-
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
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Fahzgoolin
Banned
posting for the new page, as I think it's rather important:
This is a decent way of demonstrating it (graphics settings at maximum, besides anti-aliasing--just using FXAA):
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.
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.
I'm going to run MEA at 1440p UW unless I can get 60fps at 3840x1600 lol.
more of a catch 22: the game was threaded just enough to keep 30 fps with CPU load on XB1, the tram line in the city eats way more than usual amount of gpu power and CPU compared to the rest of the game. To keep 60 FPS means dropping settings from the peak the GPU could do 95% of the time, and a CPU beefier than trogdor's arm. And the game's internal resolution can be independent of external, so I can still play in 21:9 when I'm back at 1080p (don't quote me on this though) Also, the 30 FPS input lag problem can be solved by adjusting the frame buffer size to something less smooth.
also most of the game's cutscenes, etc are made for 16:9 so you get fun things like black bars on the side on loading screens and all UI except driving ones stay in the middle, unwarped
cleveridea
Member
Yeah this is what is being missed, it's that everyone has different preferences, budgets etc.
Personally I go for best image quality possible whilst keeping 60 fps, but it totally makes sense to me people that want the 144 fps experience at a lower resolution for example.
Same thing with people's preference for things like wanting ultrawide monitor. I personally am not that interested but it does sound like it could be really immersive for people playing say a driving game and looking around more.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Sounds like a mess...I bought it on launch, but it performed like trash on my system so I immediately got a refund. I have a gtx960 4GB with an i7 SSD combo. Thought it would be more than capable. Also, the texture pop-in was egregious to me.
Sounds like there isn't a lot of improvements from day one then?
Decided to record some 21:9 footage because why not
I don't think so, but I've got a 970 myself and never had noticed texture popup, even when I played it on a OC'd 2500K. I think 8 thread cpus got some boost, but I dunno how much of one though
that costs money
Mysterious Stranger
Member
Better suggestion get a 21:9 monitor.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
May I offer a suggestion too? Read the OP and inform yourself on why this topic was made.
dgrdsv
Member
This is how it is. Dimensions and especially distance is not something which program can know about. Ratio is used for FOV calculations almost universally. This is why I'll always prefer, say, a 40" 16:9 screen to a 34" 21:9 one - size is more important that width.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
I would too, but developers are screwing over PC players who want to use a 16:9 display up close (i.e sat a desk) by forcing them to use the 'console' FoV that's more suited to a TV at distance. Having to buy an overpriced/small 21:9 display to get a more appropriate FoV at a desk is dumb. I mean, I don't really care myself, I game on a large screen TV, but it's a pretty stupid situation.
dgrdsv
Member
This is a different matter. Your choice of FOV should be based on how far and large the screen is but the proper FOV selection must be based on said screen ratio as well.
Mysterious Stranger
Member
I did and I tried it out I hate black bars!
pretty done
Member
LOL I love this
That was actually pretty enjoyable to watch.
I still need to give BF1 a chance, but my backlog is too gigantic already.
TheFNEffecT
Member
The jolly music helps! haha
Sorry I'm a little delayed on addressing this, but you're both wrong and right because different games respond to different aspect ratios differently. It simply depends if the game engine scales its view area locked to horizontal or vertical pixel size. Hence, there generally are two possibilities (and this is completely ignoring stretched images, obviously):
A) If it locks to horizontal pixel size, increasing the aspect ratio will not increase your FOV, but instead lose the top and bottom of an image.
B) If it locks to vertical pixel size, increasing the aspect ratio will not lose the top and bottom of an image, but instead render a wider FOV.
In the strictest sense, since 'FOV' is a measurement of how many degrees of view angle is rendered to a screen (which has a maximum limit approaching 180 on a straight render for obvious reasons), game engines without any further calculation should maintain that FOV setting regardless how wide your screen gets, resulting in chopping off the top and bottom to maintain the same FOV value horizontally.
However, with the advent of a lot of different aspect ratios becoming more and more common, up to 3-display shenanigans, "FOV" as a setting (typically accessed in console in FPS games, e.g. "fov X" in Quake, "cl_fov X" in older CODs, etc) became more and more meaningless, and most modern engines, especially those targeting PC or multiplatform spec, either straight up lock to vertical resolution, or automatically calculate the correct FOV setting (e.g. a fovscale multiplier) based on drawing the same vertical space as a 4:3 or 16:9 target.
Older games tend to do A (you'd need to manually set a higher FOV if you increase aspect ratio), while newer games tend to do B (what you observe in your post), but this is still a generalization and there are many exceptions to that rule.
In games where you do not have access to tweaks via in-game options, command console, registry, external config, modding or whatever, to what FOV the engine renders at, you're short of luck if it goes with A).
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Thanks for this--and yes I completely agree. There are definitely some games where this certainly does not work the way I have described. Hopefully I have not mislead anyone, but I think the games I demonstrated all have locked vertical FOV's which allow the custom resolutions to give you a wider FOV without stretching the sides like a 16:9 aspect ratio.
edit: Actually, you pointing this out made me realize that Rainbow Six actually doesn't lock the vertical. If you look at my screenshots, the higher the FOV, the more vertical view you get as well. Interesting! However, my original post was to answer the question that, yes, the custom resolution does grant you a wider view over simply increasing the FOV (of course some games won't do this).
?
resized for identical vertical pixel count.
The scope/gun is almost identical between the shots. Vertical FOV is identical between the two aspect ratios.
You moved. You're further in front in the 21:9 shot (See: ceiling top left of 16:9 picture)
edit: For good measure, when you didn't move:
Fahzgoolin
Banned
?
resized for identical vertical pixel count.
The scope/gun is almost identical between the shots. Vertical FOV is identical between the two aspect ratios.
You moved. You're further in front in the 21:9 shot (See: ceiling top left of 16:9 picture)
edit: For good measure, when you didn't move:
wow nicely done. Thanks for these. I didn't mean to move...oops.
thanks for the response!
... which would just cut off the image rather than retain it and extend it.
Samsung all up in your shit anyway, bringing some mega widescreens soon - 32:9 son - 3840x1080 DFHD ("double full HD"):
http://www.pcgamer.com/samsung-to-produce-ridiculously-huge-double-wide-display-panels/
7DollarHagane
Banned
Thats.. actually an awesome idea. Seems like something that could be given as an option on console too.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I've been using it in Player Unknown Battlegrounds and it gives me more performance and a lot more peeking advantage.
=D
=D
... which would just cut off the image rather than retain it and extend it.
Samsung all up in your shit anyway, bringing some mega widescreens soon - 32:9 son - 3840x1080 DFHD ("double full HD"):
http://www.pcgamer.com/samsung-to-produce-ridiculously-huge-double-wide-display-panels/
I'm actually tempted to get one of these for work. Dual monitor without the gap in the middle suits me just fine.
Woo-Fu
Banned
You don't have to pay for this, it "just works" if the game supports ultra wide.
That said it isn't something I would do because the advantage I might gain from increased FoV doesn't outweigh feeling like a cheater. Now before a bunch of uptight people point out that this isn't cheating please note that I said "feeling like a cheater". If I feel like it is cheating it doesn't matter whether you think it is or not. Winning just isn't worth feeling like a scrub.