hopeful can be fixed someday, (you know, rather than banging it a bit until it works), its excellent.

Sounds like you got a good deal though, 3 years later than you and 10" less in size, I had to pony up 800€ for mine. Although I got 200€ of that back because when it arrived it was obviously opened previously and therefore not new.

[CorinaMarie 29,857]

13 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

(you know, rather than banging it a bit until it works)

^ aka Percussion Maintenance.  

[MeMyself&I 379]

45 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Likewise I've a decent surround sound system, a Technics receiver and set of Mission speakers. Those are probably turning 15 years old now

Wow. Mission speakers!  I haven't heard that name in a very long time.  I actually had a roommate who was in the Air Force way back in the 90s and he bought a pair of Mission speakers when he was stationed in Scotland and he paid a bundle to have them shipped back home when his tour was up because, back then, no one here had ever heard of them. They're British made, correct?  Big floor standing beasts with real booming bass and mid-range.  They were so good that my JBL uprights went into the basement and the Missions were front and center in the living room of our bachelor pad in all their glory!  I think they were 773 - or 77E model (maybe), tall with nice looking dark oak cabinets and removable covers so you could watch the bass reflex in the woofer.  Not as good for home theater sound but awesome for rock and jazz music!  They handled everything that my Pioneer 90 wpc receiver could muster without so much as a pop or crackle.  Had to turn down the bass for watching movies with them though or you couldn't hear anything else.  Awesome low-end performing towers!  I wonder whatever became of them   Are they still making them?  You can't go wrong with a Technics anything.  Always good stuff and I've had many in my life from receivers to speakers to tape decks and turntables.  One of those "go-to" brands because you know they're good and relatively affordable.

The Klipsch Palladiums I have now are just so mind-blowingly awesome there is nothing from the past that can even hold a candle but I can't even begin to tell you how much overtime I had to work to afford them.  Amazing ambient sound on all channels at all levels with no projection at all.  It's audio heaven!  With me, my wife and our daughter all being musicians, a top end sound system has always been a priority and I have never made many concessions as far as good sound goes.  Everyone loves this setup now and we have to vie for Ipod docking rights on Saturday mornings.

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

I was lucky to find a 2-year old model which still had Scart Sockets

What is a Scart socket, prey tell???

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, MeMyself&I said:

The Klipsch Palladiums I have now are just so mind-blowingly awesome there is nothing from the past that can even hold a candle but I can't even begin to tell you how much overtime I had to work to afford them.

What kind of amp do you have running them, and are they bookshelf or towers?

When we moved (forced out by my grandparents) we left a lot of the old stereo stuff behind (I think we had around 7 old amps that we weren't using, in addition to the three that we were, not to mention I think about a dozen turntables), but my dad insisted that on bringing along an old Panasonic Technics (70s, I think, or early 80s). Really nice feel to it, though the contacts are a little wonky cause the sound on one side cuts out if you jiggle the switch the wrong way sometimes.

My dad really wants to upgrade his PSBs (B25s) but he was looking at some Paradigm towers (can't remember the model). Hasn't looked at anything seriously since we moved though because we don't have the room, and the B25s are such an easy sounding speaker.  A little warm sounding (think laid-back or mellow, not particularly bright,), but extremely easy on the ears, which makes them difficult to replace since they run so well on relatively low end hardware (usually a NAD amp--gee there goes the model again--but sometimes using a revamped ST70 that I built for him a few years ago (from a kit) driving the speakers instead so that the NAD is essentially a preamp).

We'd probably have to step up to something like the Klipsch Palladiums in order to have a noticeable impact on the sound, and that's a little off budget with everything else that's going on right now (coupled with the lack of space to actually enjoy any of these setups). Biggest issue with the ST70 is that it's actually a little unforgiving compared to everything else, so ironically Vinyl sounds pretty terrible through it compared to any other setup, which is ironic considering that it's a tube amp.

Biggest problem I can see with any speaker upgrade is making sure they sound good with your amp. We had tried out some Epos M5s, which were absolutely incredible in the showroom, but did terrible when hooked up to my Dad's old Onkyo; the Bose 301s outperformed them, which is why we went with the PSBs since they're so much more forgiving, and imaged well with the low-end amps.

5 hours ago, MeMyself&I said:

This tv is by FAR the best I've ever owned and worth every single penny I paid!  Come to think of it, I didn't pay that much for it in the first place (maybe $700 brand new some 8 years ago)

My Dad and I bought our Plasma at Costco in a last-effort promo sale for about $1000, and I think one of the best parts about it is the ability to watch non-HD programing and still enjoy the picture. This is really difficult to do on an LED/LCD TV of any significant size (heck just try watching 480p Youtube on a 1080p laptop), but for the most part you can ignore this with the Plasma, which means that your DVD and VHS collection is not yet obsolete. That and I absolutely can't stand the Smooth-motion effect of LED TVs; makes everything look like I'm watching British TV (no offense Robin) which is, well, fine when I'm watching BBC programs, but really terrible if I'm trying to enjoy something like a movie or American TV (the constantly running display screens at Costco bear this out pretty quickly).

  Edited November 14, 2016 by APSMS  

[APSMS 1,893]

8 hours ago, MeMyself&I said:

Yeah, I know.  I love Assassin's Creed a lot but I think I'm starting to find more solace in SC4 than in the shooters.  I'm pretty much done with the COD games but I like AC because it's much more than just a shooter.

Replayability is a big factor for me, especially now that I have crummy internet (satellite is great for no alternative, but that doesn't mean it's particularly good). I've only ever played CoD at friends houses since my family never bought video games, but I can't imagine enjoying it that much with just internet buddies, esp. given the community. I have played more difficult FPS games like RO2 and Insurgency, and I still suck at them, but they behave more realistically (in RO2 nothing quite like driving a tanks and realizing how blind you are inside, since there's no 3rd person view--no wonder T34 tankers couldn't find their targets!), which I think bodes well for immersion and replayability. Plus my computer can't play such a fancy-looking game like CoD, so I guess there's that, too , or at least, not without an eGPU which again I lack the money to make, and these non-AAA games are so much less expensive.

6 hours ago, rsc204 said:

So when I read plasma, 2k/4k simply didn't occur to me as a possibility.

Isn't 2K just 1920x1080p? 1920~2000=2K? Just like 3840~4000=4K?

[Bassblitzed 1]

I currently play SC4 on a 60" Sony 1920 x 1080 tv. It works just fine and looks great! it is a little low quality up really close but runs fine and is fun to play.

[rsc204 21,857]

On 14/11/2016 at 4:22 AM, MeMyself&I said:

What is a Scart socket, prey tell???

I forgot, outside of Europe these sockets don't really exist. But an RGB SCART connection gives dedicated channels for each colour and a sharper picture than either AV Cables or S-Video, two formats that were never that big here. In essence it's a single 21-pin connector.

On 14/11/2016 at 4:22 AM, MeMyself&I said:

They're British made, correct?  Big floor standing beasts with real booming bass and mid-range.

Yup. At the time I bought them, I had been through a couple stereos and realised I was very in to music. So I saved up and decided to stop messing around and buy the system I wanted to keep for a long time. Spent ages in showrooms testing various speakers, but of those I could afford, these were absolutely the best. They even survived a house fire, one has a little melted plastic on the bottom. My flatmate never forgave me for taking the time to move my speakers whilst we were trying to put out a fire!

[Calvss 27]

I've played it on an old Sony 30" Trinitron CRT, does that count? Runs well and the graphics isn't too bad, actually. There's just something about CRTs that make low res look nice.

[MeMyself&I 379]

12 hours ago, APSMS said:

What kind of amp do you have running them, and are they bookshelf or towers?

The speakers are P-17b bookshelf speakers in Espresso which look great in the living room.  The only bookshelf speakers I've ever had with two horns but they don't look that big, actually.  I don't really have the room for towers anymore or, I should say, they don't look as good in my living room.  I have a pair of Klipsch RP-250s surround speakers on the rear channel and an RP-450c center channel, and a 12" Reference 400w subwoofer with a built in bass amp.  All driven with an Onkyo TX-RZ800 7.2 channel receiver with a built in 7 channel amp at 135 watts per channel.  It has MORE than enough power without needing a separate amp and the quality of sound is amazing, whether it's recorded digital music, vinyl or home theater.  I paid $1000 for this receiver last year and a guy I work with just bought the exact same unit from Crutchfield for $650 - which is an absolute steal, in my opinion.  One thing I love about this receiver is the 3 zone speaker setup.  I need more speakers for that though (they're on my wish list to Santa this year).  I'd like to put some built ins in the kitchen and another pair of either built in wall or maybe ceiling speakers - or maybe even some bookshelfs, depending on the price, in the office which is in the basement.  Still adding to it and that's the fun part!  My brother has a similar setup with his Denon gear but I'll bet he's got a good $15k wrapped up in that system.  I simply can't afford anything like that and I've got all I can use for less than half the price.  I really don't think the Denon system he has is THAT much better than mine although he'll tell you it is.

The plasma I got at Sears right around Christmas time some 8 years ago and it was an open box return but still had everything packed intact.  I went there to get the 54" Panasonic which was on sale for $1050 but ended up with the slightly smaller one for $699 - I had to jump on it - it was too good to pass up.  I don't even miss the extra 2".  My next tv will definitely be a 60" LED when my plasma goes but, for now, it's just as good as the day I brought it home!

12 hours ago, APSMS said:

I've only ever played CoD at friends houses since my family never bought video games, but I can't imagine enjoying it that much with just internet buddies, esp. given the community.

Yes.  There are a LOT of cheaters online for CoD and it's really not fun if you can't match up.  I'm pretty good at it but It's very different when you're playing against someone who can see through walls and has an aimbot fixed on you at all times.  How do you compete with that?  I don't use any cheats or mods because I think they're shady, at best, as well as the sources they come from.  I love the Modern Warfare series best for military shooters and the single player mode was great but, as you said, replay-ability is important and there is only so much to be squeezed out of it.  Back when MW first came out the online game was pretty fun and there weren't nearly as many cheaters then.  Now, it's insane and I just refuse to go there.  I enjoy the game but it's just not fun anymore with hackers everywhere.  As I mentioned to Cori earlier, I really love the AC series and I think they are probably my favorite FPS games but they're so much more than just shooters.  I like the exploration and the puzzles, the role playing and the dynamics of movement.  I can play AC3 for hours without ever drawing a weapon and still have fun.  My video cards won't play the newest AC games though so, once the sound system is in place I will focus on a second PC.  I've never played RO2.  I might have to check it out now.  I didn't know you could drive tanks!!  Dude!

4 hours ago, rsc204 said:

My flatmate never forgave me for taking the time to move my speakers whilst we were trying to put out a fire!

Priorities:  Kids, pets, electronics.  When I was single I probably would've singed my hair to save my speakers too!  I don't see why someone would not understand this

[APSMS 1,893]

On 11/14/2016 at 10:35 AM, MeMyself&I said:

I've never played RO2.  I might have to check it out now.  I didn't know you could drive tanks!!  Dude!

You've probably heard that it doesn't hold your hand, and it doesn't, so beware. Most populated servers nowadays run with a killfeed on, which IMO destroys the experience, but I take what I can get. I don't think the weapon handing is as good as in Insurgency, but it might be that my rig is not up to par, because Insurgency runs a lot better than RO2 on it. That being said, you can blind fire in RO2, mantle obstacles (much like Battlefield), bandage yourself if shot in a non-critical location (lest you bleed out), run while crouched (like in Real Life, so you can stay protected by the trench cover), and carry two primary and two secondary weapons, though you will be significantly slower for this, and it could end up killing you (so really only recommended if you're someone like an AT gunner, who can only fire when the gun is setup on the bipod). Also, beware arty strikes and man-portable mortar systems, which don't always kill you, but suppress you immensely, and suppression, rather than killing your aim (like in BF or COD) destroys your ability to return fire (your character starts screaming profanities in Russian or German).

As for tanks, they modeled the interior so when you're not looking through the periscope or sights, you are looking at the interior of the tank including other crew members (that haven't been killed yet; you can get shot out inside the tank by AT gunners), or you're going through reload animations (the commander (or is it the gunner?) in a T-34 also does the reloading, which means that you're forced to take your eyes off the sight after each shot. If your driver (NPC) dies/gets shot out, then you have to climb through the tank to fill his spot every time you need to move, and then back up to the gunner position to acquire the next target; it's something else, and they bothered to animated you climbing through the tank like you would IRL. Caveat of RO2 coming from COD is that it's significantly less flashy. The graphics serve for me, but if you're addicted to the shine and polish that is COD or Battlefield, you're going to be disappointed. I really like the game (if you can't tell), I just wish it ran better on my laptop (which is not a gaming rig at all).

On 11/14/2016 at 10:35 AM, MeMyself&I said:

I simply can't afford anything like that and I've got all I can use for less than half the price.  I really don't think the Denon system he has is THAT much better than mine although he'll tell you it is.

True audiophiles bring you over for listening sessions when they upgrade the cables. Yeah. I've done this (been invited). You can hear the difference between cables, but only when coming from the crummiest of Box store generics (monster cable really sucks in this regard). Most expensive bit of the setup my dad has right now is the ST70 Tube amp, which was ~$700 for the kit, and is 1 input, stereo only. Advantage of building it yourself is that the sound runs about 2.5 times that cost if you buy something similar at an audio store (around $1800 minimum), but you do have to deal with very numb, burned fingers and the occasional bloody hand when building it (the stainless steel chassis has a top and bottom, and I made the mistake of carrying the unit around by the top half's bottom edge when it was half-built without the bottom cover installed but with all three transformers attached; the unit weighed about 30 lbs at that point and had a blunt but freshly machined stainless steel edge. I cut both my hands at all three different joint positions when I carried it and only noticed when I saw red stuff on the chassis after I had brought it to the work bench). It also took me I think a good 6 weeks to build, but if you actually dedicate time to it (I did it during physics class in High School) it probably only takes about a week the first time around (2 days if you're preternaturally good with electronics assembly and a soldering iron).

My dad has gone through a number of efforts to increase the wattage of the unit (70W total, 35 WPC at it's most efficient), but honestly we rarely listen to it in an environment where more power is necessary, since my Dad tries not to run it frivolously and wear out the tubes (which are rated for maybe 1500 to 3000 hours max). There's a whole ton of off-topic stuff I could discuss about tube amps and their function and sound in general; most notable is their weight. The ST70 weighs the better part of 34 pounds (IIRC; about 4 gallons of water for comparison) and is about the size of a 15 inch laptop (not quite as big).

Our Onkyo is still with us (I think) but it has a bad resistor somewhere (I think) and the sound will cut out every so often now. We've had it for the better part of 30 years now, and although it sounds nice, it really doesn't compare much to either the ST70 tube amp or the more conventional NAD (low budget model) we have, especially with the higher-end speakers (though B25s don't hold a candle to your Klipsch).

EDIT: I just got a good look at the P-17b Klipsch's in Stereophile's review. Dang, that is a nice looking speaker. My mom would through a fit about the price, though.

There's also the joke that comes to mind:

How does one make a small fortune in High-End Audio?

Answer:

Spoiler

Start with a large one.

 

  Edited November 16, 2016 by APSMS  

[MeMyself&I 379]

13 hours ago, APSMS said:

True audiophiles bring you over for listening sessions when they upgrade the cables.

Yes.  This would be my brother.

13 hours ago, APSMS said:

Our Onkyo is still with us (I think) but it has a bad resistor somewhere (I think) and the sound will cut out every so often now. We've had it for the better part of 30 years now, and although it sounds nice, it really doesn't compare much to either the ST70 tube amp or the more conventional NAD (low budget model) we have, especially with the higher-end speakers

I think this is a genetic deformity with Onkyo receivers because the last two I had BOTH had that same problem and you said yours is going on 30 years old?  Mine weren't nearly that old - together!  But they both had the problem of cutting out.  Got them both fixed by the factory at no cost to me but it appears to be a trend with them.  Kinda like the late 90s/early 2000 models of Chevy/GMC vehicles and their constantly cutting out rear taillight circuit boards.  It took GM a good 10 years to finally fix that issue.  Real easy to replace, which is a good thing seeing as how you had to do it three times a year.  This Onkyo receiver is immune to the sound issue of the older models or, so they tell me.  So far, so good!  I think new receivers have really come a long way and can really compete with the separates now if you invest in them.  I had separates for years; amps, preamps, equalizers, etc.  I wouldn't have had it any other way back then but we're talking about a long time ago.  As much as I love my brother it irks me when he comes over and listens to my setup and just shrugs and says "Hmm, not bad"

13 hours ago, APSMS said:

It also took me I think a good 6 weeks to build, but if you actually dedicate time to it (I did it during physics class in High School) it probably only takes about a week the first time around (2 days if you're preternaturally good with electronics assembly and a soldering iron).

This is NOT me!  Electronics and me have an understanding; I use them and they do what they do without me interfering in their workings.  If you need a rear end put in your pickup or a transmission replaced in your washing machine or a garage door installed then hey - I am your man!  This is the type of stuff I grew up with and have experience with.  Fiddling with small circuitry and transistors and stuff like that is not something I'm good at.  I am naturally pre-disposed to learning though and I learn a lot about things that interest me just by reading and talking to people who DO know and are willing to share their knowledge - like so many of you here.  I came here to learn about modding and how to make my SC4 game even more fun and interesting but I've received a huge bonus of learning a lot of technical information about things like computers and the internet and code and protocol and stuff like that as well.  This is why I follow people like you and MGB and matias and compdude and tarkus and Cori around.  Just this conversation alone I've learned a lot about several things and I thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge with me!  Someday soon maybe I will put my computer under the knife myself or decide to build an amp.  Never really thought about it until recently so that's a start! 

14 hours ago, APSMS said:

I just got a good look at the P-17b Klipsch's in Stereophile's review. Dang, that is a nice looking speaker. My mom would through a fit about the price, though.

Yup.  I worked a lot of overtime to buy them and I got them separately, actually.  Bought the right one first and then the left about two months later from two different places.  Still, almost 3k invested in just those two alone but they are awesome!  The rest of the speakers I've picked up piecemeal over the past two years and I would love to have an entire Palladium set of 7 . . . Yeahhhhhhh.  Mind boggling that those two main speakers cost 3x what I paid for the receiver itself!  I don't see me having the whole set.  I'm happy with what I have and they work great together.  I'm completely devoted to Klipsch speakers ever since I bought my first set of surround sound speakers back in the early 90s.  The amp that my brother has for his Denon setup weighs around 35 pounds too.  It actually has big, orange handles on it to pull and lift it, not unlike the heads for larger guitar amps.  He also built a liquid cooling system for his speakers to keep the tweeters cool because they get really hot when used at high end for a while.  Crazy stuff!  But he's a mechanical engineer so this is kind of what he does anyway.  I've seen liquid coolers for amps, receivers, and even computers but never speakers.  I never noticed mine getting hot but I've never checked either.  I love a really great sound system but I think my idea of great and other people's ideas of great are two different animals sometimes and it is almost always impossible to keep up with ALL of the Joneses.

[vintagamer 75]

Does anyone know if SimCity 4 would play well with 2560x1080 (21:9 UltraWide) monitors? I'm getting one soon and have been scouting around looking for this info; I read somewhere (don't know where) that SimCity 4 doesn't really like width resolutions much past 2000. 

[rsc204 21,857]

I should imagine there is a limit to the supported resolutions, given the technology available back when the game was made, it works surprisingly well up to 1920x1080 resolutions. But I know past 1200 on the vertical side there are problems with region view being cut off. I'd imagine similar issues would present themselves with the horizontal resolution too. Most likely you'll have to adjust the resolution to something smaller when playing, but given the odd dimensions of UltraWide monitors, it's hard to say how good/bad that will end up looking.

In my experience, every UltraWide monitor I've seen costs nearly twice that of a regular one. Yet compared to having two separate monitors, you get much less screen real estate both physically and in terms of the overall resolution. For example 2xHD = 3840x1080 overall resolution. Granted, it's not the same as an UltraWide, but if you want to run apps side by side, twin-monitors is a huge boost in flexibility over one.

[vintagamer 75]

simcity.wikia.com says the max horizontal resolution is 2048. With that as the horizontal resolution, the 21:9 res would be about 2048x878.

And yes, I know that a twin monitor setup would be more cost-efficient (I'm purchasing a $200 Ultrawide when I could have gotten two $100 monitors with the same vertical height, but I'm going to be hooking it up to my laptop, which only has 1 video output, and I like the ratio of Ultrawides, especially for watching movies.

[rsc204 21,857]

3 hours ago, vintagamer said:

With that as the horizontal resolution, the 21:9 res would be about 2048x878

But of course it's not that simple. You need to pick a resolution supported by the game too. Probably you'd be best running at 1980x1080, but of course, the monitor will also need to support that resolution too.

3 hours ago, vintagamer said:

but I'm going to be hooking it up to my laptop, which only has 1 video output

Clearly in such cases a dual monitor setup is out of the question. That said, if you are using a laptop, worst case if the monitor doesn't play well with SC4, you can continue to use the laptop's screen to play.

[vintagamer 75]

Quote

But of course it's not that simple. You need to pick a resolution supported by the game too. Probably you'd be best running at 1980x1080, but of course, the monitor will also need to support that resolution too.

Yeah, I think the monitor would be fine running at that resolution, just with letterboxing. And wow, I thought the game was a little more open with supporting resolutions; apparently not. It's kind of disappointing it's not simple to make an open-source SC4 like people have done with OpenRCT and OpenTTD.