FORUMS


Is there support for ultrawides yet?



Posted: //
Sept. 10, 2018, 5:15 p.m.


Updated //
Sept. 10, 2018, 5:15 p.m.

SAD - Reclaimer#0656 posted (#post-225251) said:

But in the end this is a bit of a pointless discussion. The hardware is available and the game supports it so we have to acknowledge that the genie is already out of the bottle. Everyone should come to terms with that.

Genie Out of the Bottle


Posted: //
Sept. 20, 2018, 4:20 a.m.


Updated //
Sept. 20, 2018, 4:25 a.m.

SAD - Reclaimer#0656 posted (#post-225199) said:

Of course everyone is entiteld to their own opinion but it's a matter of fact that in due course ultrawides will be the default setting for every game. We've seen this with the introduction of the 16:9 aspect ratio when that was considered future tech not so long ago. Progress can't be stopped. Refusing to accept that doesn't make it less true.

No, I don't think so. 16:9 made sense when it was introduced, since the previous 5:4 (or 4:3 with TVs) was quite "boxy", and unnatural to the eye. The same thing doesn't apply to the 16:9 and 21:9 comparison. The latter is more like a marketing gimmick, like the curved screens. Some people like it, some don't. It's a choice. It's definitely NOT the singular direction the monitor market is going; 21:9 will not become the new default. My guess is that they will continue to co-exist the way they currently do.

16:9 was indeed superior to 5:4 in every possible way, so the transition was natural... maybe except for POS terminals, that still use 5:4 to this day. However the same doesn't apply here. 21:9 is only superior to 16:9 in SOME ways, and is actually inferior in several others. (not going into details, unless asked to, to keep the post shorter)

Saying the game should default to either aspect ratio "because whatever" is - in general - an invalid argument, whichever side you are on. More often than not, people make and educated choice between 16:9 and 21:9, with their own use-cases and needs in mind. Handicapping any one of them is a bad design decision.


Ryzen 2600X @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz, 1070 Ti iChill X3 V2


Posted: //
Sept. 24, 2018, 5:40 a.m.


Updated //
Sept. 24, 2018, 6:12 a.m.

Tyrel#8199 posted (#post-225440) said:

SAD - Reclaimer#0656 posted (#post-225199) said:

Of course everyone is entiteld to their own opinion but it's a matter of fact that in due course ultrawides will be the default setting for every game. We've seen this with the introduction of the 16:9 aspect ratio when that was considered future tech not so long ago. Progress can't be stopped. Refusing to accept that doesn't make it less true.

No, I don't think so. 16:9 made sense when it was introduced, since the previous 5:4 (or 4:3 with TVs) was quite "boxy", and unnatural to the eye. The same thing doesn't apply to the 16:9 and 21:9 comparison. The latter is more like a marketing gimmick, like the curved screens. Some people like it, some don't. It's a choice. It's definitely NOT the singular direction the monitor market is going; 21:9 will not become the new default. My guess is that they will continue to co-exist the way they currently do.

16:9 was indeed superior to 5:4 in every possible way, so the transition was natural... maybe except for POS terminals, that still use 5:4 to this day. However the same doesn't apply here. 21:9 is only superior to 16:9 in SOME ways, and is actually inferior in several others. (not going into details, unless asked to, to keep the post shorter)

Saying the game should default to either aspect ratio "because whatever" is - in general - an invalid argument, whichever side you are on. More often than not, people make and educated choice between 16:9 and 21:9, with their own use-cases and needs in mind. Handicapping any one of them is a bad design decision.

I think you're wrong on this. 21:9 gives you a clear advantage over someone using a 16:9 monitor in every PVP game by enabling you to see things (without turning your head/camera) which the other one doesn't.

Players naturally gravitate towards a setup that provides them with the best chance to win or at the very least does not put them in a disadvantage. With more games supporting 21:9 the usage of these monitors will increase as well. Asuming that game developers will deliberatelly refuse to implement 21:9 to prevent one player from having an edge over the other is wishful thinking, as we see more and more games (currently usually FPS) supporting ultrawides already.

You are right, however, that people make educated choices and that is how it should always be. But that only applies if you give the player something to choose from. Limiting the aspect ratio of a video game to 16:9 period takes away the element of choice and disrespects the player's free will as well as it disregards the technological progress.

I maintain that in video games, where situational awareness is key, 21:9 monitors will reign surpreme and therefore be the player's default setup rather sooner than later. That in turn leads players to favour games that support 21:9, turning ultrawide support from a novelty feature into a selling point. Game developers will follow suit, it's inevitable.


All hands: battle stations! This is not a drill.

[SAD] - Search And Destroy!

[https://sadclan.de]

Bild


Posted: //
Sept. 24, 2018, 10 a.m.


Updated //
Sept. 24, 2018, 4:51 p.m.

@SAD-Reclaimer

Still no.

Why do people keep assuming that 21:9 is superior and it gives you better situational awareness? Yeah it might be true in games like CoD or Battlefield, that are generally played on a flat map... could even say that they're basically 2D games, since you cannot really move up or down and no enemies will approach you from that direction either.

Dreadnought is kind of a 2.5D game, as the maps have a relatively flat layout and your ship cannot turn on the Z-axis, but they do allow you to strafe vertically. I don't think either 21:9 or 16:9 is better here, and would definitely not call one superior. Maybe 21:9 is better for planetside maps, but 16:9 is better for deep space maps.

21:9 may give you increased horizontal viewing angle, but at the cost of vertical angles. 21:9 is a ratio, therefore the :9 part does not mean that 16:9 and 21:9 have the same display height, with the 21:9 only being wider. Ofc it is wider alright, but also shorter.

A 16:9 32" display actually has a bigger screen area than a 21:9 34" display. Another thing people get wrong is, that they usually upgrade from a classic 24" 1080p display, and go for a 34" ultrawide, then experience vastly increased FOV and identify it as a singular benefit of the aspect ratio. That is wrong however, since most of their improved experience comes from the greatly increased screen size itself, not the ratio. A 32" 16:9 display, having the exact same point-per-inch value (i.e.: same pixel size) as a 24" FHD display will have a horizontal pixel count of 2560. That means you can still get increased FOV, by 640 pixels (compared to 1920), in case the game supports it.

Ofc if the game is actually FOV locked, then everything will just become bigger, instead of letting you see more of the same-size things... but since it's a FOV lock, all aspect ratio displays are focked all the same.

For example I myself own a Z321QU, and have never felt it putting me at a disadvantage in games, though I'm not a CoD player, I give you that. I enjoy having a big 16:9 display, it's quite alright for gaming, and beside that, for my work it is better than the ultrawides.


Ryzen 2600X @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz, 1070 Ti iChill X3 V2


Posted: //
Sept. 24, 2018, 10:40 a.m.



I'm in the camp where I just want it to fit my screen without becoming distorted fisheyed or cropped.     example when you watch a video on a cell phone vs pc vs a 55 in tv it still fits to whatever you're viewing. it on. Similar to. watching a movie in the theater then watching it at home it still has the same look to it. I have a triple monitor setup 7680x1440 and I'm seeing more games inincorporating fov adjustment and not just fps games either. Fov adjustment is a way to compensate for distortion brought on by upupscaleing the video. Yes it's my choice and yes I was able to do so but I also should not be penalized for that choice and I should be able to have the same view as everyone else just on a bigger and wider screen.


Posted: //
Sept. 27, 2018, 2:42 p.m.



@Tyrel:

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with you.

21:9 may give you increased horizontal viewing angle, but at the cost of vertical angles. 21:9 is a ratio, therefore the :9 part does not mean that 16:9 and 21:9 have the same display height, with the 21:9 only being wider. Ofc it is wider alright, but also shorter.

That is totally wrong. Aspect ratio is derived from the resolution of the monitor. It is important, however, that you don't compare apples with oranges. That means that you have to base your comparison on an identical vertical resolution, i.e. 1080p or 1440p. So on a 1080p basis a 16:9 monitor has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, a 21:9 monitor has 2.560 x 1.080 pixels, on a 1440p basis it would be 2560 x 1440p (16:9) vs. 3440 x 1440p (21:9).

As you can see the 21:9 monitor has more pixels than the 16:9 monitor while retaining it's vertical resolution. On 21:9 screens the increased pixel count translates directly into an increased FOV as more content can be displayed than on the smaller 16:9 ones. Note that the vertical resolution and therefore the amount of content that can be displayed vertically is identical on both panels. A perfect example of this correlation is visualized

here (copyright: www.gamestar.de).

The yellow squares represent a 16:9 aspect ratio, the blue ones 21:9 and the unmarked whole screens 32:9. So if the game supports ultrawides correctly (meaning that the game is not locked in a 16:9 aspect ratio) there is no way that you can seriously state that 21:9 is not superior to 16:9.

In fact if the game supports it even after the Steam launch I think I'm getting myself that beautiful 49" 32:9 beast of a monitor .

A 16:9 32" display actually has a bigger screen area than a 21:9 34" display. Another thing people get wrong is, that they usually upgrade from a classic 24" 1080p display, and go for a 34" ultrawide, then experience vastly increased FOV and identify it as a singular benefit of the aspect ratio. That is wrong however, since most of their improved experience comes from the greatly increased screen size itself, not the ratio.

Still wrong. In regards to the FOV, or the amount of content that can be displayed if you will, the actual screen area is irrelevant as the only defining factor is the resolution. A 27" 1920 x 1080p monitor has exactly the same FOV as a 32" 1920 x 1080p monitor as the pixel count remains the same, the 32" monitor has simply larger pixels. A 27" 2.560 x 1.080p (21:9) monitor on the other hand has a roughly 25% increased FOV / pixel count compared to say 32" 1920 x 1080p (16:9) despite having a smaller screen area.


All hands: battle stations! This is not a drill.

[SAD] - Search And Destroy!

[https://sadclan.de]

Bild


Posted: //
Sept. 28, 2018, 5:32 a.m.


Updated //
Sept. 28, 2018, 12:19 p.m.

I was talking about display size (physical) and PPI, so nothing is wrong there...

Sure you can virtually display more content on higher resolution, but in practice that doesn't work out well. Even Windows itself starts using upscaling by default if you connect a display that has too many pixels for its' size. Same applies to FOV, you can set it to like 180° or whatever, but stuff will be miniature. Having pixels that display things so small that you can't actually see them isn't something I aim to have.

Also I said that if you keep the original PPI (the PPI of a 24" 1080p display (91.79), which by the way is still conisdered the default in most applications), but move up in physical display size, then your FOV will still increase.

If you take the now popular 1440p resolution:

  • on a 16:9 32" display it will be 2560x1440, with a PPI of 91.79 and a physical display area of 2822.93 cm^2
  • on a 21:9 34" display, it will be 3440x1440, with a PPI of 109.68 and a physical display area of 2656.48 cm^2

I still think that it's very misleading when people upgrade from a classic 24" to a 34" ultrawide and think 21:9 is that much superior. I think the main improvement there is the size upgrade itself.

I think less is more in this case, as switching to 16:9 / 32" / 1440p lets you keep the exact same PPI, but still have a much bigger screen area. You still get a higher FOV than what you had befure, and at the same time you don't have to face any scaling issues. Things won't become smaller because the too high PPI, and thing won't become distorted because of no 21:9 support... so even though you get a lower amount of pixels, you can utilize them a lot better. As if that wouldn't be enough, your graphics card also has an easier job with this resolution.

I still don't regret sticking with 16:9, and I'm still not convinced 21:9 is clearly superior (for my use-cases it is actually inferior). As I said I think these two will co-exist for a long time, with no clear winner. Therefore stating that 21:9 is the future and Dreadnought (and all other games) should prioritize it is... questionable at best. I can understand why some people like and prefer 21:9, but completely disagree about its superiority.


Ryzen 2600X @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz, 1070 Ti iChill X3 V2

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.