Higher resolutions allow you to resolve more detail at a distance, regardless of texture resolution.
With a low texture resolution and high display resolution, it means is that you can stand farther away from textured objects and still see the texture detail in all its lo-res glory.

For example. try reading the movie billboard at 320x200, and again at 1024x768. How far do you have to stand at 320x200 to have it legible vs 1024x768 ?

There really is therefore NO native resolution in 3D textured games.

tpowell.ca wrote:

Higher resolutions allow you to resolve more detail at a distance, regardless of texture resolution. With a low texture resoluti […]
Show full quote

Higher resolutions allow you to resolve more detail at a distance, regardless of texture resolution.
With a low texture resolution and high display resolution, it means is that you can stand farther away from textured objects and still see the texture detail in all its lo-res glory.

For example. try reading the movie billboard at 320x200, and again at 1024x768. How far do you have to stand at 320x200 to have it legible vs 1024x768 ?

There really is therefore NO native resolution in 3D textured games.

Well having installed Duke Nukem 3D Atomic Edition (v1.5) just now, I was slightly disappointed to discover the highest SVGA/VESA mode it offers me in setup is 800x600. So maybe the original game can only go as high as that instead. Which makes more sense.

I edited the duke3d.cfg file to first try 1600x1200, but the game launched in 320x200 mode.

I then edited to try 1024x768, and the game launched in that mode, displayed the first 2 secs of the intro movie then promptly froze. 800x600 works fine. I'm using a QDI Legend card with 2x Voodoo2 in SLI, if that helps.

It's a bit complicated here and I'll try to explain as simple as I can on why.

Considering the 2D stuff, Duke3D's "native res" is 320x200, however the pixel aspect of everything 3d in the Build universe is for a straight up 4:3 res, meaning it'll always look 'correct' in the world on 320x240 and above (unlike Doom, which all of its art is tailored for 320x200@4:3)

The actual resolution support is all up to whatever your video card's VBE implements. It supports way more than whatever Mark Dochtermann bothered to code setmain.exe for. Ken's build setup program offers way more video options.

leileilol wrote:

It's a bit complicated here and I'll try to explain as simple as I can on why.

Considering the 2D stuff, Duke3D's "native res" is 320x200

What do you mean by "native res" ?

tpowell.ca wrote:

leileilol wrote:

It's a bit complicated here and I'll try to explain as simple as I can on why.

Considering the 2D stuff, Duke3D's "native res" is 320x200

What do you mean by "native res" ?

i guess he means the resolution that the graphics assets are made without any scaling at all.
For example on Paint if i create a 320x240 canvas and draw on it, it will be the 320x240 will be like

but scaling it by 2 (640x480), it will look like

tpowell.ca wrote:

leileilol wrote:

It's a bit complicated here and I'll try to explain as simple as I can on why.

Considering the 2D stuff, Duke3D's "native res" is 320x200

What do you mean by "native res" ?

He means the (max) resolution of all the 2D arts such as sprites and textures.
If you extract the TILES0XX.ART files from DUKE3D.GRP you can inspect all textures/sprites of the game by using EDITART.EXE.
All of them are 320x200 (or smaller). They typically look like this in EDITART (with corrected aspect ratio):

Falcosoft wrote:

If you extract the TILES0XX.ART files from DUKE3D.GRP you can inspect all textures/sprites of the game by using EDITART.EXE.
All of them are 320x200 (or smaller). They typically look like this in EDITART (with corrected aspect ratio):

tile1.jpg

Interesting, and agreed. I really would have thought they would use many different texture resolutions for different assets, all of which would be lower than 320x200.
That said, while the highest texture resolution may be 320x200, it still doesn't make the game natively 320x200, only a game of 8:5 ratio for which the minimum resolution is 320x200 to see full texture resolution (when the texture takes up the whole screen).

Like any 3D game, the solution here to bergqvistjl's observations would be some form of filtering.

tpowell.ca wrote:

Interesting, and agreed. I really would have thought they would use many different texture resolutions for different assets, all […]
Show full quote

Falcosoft wrote:

If you extract the TILES0XX.ART files from DUKE3D.GRP you can inspect all textures/sprites of the game by using EDITART.EXE.
All of them are 320x200 (or smaller). They typically look like this in EDITART (with corrected aspect ratio):

tile1.jpg

Interesting, and agreed. I really would have thought they would use many different texture resolutions for different assets, all of which would be lower than 320x200.
That said, while the highest texture resolution may be 320x200, it still doesn't make the game natively 320x200, only a game of 8:5 ratio for which the minimum resolution is 320x200 to see full texture resolution (when the texture takes up the whole screen).

Like any 3D game, the solution here to bergqvistjl's observations would be some form of filtering.

Of course. It just simply explains why OP still sees the sprites as 'pixelated' even in high resolutions. Contrary to 'normal' 3D games (that usually do not use 'sprites' at all) DN3D does not simply use these low resolution bitmaps as textures on 3D objects but also as characters, weapons, 2D objects, etc. While 'geometry' improves in higher resolutions the sprites do not.

only a game of 8:5 ratio for which the minimum resolution is 320x200

Also a little correction: This game does not have a 8:5 aspect ratio (even in 320x200 mode) but 4:3 just like the majority of 320x200/Mode 13h games.
It's because the 320x200 resolution was intended to be aspect ratio corrected to 4/3 (just like 320x240 or 640x480) since its pixel aspect ratio is 1:1.2 not 1:1.
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Aspect_ratio
DOSBox Scaling is Limited

Falcosoft wrote:

Also a little correction: This game does not have a 8:5 aspect ratio (even in 320x200 mode) but 4:3 just like the majority of 32 […]
Show full quote

Also a little correction: This game does not have a 8:5 aspect ratio (even in 320x200 mode) but 4:3 just like the majority of 320x200/Mode 13h games.
It's because the 320x200 resolution was intended to be aspect ratio corrected to 4/3 (just like 320x240 or 640x480) since its pixel aspect ratio is 1:1.2 not 1:1.
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Aspect_ratio
DOSBox Scaling is Limited

Yes, that does make sense since CRT monitors typically were set up to fill the screen, and were 4:3 ratio.
You sir, are a smart man.

Some were 5:4 1280x1024

Davros wrote:

Some were 5:4 1280x1024

The interesting factoid is 1280x1024 resolution and 5:4 aspect ratio was linked together only by the LCD industry in the LCD era. 1280x1024 existed as a standard VESA resolution long before the LCD boom but just like 640x400, 320x200 etc. was considered a non square pixel resolution intended to be aspect ratio corrected to 4:3 just like the others. So even CRT monitors that listed 1280x1024 in the specification as recommended resolution were also regular 4:3 monitors:
https://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkvis … tor-15-6331pce/

I have a dell 2007fpb monitor that lets me view the input at a 1:1 resolution centred in the middle of the screen. Also let's me view it blown up to fill the screen, either stretched to fit the 4:3 aspect of the (1600x1200) display, or with letter/pillar boxing to maintain the aspect of the original resolution.

Sadly there's no: "1:1 but stretched to a 4:3 ratio" option. That would have been perfect for any non-square pixel content then.

Also it appears to be displaying everything in text-mode as 720x400, which is odd because I thought that the raw resolution was 320x200.

But it doesn't look like the screen handles resolutions below 640x480 properly.

bergqvistjl wrote:

Sadly there's no: "1:1 but stretched to a 4:3 ratio" option. That would have been perfect for any non-square pixel content then.

Do you mean stretching while maintaining the aspect ratio (meaning you would get some black bars in 320x200) ?

tpowell.ca wrote:

bergqvistjl wrote:

Sadly there's no: "1:1 but stretched to a 4:3 ratio" option. That would have been perfect for any non-square pixel content then.

Do you mean stretching while maintaining the aspect ratio (meaning you would get some black bars in 320x200) ?

I meant strerching to account for the fact that the pixels are meant to be displayed non-square, in text mode.

bergqvistjl wrote:

Also it appears to be displaying everything in text-mode as 720x400, which is odd because I thought that the raw resolution was 320x200.

80×25 with 9×16 font is 720×400
but everything below 350 is line doubled in VGA to maintain 31KHz, so 320x200 will also identify as 720x400

bergqvistjl wrote:

But it doesn't look like the screen handles resolutions below 640x480 properly.

it does, 400 in 720x400 is below 640x480