21:9 seems so much better for games...too bad many dont properly support it

[BoFox]

Say, there's a house with rooms that have something like a 21:9 wall that is fully windowed, facing towards the beach.

And then there's another house with the same 21:9-ish windowed walls, but there is also a window on some of the ceiling above and the floor below through the windowed ceiling/floor below, allowing lower view through the lower floor with 21:9-ish walls, also below that below floor too..

Awwwwwwwwwwww.. Ohhhhhhhhhhh... that would be oh, so awesome!!!

Even better on the side of a 20,000-foot cliff on a massive canyon on the best-looking planet that could possibly be imagined!!!

 

[Socio]

Originally Posted by BoFox
Not really, unless it artificially squashes everything in the middle if the display isn't LARGE.

The 21:9 display needs to be really big, and CURVED (or at least dual-screen), for it to feel right. Even better with 3D Vision surround, so that there's depth too.

What if you use something like the LG 21:9 http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/disco...de.jsp?cmpid=he_mnt_sem_us_+ultrawide monitor which has

The Dual Link-up feature allows two portable devices, like a computer, camera, phone, or Blu-ray player,
to be connected to the ultrawide monitor and viewed on a single screen simultaneously.

then using this dual link, setup Radeon eyefinity like it is two separate monitors for a seemless perfectly proportionate dual screen display?

 

[bystander36]

Say, there's a house with rooms that have something like a 21:9 wall that is fully windowed, facing towards the beach.

And then there's another house with the same 21:9-ish windowed walls, but there is also a window on some of the ceiling above and the floor below through the windowed ceiling/floor below, allowing lower view through the lower floor with 21:9-ish walls, also below that below floor too..

Awwwwwwwwwwww.. Ohhhhhhhhhhh... that would be oh, so awesome!!!

Even better on the side of a 20,000-foot cliff on a massive canyon on the best-looking planet that could possibly be imagined!!!

Look, you completely miss the point here.

With 21:9, assuming the game supports it, will most likely have an identical vertical image. All the way to where the 16:9 monitor stops, then continue to have additional information on the extended sides.

A 16:10 monitor will be similar to the 16:9 monitor, only it will have even less view area on the sides, and higher pixel density vertically (but with the same image vertically).

How large the physical size of the monitor is vertically is simply a matter of buying the right size of monitor. What is displayed on the monitor, on the other hand, will show more on a 21:9 monitor.

 

[KingFatty]

Look, you completely miss the point here.

With 21:9, assuming the game supports it, will most likely have an identical vertical image. All the way to where the 16:9 monitor stops, then continue to have additional information on the extended sides.

A 16:10 monitor will be similar to the 16:9 monitor, only it will have even less view area on the sides, and higher pixel density vertically (but with the same image vertically).

How large the physical size of the monitor is vertically is simply a matter of buying the right size of monitor. What is displayed on the monitor, on the other hand, will show more on a 21:9 monitor.

This is true for most games, because they "add" more information onto the sides when you go wider.

But there are some games that aren't like this, and so when you get a wider aspect ratio, what the game does is it just takes your normal (non-wide) view, then it blows up that view which results in chopping off the top and bottom. This is rare, but if your favorite game does this, then you are hurting yourself with a wide aspect and would do better on a 4:3 or 5:4. I don't think any modern game does this, but you can see how there are situations where a square screen would be good, because it lets you see more top and bottom.

Take a gander through these lists of games, paying attention to the column titled "Widescreen Behavior". Notice how it's different for various games? That will correspond to the behavior I described above, where the Horiz+ games will reward a wide aspect by adding more info to the sides:
http://www.wsgf.org/mgl/ef_s/

So you can't really say one screen is always better than another, because it depends what game you are playing. You could say that most modern games are Horiz+, so eyefinity/surround is best, then 21:9, then 16:9, then 16:10, then 4:3, then 5:4 is worst. But if you only play a Vert+ game, then the order of preference of the aspect ratios would be reversed.

Anyway, here is some more info:
http://www.wsgf.org/article/field-view

For some games, the horizontal component of the angle of view is directly controlled by the FOV variable, and the vertical component is automatically adjusted based on the screen's aspect ratio. For some others, both the horizontal component and the vertical component are directly controlled by the same FOV variable, causing proportions to become incorrect on displays with wide aspect ratios. Very few games have separate variables to controll the horizontal and vertical component.

 

[serpretetsky]

What if you use something like the LG 21:9 http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/disco...de.jsp?cmpid=he_mnt_sem_us_+ultrawide monitor which has then using this dual link, setup Radeon eyefinity like it is two separate monitors for a seemless perfectly proportionate dual screen display?

im confused. You are using a monitor feature to virtually split up the screen, and then using eyefinity to virtually stitch it back together again? Is that right?

 

[ethebubbeth]

I personally think that 3x1 horizontal eyefinity is the perfect compromise.

I can play at 5760x1200 (48:10 or 24:5) or fall back to 16:10 if a game can't run fast enough at the resolution or does not support such a wide aspect ratio.

My only complaint is bezel size, but it's really not that noticeable in most games since all it's doing is expanding the existing FoV if the engine handles it properly.

 

[Dribble]

I'd buy one right away if it was 120hz and supported lightboost (ie. 3D vision 2 compliant). Gets closer to full surround, but without the bezels or the massive resolution and hence silly gpu requirements.

 

[toyota]

I'd buy one right away if it was 120hz and supported lightboost (ie. 3D vision 2 compliant). Gets closer to full surround, but without the bezels or the massive resolution and hence silly gpu requirements.

nothing really matters anyway if most of the games don't even properly support that aspect ratio in the first place

 

[AkumaX]

I don't get that.I already have a 2560x1440 display, so how a 2560x1080 display won't have less vertical pixels?

http://jokegurus.com/wp-content/uploads/StarCraft-aspect-ratios.gif

 

[omeds]

nothing really matters anyway if most of the games don't even properly support that aspect ratio in the first place

The only game I have not been able to run in 21:9 is SC2, because they deem the extra wide view a cheat so 16:9 is max.

 

[AkumaX]

The only game I have not been able to run in 21:9 is SC2, because they deem the extra wide view a cheat so 16:9 is max.

kekekekek

I was playing CS:GO on 21:9. WOW was what I said when I was peaking in corners!

The only bad thing is that its a "flat" 21:9. I wish it was a curved screen because it makes a bit more sense with your eye "reaching" over that far.

I'm almost considering looking for 3 x 4:3 thin-bezel monitors... lol

 

[smackababy]

The only game I have not been able to run in 21:9 is SC2, because they deem the extra wide view a cheat so 16:9 is max.

And it should be considered a cheat!

 

[Socio]

im confused. You are using a monitor feature to virtually split up the screen, and then using eyefinity to virtually stitch it back together again? Is that right?

Yes!

I am thinking that you would gain support for games and apps that support SLI or Crossfire multi monitor configurations possibly even increase performance.

At least it seems to me that one would get a FPS increase running two screens at half the resolution of a single screen.

 

[toyota]

The only game I have not been able to run in 21:9 is SC2, because they deem the extra wide view a cheat so 16:9 is max.

then you have not tried many games at all or just just dont notice what is actually going on. its a fact that tons of games dont properly support 21:9. some games will cut off top and bottom and some games will stretch both of which is hard to notice unless you compare it to 16:9. some games will make wonky fov where things in the center are farther away while panning around and will be much closer when on the sides. I have spent hours trying out different games and most are a mess so again you must be oblivious to all of this or not play hardly any games. in fact you need that flawless widescreen program just to get about half the games looking right.

 

[serpretetsky]

Yes!

I am thinking that you would gain support for games and apps that support SLI or Crossfire multi monitor configurations possibly even increase performance.

At least it seems to me that one would get a FPS increase running two screens at half the resolution of a single screen.

eyefinity presents a single screen to the software. Game engines don't need to render separate frames for each monitor.
For a program to be "eyefinity compatible" it basically just needs to support crazy wide resolutions.

So I don't think it would make any difference.
Also, it doesn't make sense why rendering separate frames would be faster. It's still the same workload and picture. It might be a little slower in fact if there's extra overhead and if there is duplicated geometry.

 

[itsmydamnation]

i use 3x 5:4 1280X1024 in eyefinity, even better then 21:9. 15:4 ~ 30:8 is great for FPS. I feel naked in BF3 when playing 16:10~9.

 

[bystander36]

This is true for most games, because they "add" more information onto the sides when you go wider.

But there are some games that aren't like this, and so when you get a wider aspect ratio, what the game does is it just takes your normal (non-wide) view, then it blows up that view which results in chopping off the top and bottom. This is rare, but if your favorite game does this, then you are hurting yourself with a wide aspect and would do better on a 4:3 or 5:4. I don't think any modern game does this, but you can see how there are situations where a square screen would be good, because it lets you see more top and bottom.

Take a gander through these lists of games, paying attention to the column titled "Widescreen Behavior". Notice how it's different for various games? That will correspond to the behavior I described above, where the Horiz+ games will reward a wide aspect by adding more info to the sides:
http://www.wsgf.org/mgl/ef_s/

So you can't really say one screen is always better than another, because it depends what game you are playing. You could say that most modern games are Horiz+, so eyefinity/surround is best, then 21:9, then 16:9, then 16:10, then 4:3, then 5:4 is worst. But if you only play a Vert+ game, then the order of preference of the aspect ratios would be reversed.

Anyway, here is some more info:
http://www.wsgf.org/article/field-view

Of course, if you run into a game that does chop the top and bottom off, you do have the option to reduce your resolution to 1920x1080p and have black bars on the sides.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It depends how games implement widescreen, there's 2 ways.

Vert- and Horz+

Vert- fixes the horizontal FOV and adjust the vertical FOV to make the games aspect ratio meet your monitors, in other words the vertical FOV is squeezed down to accomodate widescreen users and you loose vertical information on the scene.

Horz+ fixes the vertical FOV and adjusts the horizontal FOV to meet your monitors aspect ratio by adding more information on either side of you which is obviously what you want when you go for a wider screen aspect ratio.

It's not so much about the number of pixels in the height or width, it's about the ratio between the 2 matching the ratio in game without stretching the image has to be done by adjusting the hFOV and vFOV, as described above typically one is left fixed and the other is adjusted to meet the right aspect ratio.

Some games are Horz+ and some are Vert-, for people going to wide screen resolutions Vert- is a nightmare, ideally you want Horz+, a great place to find fixes for games with bad widescreen support is www.widescreengamingforum.com they have a database of widescreen fixes for many games.

 

[rancherlee]

I'd like to see the support also, I LOVE movies on my 107" 2.35 A/R (21:9) screen and prefer them over 16:9 1080p. I'd buy a ~27" 21:9 display in a heartbeat if more games supported it.

 

[BoFox]

dp

 

[BoFox]

Look, you completely miss the point here.

With 21:9, assuming the game supports it, will most likely have an identical vertical image. All the way to where the 16:9 monitor stops, then continue to have additional information on the extended sides.

A 16:10 monitor will be similar to the 16:9 monitor, only it will have even less view area on the sides, and higher pixel density vertically (but with the same image vertically).

How large the physical size of the monitor is vertically is simply a matter of buying the right size of monitor. What is displayed on the monitor, on the other hand, will show more on a 21:9 monitor.

We all know that some games do this, keeping the vertical FOV the same no matter what (where a 21:9 ratio would absolutely add HOR+). But most games that do this also allow for increasing the vertical FOV as well.

I don't just want wider. I want BIGGER. As big as our native 16:10 peripheral (retinal) FOV would allow at once. :hmm:

 

[BrightCandle]

Most games are actually pretty flat. You don't need to look up and down very much at all. If games had more genuine 3D gameplay such that above and below matter more then the very narrow resolutions of eyefinity and 21:9 have would be a bigger problem than they are. I am not disagreeing that hor+ isn't necessary here, it definitely is. But actually more horizontal space is more valuable than more vertical space based on the types of games we play.

I didn't personally play in eyefinity resolutions with games that were vert-, they were horrible experiences. But when a game is done well eyefinity gives you a huge boost in visibility, you can respond to people coming at you from the sides, the sense of immersion is dramatically increased. I just wish I could get a fast enough graphics card to actually play it at a decent frame rate!

 

[BoFox]

Most games are actually pretty flat. You don't need to look up and down very much at all. If games had more genuine 3D gameplay such that above and below matter more then the very narrow resolutions of eyefinity and 21:9 have would be a bigger problem than they are. I am not disagreeing that hor+ isn't necessary here, it definitely is. But actually more horizontal space is more valuable than more vertical space based on the types of games we play.

I didn't personally play in eyefinity resolutions with games that were vert-, they were horrible experiences. But when a game is done well eyefinity gives you a huge boost in visibility, you can respond to people coming at you from the sides, the sense of immersion is dramatically increased. I just wish I could get a fast enough graphics card to actually play it at a decent frame rate!

You said it well, bro, but I feel that vertical FOV is valuable as well. IMHO, racing games need 3x1 the most, so that I don't have to lose the center line of sight when looking to the sides (and also have to use buttons to look left or right). Oculus Rift, perhaps!!! With 16:10 I also agree that the fps shooters need super widescreen as well, for a competitive advantage (in games that don't prohibit HOR+).. Most of the maps on these fps shooters are usually flat, but not all... I wouldn't want to exclude the vertical maps. Remember, lots of popular Quake 3 and UT maps were a bit vertical.. Even those racing games that should ideally offer as wide a field of view as possible sometime show vertical stuff like skyscrapers, beaches below the cliff on the side of the road, etc..

Perhaps games are intentionally becoming more "flat" because we no longer use 4:3 or 5:4 resolutions.. hehe, just kidding!

Yeah, 21:9 does seem like a better solution for games today, overall, I concur.

Still.. I like to use the screen for watching movies also, and it'd have to be one hell of a big screen for me to tolerate the black bars on the sides of 16:9 movies, which are vastly common on DVDs and Blu-rays these days (if not the majority). I also like the vertical desktop space too - which was one of the major complaints of 16:9 screens when they replaced 16:10's in the market.

 

[BrightCandle]

What I really want is problem a monitor that is somewhere around 32:10 (two monitors side by side in one screen) with a slight curve and 120hz IPS with lightboost 2 like capabilities. If someone starts selling one of those they can probably just charge me almost anything for it because I get the best of both worlds. I always felt 3 monitors was too much, both from a work perspective and a gaming perspective, 2 I think would be natural but it can't be done without getting rid of the bezel.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What I really want is problem a monitor that is somewhere around 32:10 (two monitors side by side in one screen) with a slight curve and 120hz IPS with lightboost 2 like capabilities. If someone starts selling one of those they can probably just charge me almost anything for it because I get the best of both worlds. I always felt 3 monitors was too much, both from a work perspective and a gaming perspective, 2 I think would be natural but it can't be done without getting rid of the bezel.

That actually sounds like it would be very cool. If they can get IPS to do native 120hz with no issues.