What is the resolution of your monitor?

mine is not in the list. Mine is not in the list. 1920*1080. 3 monitors, all common sizes, only 1 listed in the poll.

 

1600x900.. Cannot make it on the poll

 

Right now stiil using that sub-150€ 1920x1080, but I want to upgrade to a 2560x1080 somewhen.

Oh, btw, 4k gaming is possible if have two GTX 980Ti's in SLI. If they have good fans, they produce ~250% of the performance a Titan X would produce.

 

A single 1280x1024 LCD. Good despite the resolution.
No poll 4 me

 

2560x1440

 

Laptop ( 1366*768 ) and 2nd monitor ( 1280*1024 ). When I get the new PC it's gonna be a 1080p and the old 1280*1024 monitor together.

 

1920x1200 and my TV is 1024x768 16:9 (it doesnt have square pixels- its a plasma) and to make the TV work properly i use NVidia control panel to send 1024x768 scaled up from 1024x576 which does the correct aspect ratio

 

if you get true 4k then its 4x1080p so you can run 1080p scaled perfectly by a multiple of 2

 

I was talking about beamng in 4k, 6677 it is enough you are annoying.

 

I know you were talking about BeamNG in 4k, so was I. It is plain fact that your CPU and RAM do not effect the resolution you can run BeamNG at, one of the few purely GPU related things for BeamNG.

 

Shaders and other graphical settings. I think they are the only other GPU related thing in the game.
(Is PhysX still a thing, or is it undead?)

 

PhysX is still not used by BeamNG

 

Hm, I think it would be a nice idea to integrate it at some point, as the GPU can sometimes get a bit low on power when running at lower graphical settings (and on simple maps like Grid Map), that could be a point where PhysX could be used to take a bit of physics related work off the CPU to make the game run a bit smoother and stop it from stuttering on hard crashes.
It would be a great feature if it would work the other way around too, but sadly it would be impossible to run graphics on the CPU, beginning at the fact that main RAM is terribly slow compared to GPU RAM.
On that point again I have another idea for hardware (don't worry, you can ignore this): Modular GPU RAM. It likely would be impractical either, because it would be very slow again.

 

PhysX is a physics engine. BeamNG is a physics engine. Both work differently.

 

*Torque3D, not BeamNG itself. Also: If you say so...

 

He's right, you're wrong. The physics in BeamNG.drive are handle by the BeamNG physics engine. While Torque3D does implement its own physics engine, this isn't used. PhysX is a very rudimentary physics engine that is generally only used for particles or other visual effects that are affected by physics (like debris or gibs). Even then, it's outdated, unsupported and generally not worth the trouble.

RE: SixSixSevenSeven's post below: Good post. 10/10 would ninja again.

 

Torque3d is not a physics engine, BeamNG doesnt even use the Torque3d provided physics and is indeed its own physics engine. BeamNG.Drive is just the game built around that.

PhysX is a physics engine by NVidia, not used by Torque3d or BeamNG, can use CUDA hardware acceleration. Neither will be seen in BeamNG although OpenCL hardware acceleration has been mentioned as planned (works on both AMD and NVidia GPUs)

 

Good night, I'm beyond pathethic when I'm tired. Don't know if I even wrote the word right.

 

Please add to the poll.
1024x768
1280x800
1440x900
2560x1440
1280x1024
1600x900

 

Also, add 2560x1080 and other widescreens.