Don't You Think It's Time For Higher Resolution Gaming?

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Well, obviosly you have missunderstood this.

Basically all games that are from 2008 or later are primarly made for 16:9 and have fixed height (some of them are even locked to 16:9). Therefor you get wider field of view with 16:9 resolution (same height as 16:10 resolution but wider) just as in the pic I posted earlier. In the case where the game is locked to 16:9 you will get black bars on 16:10 and 4:3 monitors.

If you are going to buy a gaming monitor its ratio should therefor be 16:9.

The image is only smaller because you are cramming it into the same height window as the 16:9 image, as if running 16:10 on a 16:9 monitor - which nobody does. If you had the three images next to eachother at equal pixel per inch ratios rather than all unfairly squashed into the same 16:9 box you would see 16:10 is taller and the same width - 16:9, 16:10 lol.

16 x 9 = 144

16 x 10 = 160

Please don't tell me you think 144 is a higher number than 160

 

[Stone]

The image is only smaller because you are cramming it into the same height window as the 16:9 image, as if running 16:10 on a 16:9 monitor - which nobody does. If you had the three images next to eachother at equal pixel per inch ratios rather than all unfairly squashed into the same 16:9 box you would see 16:10 is taller and the same width

You dont understand how games work. If you play in 16:10 instead of 16:9 they just will cut off the edges. It has nothing to do with resolution but aspect ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

16:9

16:10

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

You dont understand how games work. If you play in 16:10 instead of 16:9 they just will cut off the edges. It has nothing to do with resolution but aspect ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

16:9

16:10

If you are using 16:10 on a 16:9 monitor then ofcourse it'll cut the edges off, it won't fit!

16:10 is for 16:10 monitors only, which have the space to accomodate the extra height. If 16:10 cuts edges off on a 16:10 monitor then either the software hasn't been set up correctly or the monitor is poor

 

[Stone]

16:10 is for 16:10 monitors only, which have the space to accomodate the extra height. If 16:10 cuts edges off on a 16:10 monitor then either the software hasn't been set up correctly or the monitor is poor

It has nothing to do with the quality of the monitor. The games are programmed like this.

You get bigger Field Of View with a 16:9 monitor than a 16:10 monitor.

If you play a game with a 16:10 monitor you will get the 16:9 FOV but with cut off edges just as the pics show above. If you dont understand. Just read the article. It explains it.

This is also a good pic that explains it.

Starcraft 2 - Field Of View

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

It has nothing to do with the quality of the monitor. The games are programmed like this.

You get bigger Field Of View with a 16:9 monitor than a 16:10 monitor.

If you play a game with a 16:10 monitor you will get the 16:9 FOV but with cut off edges just as the pics show above. If you dont understand. Just read the article. It explains it.

This is also a good pic that explains it.

Starcraft 2 - Field Of View

How about a nice cup of physics

 

[Grizzly]

Resolution is an important factor, most 16:10 monitors are 1920x1200, if you then play the 16:9 equivalent 1920x1080, you lose field of view. However if you were to do what the earlier picture suggests and play 16:10 on a 1920x1080 monitor at a much lower resolution then you lose field of view. Reverting back to my initial statement 'Resolution is an important factor'.

 

[Stone]

Resolution is an important factor, most 16:10 monitors are 1920x1200, if you then play the 16:9 equivalent 1920x1080, you lose field of view. However if you were to do what the earlier picture suggests and play 16:10 on a 1920x1080 monitor at a much lower resolution then you lose field of view. Reverting back to my initial statement 'Resolution is an important factor'.

You don't get it. For field of view resolution is not intresting. It is all about aspect ratio.

Thats why 1280x720 (16:9) have bigger FOV than 1920x1200 (16:10) in games.

If you play with a 1280x720 monitor you will get the FOV showed in the 16:9 pic above.

If you play with a 1920x1200 monitor you will get the FOV showed in the 16:10 pic above.

 

[Grizzly]

You don't get it. For field of view resolution is not intresting. It is all about aspect ratio.

Thats why 1280x720 (16:9) have bigger FOV than 1920x1200 (16:10) in games.

If you play with a 1280x720 monitor you will get the FOV showed in the 16:9 pic above.

If you play with a 1920x1200 monitor you will get the FOV showed in the 16:10 pic above.

Yeah you're right, long day at work with no coffee doesn't help my thinking.

 

[JezEngland]

5XXX x 1200 concaved is on the wish list. I seen a 3 in 1 style monitor @ youtube with angled sides, neeeah not good enough lol

 

[bertdasquirt]

I see what stone is trying to say, but as the are both 16:? you will get the same width, just with 16:10 you will get more height...

personally, 16:9 is too wide for me, and in most games there is an option to adjust the FOV so the aspect ratio doesnt really effect gaming, unless your me, with an old 1280 x 1024, 4:3 monitor eek, im get myself a 120Hz 1080p one tho

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Resolution is an important factor, most 16:10 monitors are 1920x1200, if you then play the 16:9 equivalent 1920x1080, you lose field of view. However if you were to do what the earlier picture suggests and play 16:10 on a 1920x1080 monitor at a much lower resolution then you lose field of view. Reverting back to my initial statement 'Resolution is an important factor'.

Exactly what I've been trying to say

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

I see what stone is trying to say, but as the are both 16:? you will get the same width, just with 16:10 you will get more height...

personally, 16:9 is too wide for me, and in most games there is an option to adjust the FOV so the aspect ratio doesnt really effect gaming, unless your me, with an old 1280 x 1024, 4:3 monitor eek, im get myself a 120Hz 1080p one tho

I've been saying that for about a year now, always gets put on hold to get more internal upgrades though

 

[S1EJ0]

All i know is my 1920 x 1200 24" Dell is sweet as!

and as for FOV what you loose in the width you gain in height.

High res all the way IMO as it really does sharpen things up without use of AA.

 

[siravarice]

Would rather see screens like the Retina display on the iPhone tbh. More pixels per inch and one generic aspect ratio so some screens dont cut off edges etc.

 

[Stone]

Once again.

16:9 FOV is wider than 16:10 FOV in games but the height FOV is the same.

If you are into gaming 16:9 is the obvious choice. Games are made for 16:9 and obviosly should be played in 16:9.

Great article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

[Ya93sin]

At the end of the day it depends whether the developer has added support for different resolutions i.e. at 16:10 the HUD or icons would be in a different position to 16:9 and so on.

In some games solely designed for 16:9, having 16:10 may indeed cut the sides off while keeping the height the same, but then in others it may not.

 

[Stone]

In some games solely designed for 16:9, having 16:10 may indeed cut the sides off while keeping the height the same

The point is that 99 percent of all computer and console games today are programmed for 16:9.

 

[alienware]

I miss CRT monitors. Where you had some resolution adjustment with no loss of image quality

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Once again.

16:9 FOV is wider than 16:10 FOV in games but the height FOV is the same.

If you are into gaming 16:9 is the obvious choice. Games are made for 16:9 and obviosly should be played in 16:9.

Great article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

In the near future, troll face will be replaced by that aspect ratio meme