LordYeezus
Member
About to try this, but where do I start? Do I change my monitor resolution completely to 1080x810 or do I just hope that the game has that resolution and change it from there?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
For 1080p PC players: Get Better FPS + 21:9 ultra wide by making it not 1080p
- Thread starter Fahzgoolin
- Start date
I am not talking about mouse sensitivity, though that is also an indirect byproduct of FOV setting (which can then be adjusted to taste). I'm talking about actual visual feedback sensitivity. Identifying threats, opportunities or other visual stimulus is simply faster when it's a larger portion of your screen, which is going to be true when comparing an object X distance away at a lower FOV vs an object X distance away at a higher FOV.
It may be a slight factor, but it's a factor regardless. If it wasn't, playing in a tiny window 1/4 the size of your monitor wouldn't affect aim.
What you're talking about, that is, the inherent weightage between having information close to the crosshair being as clear as possible, vs how much you see off to the side, has been the crux of choosing a comfortable FOV since Quake days. The only practical way to improve both, rather than choosing one over the other, is to simply buy a bigger monitor that straddles a larger percentage of your eyesight, and to play at a higher resolution, the latter of which again is a tradeoff in itself w.r.t. pushing a higher framerate, which I presume is what prompted this thread in the first place.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I am not talking about mouse sensitivity, though that is also an indirect byproduct of FOV setting (which can then be adjusted to taste). I'm talking about actual visual feedback sensitivity. Identifying threats, opportunities or other visual stimulus is simply faster when it's a larger portion of your screen, which is going to be true when comparing an object X distance away at a lower FOV vs an object X distance away at a higher FOV.
It may be a slight factor, but it's a factor regardless. If it wasn't, playing in a tiny window 1/4 the size of your monitor wouldn't affect aim.
What you're talking about, that is, the inherent weightage between having information close to the crosshair being as clear as possible, vs how much you see off to the side, has been the crux of choosing a comfortable FOV since Quake days. The only practical way to improve both, rather than choosing one over the other, is to simply buy a bigger monitor that straddles a larger percentage of your eyesight, and to play at a higher resolution, the latter of which again is a tradeoff in itself w.r.t. pushing a higher framerate, which I presume is what prompted this thread in the first place.
Gotcha! Thanks for your explanation. That's cool that it's been in discussion since quake lol makes complete sense.
And yes, eventually you would want a larger monitor which defeats the savings lol
Coolade
Member
You can download modified exe's so cutscenes in the witcher 3 are displayed in 21:9
http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=29013&sid=21e12c83ca6cd230beb91df4f84c7e1b&start=270 as most people don't feel like learning to hex edit their own exe's.
This website is also a good reference point to see what games support 21:9
Also, if you're not familiar with wideasfcuk check out his channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxfsK33BWlxHgglWl9LTAYA/videos
potatohead
Member
That's not what I'm talking about whether it's placebo or not, what are you talking about I don't even.
It's just whatever resolution you want to run the game as. It's arbitrary. You feel like having more FOV? You can do that. Want less? You can do that too.
That's the only difference. Whatever the fuck you want to do is what I mean, that's what this is, do what you want, like most things in PC gaming.
Kind of a shit argument.
OP doesn't have the cash and want the performance. It is one of many options that works for him.
I similarly was in such a position, but with far larger issues towards performance on an ageing laptop. It worked wonderfully for keeping at 60fps in some game and even staying at 30fps with others. As a temporary solution - it's brilliant.
That's because 21:9 is an approximation used for marketing. It's actually 64:27 - which would make 1920x810 correct
uncredited male
Member
If you cannot directly manipulate the FOV some games will turn to shit as they use a locked horizontal view when changing aspect ratios. It can make some aspect ratios unplayable as it eats up vertical viewing area.
On the flip side you can mess around with tallscreening.
http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=14756&start=60
On the flip side you can mess around with tallscreening.
http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=14756&start=60
Ah! Thanks for the info!
TheGoddamn
Member
I do this myself on my 42-inch 1080p TV. But I primarily use the 2560*1080 resolution for some downsampling. But if I can't hit 60 FPS at that setting, I go down in steps to various 21:9 resolutions, with the lowest being 1920*810. It's roughly equivalent to 900p, and if you have a decent CPU and a GPU made within the last four years, you can easily play most games at this resolution in ultrawide (I have a 3770k + 1060).
The 21:9 area is around 39 inches diagonally. I don't mind the black bars at all, and the added detail is more than worth it. It's what I miss most when go back to playing on consoles, really. At 16:9, everything is so... big and I can barely see around me. It's almost claustrophobic.
The 21:9 area is around 39 inches diagonally. I don't mind the black bars at all, and the added detail is more than worth it. It's what I miss most when go back to playing on consoles, really. At 16:9, everything is so... big and I can barely see around me. It's almost claustrophobic.
KirbKirb30
Member
I am curious to try this, but black bars would definitely make some HUD-intensive games just painful to play.
Agent_ShortBus
Member
I wish they made ultrawide tv's I love my 2560x1080 monitor it really changed the atmosphere of a game like the witcher 3.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yeah it certainly depends on your set up, however a lot of the times the HUD ends up further away from the center pf your screen--so to speak. Also, it does appropriately scale, so that's something as well. Haven't come across a game that was too painful to not want the wider view. Something like a cRPG or RTS I would question it's use.
They seem to be around 1000$ or there about.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Haha I know the feeling.
There is a thread for that if you are considering: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=838097
I think I might get a larger screen (30"+) higher resolution in the future and do this trick if I want ultra wide.
Ultra wide is great, but usual activities on a computer can be jarring...like browsing a single web page. You end up with a lot of blank space on the sides. I like using both options. Side by side programs is great though.
Barf...too rich for my blood. I love ultra wide but gsync is essential for me now since I bought into it. Guess my AOC 1920x1080 will have to last me for a while.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
How big is your screen?
This looks a bit too cinematic for me, I'm too far away from the action with the massively increased FOV. Could be cool on a real 21:9 monitor but dropping resolution to 800p and increasing the FOV that wide costs you a ton of detail in the middle of the picture.
I feel like a spectator looking at those screens.
I feel like a spectator looking at those screens.
24 inches. It's just small enough that running it at 1920x810 is a bit of an issue. Well, that and I sit a fair distance away from it.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Okay Gotcha. Yeah I have a 24inch 144hz, but the monitor is literally 2 feet or less in front of me.
I think a 1440p monitor around 30inches or more would be great and then I could do a variant of the custom resolution to do ultra wide in games I like it in.
I think there are 1440p gsync monitors that are cheaper and bigger than the 21:9 versions.
This is kind of nutty:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01G5JYMNA/?tag=neogaf0e-20
It's even 165 hz... Woo wee!
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
lol, The Order redeemed.
Makoto-Yuki
Gold Member
just tried it. have it enabled right now. i like the idea but the black bars are just too big for me. is there another setting i can put it to in order to reduce the thickness?
this is what it looks like:
this is what it looks like:
Makoto-Yuki
Gold Member
yeah that's what i normally do. well if i can't do 1440p then it's 1080p. there isn't really any games that my PC struggles at 1080p with. however i wouldn't mind doing this method if it increased the FOV in some games. I already have it maxed it Rocket League but more would be welcome.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Well, I always keep my desktop resolution to the full native resolution of the monitor. However, in game is when I select the custom resolution. If the black bars are too big for you, all you need to do is increase your vertical resolution height. So, instead of 810, maybe bump it up to 910 or w/e you wanna try. You won't get the true 21:9 ultra wide, but you will still achieve wider perhiperals and higher FOV.
And doing so will waste 23.8% of your display area: http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x9-vs-22,76-inch-21x9
Coreda
Member
I have no issues playing with black bars, or even 1080p 1:1 on a 1440p monitor (if the game is too demanding for higher quality settings at native res).
To me it's not all that different from simply playing on a smaller monitor, apart from any reflections that may be visible from ambient lighting (I use a matte monitor so this is less of an issue).
To me it's not all that different from simply playing on a smaller monitor, apart from any reflections that may be visible from ambient lighting (I use a matte monitor so this is less of an issue).
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yup, that's all it is to me as well. Just a smaller screen depending on what game I'm playing. I just think it's funny people feel the need to come in here and point out the obvious, as though it's not clearly stated in the OP and should be obvious from the very premise. It's merely an option and a trade off with some great results if you don't mind the black bars.
Dreams-Visions
Member
yessir.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yeah...and my screenshots are with the lowest FOV possible in the game. So, if you cranked it up you could see even more.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
This situation is hilarious. 21:9 display manufacturers must be laughing all the way to the bank being able to charge more for less, purely because game developers aren't allowing the correct adjustment of FoV.
Game is designed for console with a lower FoV to suit a 16:9 TV at distance.
PC gamer plays game sat close to monitor, FoV is too low and cramped
PC gamer pays out the nose for a 21:9 screen, messes around with hacks and broken cutscenes, just to get a FoV that better suits his display dimensions/distance
Gamer evangelises 21:9 the internet who then rush out to purchase/evangelise
People who understand FoV is nothing to do with aspect ratio smack their foreheads
Game is designed for console with a lower FoV to suit a 16:9 TV at distance.
PC gamer plays game sat close to monitor, FoV is too low and cramped
PC gamer pays out the nose for a 21:9 screen, messes around with hacks and broken cutscenes, just to get a FoV that better suits his display dimensions/distance
Gamer evangelises 21:9 the internet who then rush out to purchase/evangelise
People who understand FoV is nothing to do with aspect ratio smack their foreheads
Darkstorne
Member
Oh, cool. I'll play around with different vertical sizes to find a good performance/visual balance. I'm on a 24inch monitor as well so I definitely feel the need to lean in a little closer playing at 810.
Wow, this thread is like crack to some people lol
Why not i use 21:9 resolution on some games on my 4k 40" monitor and i probably get a bigger picture than the 21:9 monitors that are out right now with the black bars.
3840x1600
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Shush!! Don't let 21:9 display manufacturers hear you!
Tenacious-D
Member
But there's no reason to letterbox a 21:9 monitor. Movies and games already display correctly, so you get the increased FoV, but no black bars on the top and bottom like you do with the method in the OP.
A 1080p 21:9 monitor has a resolution of 2560x1080, which isn't hard to drive. I've got a pretty old PC (i5 2320 / GTX960 / 8GB RAM), and I can run most titles at 60FPS at High settings.
Bucket-o-roadkill
Member
My opinion is the superior opinion, just because.
Necro900
Member
That's a neat idea!
If my measurements are correct, I should have the screen real estate of a 24-25" 21:9 on my 27" 16:9 curved monitor. Minus the resolution, which I've decided to somewhat recover with res scaling in the options menu. Looks nice.
The weird thing is that just setting the 1920x810 resolution already gave me a noticeable FOV increase. Since then I've just upped the FOV a little bit from the options menu, but theoretically shouldn't just setting less vertical resolution give you essentially the 1920x1080 screen FOV anyway?
If my measurements are correct, I should have the screen real estate of a 24-25" 21:9 on my 27" 16:9 curved monitor. Minus the resolution, which I've decided to somewhat recover with res scaling in the options menu. Looks nice.
The weird thing is that just setting the 1920x810 resolution already gave me a noticeable FOV increase. Since then I've just upped the FOV a little bit from the options menu, but theoretically shouldn't just setting less vertical resolution give you essentially the 1920x1080 screen FOV anyway?
Fahzgoolin
Banned
That's a neat idea!
If my measurements are correct, I should have the screen real estate of a 24-25" 21:9 on my 27" 16:9 curved monitor. Minus the resolution, which I've decided to somewhat recover with res scaling in the options menu. Looks nice.
The weird thing is that just setting the 1920x810 resolution already gave me a noticeable FOV increase. Since then I've just upped the FOV a little bit from the options menu, but theoretically shouldn't just setting less vertical resolution give you essentially the 1920x1080 screen FOV anyway?
The main thing this does is grant you wider peripherals with the default FOV. In most games, if you increase the FOV via the slider in menus, the game will get an ugly fish eye warping on the sides to fit in the extra data. The new resolution allows you to avoid that natively. You don't lose any vertical information doing this either. Now you can achieve an even higher FOV than what's possible for other users if you choose to manipulate the in game FOV value. Hope this makes sense. Also, some games (like CSGO) don't allow you to change the FOV at all.
And as stated before, you can see a nice performance gain with this as well.
I feel you man, this thread totally sold me on the ultrawide thing (thanks op) but i just dont have the money for a monitor now, let alone a 1k one.
dgrdsv
Member
That's a neat idea!
If my measurements are correct, I should have the screen real estate of a 24-25" 21:9 on my 27" 16:9 curved monitor. Minus the resolution, which I've decided to somewhat recover with res scaling in the options menu. Looks nice.
The weird thing is that just setting the 1920x810 resolution already gave me a noticeable FOV increase. Since then I've just upped the FOV a little bit from the options menu, but theoretically shouldn't just setting less vertical resolution give you essentially the 1920x1080 screen FOV anyway?
Properly configured FOV depends on a relative vertical size of the screen. By lowering your vertical image size you're increasing FOV in games which are "hor+" which is the proper option. Games which cuts down the top and bottom parts of the image in wider resolutions ("vert-") are using a fixed horizontal FOV, and this is considered a bad behavior since it essentially decreases the screen estate instead of increasing it on ultra wide displays. You want your vertical viewing size to remain more or less the same and only left and right parts should add or subtract on wider/narrower displays.
Netherscourge
Banned
I keep it at 1080p with full details enabled.
All I do is turn off AA completely.
Great FPS, great visuals.
Tiny jaggies are acceptable at 1080p because everything else is so smooth and detailed that it's not even noticable.
Just my opinion, but I think AA at 1080p+ on a smaller, 17" monitor is a huge waste of resources and completely overrated.
All I do is turn off AA completely.
Great FPS, great visuals.
Tiny jaggies are acceptable at 1080p because everything else is so smooth and detailed that it's not even noticable.
Just my opinion, but I think AA at 1080p+ on a smaller, 17" monitor is a huge waste of resources and completely overrated.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
This is a decent way of demonstrating it (graphics settings at maximum, besides anti-aliasing--just using FXAA):
Here, I have the in-game FOV slider set to the default 60. First pic is 1080p (@85fps) and second is 1920x810 (@115fps--nice leap!):
Here, I cranked up the in-game FOV slider to the maximum of 90. Here, the frame rate difference stays about the same from the last set of pics:
So, you can gain fps and gain peripherals with a more balanced look and avoiding the scaling problems that you get on 16:9 aspect ratio with high FOV's. However, as this demonstrated, you can crank up the in-engine FOV higher still and achieve even more peripheral vision, but with the fish eye on both. In Rainbow Six, I usually set my in-game FOV to about 75. 75 FOV stretches the sides in 16:9, but doesn't in the custom resolution.
cleveridea
Member
Its for edge cases, in particular 2 factors. 1 not being able to run the game at a desired framerate at native monitor resolution and 2. not wanting to pick a lower resolution (which is no longer at the monitor resolution - hence worse image quality beyond the lower resolution drop)
I think this is an interesting topic because even 1080 Ti's can't run all modern games at 4K with settings maxed, talking about the highly demanding/detailed world type of games like watchdogs 2 and ghost recon, or GTA V with maxed foliage. OTOH many other games, especially older games, run totally fine at 4K.
To me, its a good case for getting a 4K monitor to be able to play say Mass Effect Andromeda at 4K HDR since the game isnt too demanding, but I could play watchdogs 2 and ghost recon in letterbox since I know even a 1080 Ti wont play it how I want it to at 4K (have no plans on going SLI)
SeeNoWeevil
Member
This is all wrong. The ratio of the screen should not dictate the FoV. The FoV is dependant on the dimensions of each side and the distance from the screen only. You're making the assumption that all 21:9 screens are physically wider than all 16:9 screens.