Was tinkering around and ended up with this.

http://i.imgur.com/qKRw47Y.jpg

What's the point? Games of this era aren't going to look any better beyond 1280x1024, if even then.

Hi!

And the question is... how?

With nglide or something?

The game crash in my pc if i don't use 1024*768 (Software render)....

While it's true that old games don't benefit as much from 4K as newer games with better more polygons and better texture quality, there's still a notable improvement going from 1280x1024 to 4K. While it is bad form for OP not to say how to do this, it wouldn't have taken you long to browse through the rest of forum to find out. Anyway, dgVoodoo2 can force any rendering resolution. This requires a D3D11 capable GPU (if you own a 4K monitor, you should have one).

Dege also has a high resolution fix for Blood 2. It is not recommended to use this. When resolution forcing via dgVoodoo2, the game resolution only determines the UI size and you don't want it much smaller than the 1600x900 UI anyway (higher resolution = smaller UI).

You'll also need the widescreen patch.

Wow, Thanks!

Nonsense. All you're getting is slightly crisper edges at a distance. With game engines that have a restricted view distance due to their VSD algorithm to begin with. Mind you, I wrote 3D game engines for over a decade, so I understand intimately what exactly is happening. This, 4k, because it's new and tre-hip to include in reference to pretty much anything, is the very definition of frivolous and "law of diminishing returns" and, in late-90's 3D game engines, that occurs very steeply post 1024x768 with 1280x1024 being the practical tradeoff limit.

I'm sorry, I should've specified. This is not a theoretical discussion, I've tested and actually seen the difference in practice. Presumably, so has OP since he felt the need to post an image showing how nice 4K looks.

Maybe get a 4K monitor and see for yourself, and try to figure out what you're not accounting for in your theory, because it is a pretty noticeable difference. If you can't see it, I recommend an eye doctor.

If you think it's a tiny difference, then that's fine, but realize that doesn't mean the difference is tiny to everyone. If you think the difference isn't "worth it" in terms of power draw, realize that a lot of people don't give a shit about the power draw of their gaming PC.

Again, nonsense. Given texture resolutions and what happens with even bilinear filtering on them when stretched to these resolutions, the difference is negligible. If you can't appreciate that, I recommend therapy for self-delusion. You've also managed to miss the point and make a claim that the differences are subjective. That's not exactly how bresenham, other edge-drawing algorithms, and 3D engines work *in practice*. Keep telling yourself that the game benefits by this, but the only person you're kidding is yourself.

And, no, I was not talking about power-draw. That's a hardware issue, which you seem quite taken by. I'm talking about software and rasterization issues.

Again, I'm going to remind you that I've written 3D engines. I'm making an educated guess you haven't, just given what you're purporting. I have quite an intimate idea of what's going on with the internals and the final results of them, given that I spent well north of 60000 hours doing it over a span of 21 years. Bottom line, in the end, you get a slightly crisper edge on polys, but, (and go look up VSD algorithms), given how the scene is drawn, the benefit is slight at best. Only so much is rendered and the slightly crisper edge on polys doesn't benefit the game enough to bother with trying to shoehorn modern tech ideas into technology from an era clearly not meant for it.

I'm reminded of why programmers avoid talking to gamers... *facepalm*

You're still trying to put theory against tested established results. That's not how anything works, and desperately appealing to your own authority isn't changing that.

And you're still claiming "established results" aren't a result of your own confirmation bias and self-delusion, neither of which change how the underlying technology works.

Worst still, you've done this with clearly no knowledge of the inner workings said technology. If you did, you'd understand why my statement above is applicable. Appeal to belief doesn't alter how technology works, no matter what your blind eye bias and dunning kruger effect say otherwise.

Additionally, you've assumed (incorrectly) that I haven't seen the results of these "established results". I could go through the list of fallacies you've committed in the course of this exchange, but my time's most likely spent better elsewhere.

It is my own confirmation bias and self-delusion that the sky is blue too? Because that's what I'm talking about, visible confirmable differences.

Unsurprisingly you conflate objective scientific fact with a subjective perceptual difference whilst simultaneously overlooking and ignoring contradictory information and stoutly refusing to gain any actual insight for yourself. Awesome...

This here folks is why you should disregard the initial premise espoused here. That being 4k on a 20 year old game utilizing assets & and engine incapable of making enough of a difference to expend the effort to even bother, and just enjoy the game for what it is, as is. By all means, crank the resolution up. Just keep expectations low.

What humans perceive as good looking is subjective perceptual differences.

I've never ever heard of anyone when asked if something is good looking, start going through the objective scientific facts. They usually respond with whether or not they subjectively perceive it as good looking.

When discussing visuals, how it looks to humans is all that matters. The only scientific fact I'm guessing you're trying to say is important here is that you can't get more detail from 4K than 1280x1024, but the amount of detail in an image is far from the only thing that matters in terms of visual appeal. Hell, people sometimes specifically remove detail or make detail harder to see in images because it looks better to them.

The engine is literally incapable of making it look enough better to justify even bothering. I mentioned the exact nature as to why; VSD algorithms, Bilinear filtering limitations due to texture size limitations given the game's age, and a general law of massively diminishing returns. Now, if a high-res texture pack existed, that would render, no pun intended, the extra resolution to be useful and you wouldn't be redoubling pixels (if you care why, I refer you to these articles by Andre Lamothe : http://read.pudn.com/downloads97/doc/395154/TextureMapMania/tmapmania.doc and Game Developer Chris Hecker which were previously posted in Game Developer Magazine : http://chrishecker.com/Miscellaneous_Technical_Articles)

In short, even mentioning the capability to set the game into 4k is not only NOT noteworthy, given everything I've stated, but is essentially leading people down a blind ally; aka "Pied Piper syndrome". I believe misinformation needs to be combated. There's already too much stupidity and ignorance out in the world.

4K looks significantly better to some people. That's all that I've claimed and it's true.

From what I gather, your claim is that it can't look better because there is no more detail in the image, but there's more to image quality than just detail, so your claim is false.

Only source of misinformation here is you.