And that is why you are not a professional gamer Jmms. Noob.

too bad they use 8x6 for the increased refresh rate, assmunch

your screen res has nothing to do with registration, and 800x600 probably feels better to you due to a higher refresh rate

QTF.

Whether or not you make the hit is determined by the server not the client I believe. If you put a a low texture quality in 16 bit color you can still keep the excellent accuracy provided from more pixels to draw the shapes. For super efficency but ok accuracy 1024 X 768 or 800 x 600 works well for most older cards. There's a point though where if you ahev an insanely great card that lowering the resolution and texture quality won't have that signifigant of a bonus to fps speed. If you want a very high resolution with very fast fps you could make everything flatshaded... but that borders on cheating (ex: the old CS aimbot cheats where the models were flatshaded bright red and blue and the dll hook autoaim-like moved the mouse onto the color)

So the short answer is it depends on your system's graphics card and what you feel works the best. It's just trial and error finding what's your particular optimal setting.

PS: Mouse sensitivity and FOV can also play a role in accuracy, but that's a whole other huge discussion.

I don't notice much of a difference between 85Hz and 75Hz... And that's what I run at.

Even though Half-Life isn't based on per-pixel-hit, it certainly should help to play at a higher resolution, as you can make out things farther in the distance easier and with more clarity. Also, when you move your crosshairs, they move less at a higher resolution.

ultranewb, good point.

That's about sensitivity, if I'm not mistaken. It changes with the resolution, so 10 at one resolution will feel, and be, quite different from 10 at another.

Real proffessional gamers get their entire systems bought for them, every 6 months to a year, with the top of the range stuff in them.

And the CPL uses 1024x768 @ 32bpp in half-life.

Edit - If you had to buy your system, unfortunately your not pro, in any way, even if you like to think you are.

You're forgetting that NS maps rarely have long distances so it makes sence to keep a lower resolution. This also means that your performance is better (as alreadystated) and your mouse will cover the distance on your screen faster and with more control, increasing accuracy (and I'm not talking about sensitivity here).

Drawbacks are that the HUD and in-game text is bigger so obscures more of your vision.

For CS 800x600 is perfect (lower if you know your game well enough to always be facing an enemy), but for NS I'd recommend higher if your graphics card won't take too much of a hit.

everything you said is false
CPL allows users to choose what resolution they use, and CPL-level players don't always have top-of-the-line equipment and components, and they don't have "computers bought for them"

Is that so? That must why in the CPL GUI (which has the configs that must be used and only remaping keys are allowed) they give a registry patch, that forces half-life into 1024x768 and 32bpp.

All the players in a CPL, must have the same system, it is a level playing field, no player is "restricted" by their hardware due to this.

They do not even allow a USB mouse to be forced to 500hz.

you can definitely change your resolution at CPL

I think the higher the resolution in Half-Life, the packet size you are sending becomes larger. Don't quote me on that becuase I might be wrong, but you will notice a higher latency from your GPU as it takes longer to draw the game on a higher resolution.

Yes, 800x600 is HL's "default natural resolution", but not the "best". 1024x768 is the largest and best resolution you can attain in HL without horizontal distortion ("skinny models").

no no, 1024x768 is ideal, 800x600 was intended.

Why is 1024 x 768 ideal?

So, how am I to be trusted over the cliche that larger = better?

1) back in '00, when Nvidia TNT2 was all the rage (no pun intended), I was proud to boast of my owning one
2) My friend and I decided to see just how far it could go
3) I set CS to run on the highest resses available 1024x768 and (1152x7?? and 1280x1024)
4) I noticed that, 1024x768 was vastly greater than 800x600 (my default), yet for some strange reason 1152 and 1280 was not better than 1024 (it did not follow the trend)
5) at first I thought it was just a matter of getting used ot it, but then I realized the models were distanctly compressed horizontally, the models had become "skinny"
6) after fealing "cheated" out of a higher res. I did extensive research on CS variables, settings, and pro configurations
7) I found out the HL engine (much like the q3 engines) was intended to run without distortion to a max of 1024x768 (which made sense why all the CPL pros used that resolution). Much like how many games can be run at widescreen resolutions, however if not supported, will look distorted.
8) It gave the maximum amount of viewable area without the distortion.

However, I encourage you to *not* believe me and try it for yourself. If you truly rid your mind of bias (it may be harder the longer you've been playing) you will notice the slight pixelation at 640 and 800 and the distortion in the models at higher resolutions than 1024.
Try it!

its tiny enough with 1024*768 imo, and i use knife's custom font so text doesnt block my view.