And this is why 21:9 monitors are pretty much useless for gaming

I believe all of the Nvidia 1000 series have dp 1.4
The main reason that the dell is $5,000 is that it is oled.
 
Last edited:
Daishiknyte said:
I'm missing why limiting to a 16:9 ratio (or 4:# for old games) with black side bars isn't an option.
Click to expand...
It is, and was always how Overwatch was presented at a 21:9 resolution before the PTR. Likewise, if you play Overwatch on a 16:10, 4:3, or 5:4 screen it will be letterboxed to 16:9.
 
These darn pesky games that do not support these new-fangled formats are why you need both a 16:9 and 21:9. ;)

20160324_213134_HDR_zps9rovid2s.jpg
 
Outside of waiting for OLED and HDR hardware specs to iron things out/for smoke to clear.. and for oled prices to drop to merely expensive rather than prohibitive, I'd be happy with a taller-than-current 21:9 monitors but still 21:9 aspect ratio (40 - 50" long diagonal I guess) high hz LED zone lit VA with variable hz that can keep the motion clarity tight at 120fps-hz.

.
Apparently we will be getting a 35" 3440 x 1440 VA end of 2016. Worth waiting it out for me personally, for the monitor and for 1080tis. I'd rather drop my money on things like that than do half measures along the way. Considering the cost of OLED I prob won't buy an OLED gaming monitor and a large OLED tv for several years yet (3 - 5).

igluk said:
Here is yet another update to the TftCentral articles, only concerning AUO:
LCD and TFT Monitor News

In short:
- 25'' & 27'' 1080p 240hz TN panels end of 2016
- 35'' 3440x1440 now 200hz VA end of 2016
- 31.5'' 1440p 144hz VA Q4 production (same as planned Samsung panel)
- 27'' 1440p 144hz VA in planning phase
- 27'' 4k 144hz AHVA (IPS) mass production in 2017
- 240hz 1440p planned in 2017

(Updated OP)
Click to expand...
 
Gotta love the reasons, I'm actually of the opposite opinion, larger screen & FOV is not necessarily an aid, it can be the opposite, at least if you are playing competitively. Majority of the CS pros refuse to use monitors larger than 24"/1080p and even then many of them stick to some 800x600 res or whatever lol. Larger screen estate and FOV results in it becoming more difficult to focus on all action happening on screen and it might take longer to react to a person appearing around a corner at the very edge of the screen as our eye's field of vision is fairly narrow at which we can actually "process" the data. In games like CS where reaction times are the difference of death or kill (or Overwatch to lesser extent) I see no point of limiting FOV like this.

So having said that, I see no point needing to limit FOV due fear of competitive edge when it's more often the opposite, especially with 21:9. I'm only on 16:10 1680x1050 still and about to upgrade to 1080p this year and I personally do not mind one bit if people have 21:9 screens with gigantic FOVs (give them 140 or whatever FOV for all I care) as I don't see it as an edge, I see it more as personal preference which is a much more important factor.
 
Last edited:
Blorgon said:
"And this is why 21:9 monitors are pretty much useless for gaming"

I beg to differ.

Also, right, because, you know, Overwatch is literally the only game in the world that allows 21:9.

Your problem is that you're not distinguishing between aspect ratio and FOV. Overwatch's bullshit crop is not 21:9's fault, it's yours for thinking this is representative of what properly supported 21:9 actually looks like.



Spoken like a true troglodyte.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree here. 90% of games I've purchased on steam this year work in 21:9 without any tinkering. Even a lot of older games will work just fine. I'm playing on this old Warhammer Online server (Return of Reckoning) - game has been dead for YEARS, guess what, 3440x1440 works like a charm.

All the AAA titles I've played personally since owning the monitor all play perfectly.

The ONLY trouble I've had are with a couple of port games and lazy indie developers who didn't feel like adding support. But guess what, there's an entire web page called WSGF | "Wider is Better" that makes wide screen fixes to games that don't have native support.

So yeah, 21:9 is totally useless. *rolls eyes*
 
The bulk of titles I've found without native 21:9 support or an easy fix out there are 2D indie things like Hyper Light Drifter and similar.

Most titles it works well, and given the hell I went through trying to find a 4K TV that was suitable for use as a monitor, I've been very happy with the U3415W. It's a proper monitor; no odd 'mode' issues or having to finagle 4:4:4 chroma, no soul-crushing input lag or blur, it just works. I can even play PS4 and keep a PC desktop up for voice chat / etc at the same time, and it works as a sort of USB KVM.
 
Last edited:
I did notice that objects stretch a bit when they get to the edge of the monitor but I only noticed it after trying to see if it was fish eyed, and it is slightly but I never noticed it in the 14 or so months I've had this monitor.

And the Map and Health Weapon HUDs on the other screenshot you posted looks out of place, mine are on the far edges,
IMG_0416.JPG


and there is no built in screenshot button either, you have to go to the console and type a command.
 
To rpgwizard's point, there are a few ways people can use wide aspect ratios. You can use them for immersion, keeping the monitor or array near so that the extents are in your periphery, or you can try to see more of the screen at once by setting it back further. Either way, adding +440 to both sides of the game scene isn't a big deal. It's less than PLP and way less than triple monitor.

It goes back to the 4:3 purists vs 16:9 gaming all over again. People are also able to exploit very bad contrast settings and other visual manipulation to gain an edge in ladder ranking games. It's never going to be legit without some kind of hardware punkbuster lock down or some such, and like others have said there are a ton of other hardware and connection variables. I've been saying lately that with future VR competition it would require a Web cam on each player to prove 1:1 motion without exploits, viewable picture in picture like those review videos.
 
Last edited:
delita said:
Gotta agree here. 90% of games I've purchased on steam this year work in 21:9 without any tinkering. Even a lot of older games will work just fine. I'm playing on this old Warhammer Online server (Return of Reckoning) - game has been dead for YEARS, guess what, 3440x1440 works like a charm.

All the AAA titles I've played personally since owning the monitor all play perfectly.

The ONLY trouble I've had are with a couple of port games and lazy indie developers who didn't feel like adding support. But guess what, there's an entire web page called WSGF | "Wider is Better" that makes wide screen fixes to games that don't have native support.

So yeah, 21:9 is totally useless. *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

What you leave out... Games that need patching to work... Every single game update will break the patch. Something I learned real quick running eyefinity.

Which means that if or when steam updates you without you wanting it to usually means a day or week without said game
 
Skripka said:
What you leave out... Games that need patching to work... Every single game update will break the patch. Something I learned real quick running eyefinity.

Which means that if or when steam updates you without you wanting it to usually means a day or week without said game
Click to expand...

A lot of the games that need updating via patch seem to be older in my experience, or ports. If they're older, what's the likelihood of a game update? And ports are a crapshoot regardless of 21:9, amirite? I'm just saying, it's really not that bad at all. If it were, I wouldn't have gotten the monitor. But I've had a pretty all around solid experience, just waiting patiently for the next Titan card so I can hit some higher framerates since my X34 is 100hz.
 
elvn said:
Thanks fo that Aluminum. So true. 16:9 is an exploit over 4:3 purity!

For the time being, you can get a 21:9 , 3440x1440 at 100hz while you can only get 4k at 60hz. Again the frame rate is the lowest at 4k as well.
Later this year and into next, there will be 4k and 21:9 1440 monitors with 120hz or better max reresh rate. Some of them are going to be VA screens which will have greatly increased contrast ratios. Without a high average frame rate and variable hz capable monitor, you aren't going to get anything out of higher hz. Even with modern cards, 4k will be frame rate crushing, and the arbitrary graphics ceilings set by devs aren't going to be getting any lower in the games made for this generation of cards going forward.
Click to expand...

The next round of GPUs will be fast enough for 4k with variable refresh monitors (you'll be getting 60-100fps depending on the game).

The 1080 GTX wasn't quite there, but it's getting close. Big Pascal will be enough for 4k.
 
Skripka said:
Maybe they will be here.

The $5,000USD 120Hz 4K Dell is months late already...and is still nowhere to be seen on shelves. Further when they come out, I'll be money they'll have input-lag or ghosting or color problems....and the other problem being you need USB-C to connect them and do 120Hz.

Raise your hand if you have a USB-C port on your video card.
Click to expand...

The assumption is that part of the reason they were delayed was to support DP 1.3/DP 1.4. It really made no sense to release them requiring USB-C, which nobody has.
 
Blorgon said:
"And this is why 21:9 monitors are pretty much useless for gaming"

I beg to differ.

Also, right, because, you know, Overwatch is literally the only game in the world that allows 21:9.

Your problem is that you're not distinguishing between aspect ratio and FOV. Overwatch's bullshit crop is not 21:9's fault, it's yours for thinking this is representative of what properly supported 21:9 actually looks like.



Spoken like a true troglodyte.
Click to expand...

Nice personal insult there. You're a real winner. Too bad you're completely full of shit. Many of the games that come out don't even support 1440p or even 1080p natively, and you honestly think that 21:9 is ever going to be supported?

Face it. PC gaming is basically a dumping ground for console ports now. 21:9 is never going to be supported by consoles. That aspect ratio is a never-was. Look at what happened to 16:10. Completely missed the boat. Why? Think about it really hard and you might get it. Consoles were never 16:10.

You're only going to get sloppy seconds from consoles. Consoles are 16:9, so that's what it's going to be. Deal with it.

If you want to spend your life running games in borderless windowed mode with extra input lag due to Windows desktop composition, hacking binaries to add support for aspect ratios that need to be updated with each patch, and other dumb workarounds, be my guest.

The rest of us will be playing at 4k with a better supported aspect ratio and a higher resolution.
 
bigbluefe said:
Nice personal insult there. You're a real winner. Too bad you're completely full of shit. Many of the games that come out don't even support 1440p or even 1080p natively, and you honestly think that 21:9 is ever going to be supported?

Face it. PC gaming is basically a dumping ground for console ports now. 21:9 is never going to be supported by consoles. That aspect ratio is a never-was. Look at what happened to 16:10. Completely missed the boat. Why? Think about it really hard and you might get it. Consoles were never 16:10.

You're only going to get sloppy seconds from consoles. Consoles are 16:9, so that's what it's going to be. Deal with it.

If you want to spend your life running games in borderless windowed mode with extra input lag due to Windows desktop composition, hacking binaries to add support for aspect ratios that need to be updated with each patch, and other dumb workarounds, be my guest.

The rest of us will be playing at 4k with a better supported aspect ratio and a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Pretty angry post here man, chill the F out.

PS - enjoy 60 frames as your max for a long time.
 
bigbluefe said:
Nice personal insult there. You're a real winner. Too bad you're completely full of shit. Many of the games that come out don't even support 1440p or even 1080p natively, and you honestly think that 21:9 is ever going to be supported?

Face it. PC gaming is basically a dumping ground for console ports now. 21:9 is never going to be supported by consoles. That aspect ratio is a never-was. Look at what happened to 16:10. Completely missed the boat. Why? Think about it really hard and you might get it. Consoles were never 16:10.

You're only going to get sloppy seconds from consoles. Consoles are 16:9, so that's what it's going to be. Deal with it.

If you want to spend your life running games in borderless windowed mode with extra input lag due to Windows desktop composition, hacking binaries to add support for aspect ratios that need to be updated with each patch, and other dumb workarounds, be my guest.

The rest of us will be playing at 4k with a better supported aspect ratio and a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Yeah butbit seems like none of the idiots over at Asus/Acer/AOC/whatever are ever gonna make a >60hz 4k monitor that is larger than 27 inches...
 
"Fast enough for 4k... "
graphics ceilings are arbitrarily set by devs. Their challenge is to whittle complexity down - so the ultra ceiling could be so high as to do negative frames per second if they wanted to. You are comparing the current generation of games at what they are patched or in some cases modded to right now. That won't necessarily be true going forward. Still it's great to see more.powerful gpus out and faster just around the corner. Personally I dial in 100fps-hz average on a high hz monitor settings wise.
 
Last edited:
You are confusing game world FoV with your real world perspective.

Most games use HOR+ based on the vertical.
The wider the aspect ratio, the more game world you are seeing, regardless of resolution. The same is true of lenses. Games and cgi suites use virtual cameras.

eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg

eyefinity_config-aspects_5x1P-vs-16x9PLP_sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
as you get into higher resolutions it becomes more an aspect ratio thing
...<snip>...
especially in regard to games, where the virtual lens lost no height in a HOR+ 1st/3rd person game, it just gained width. A giant wall of monitor at a desk is stupid (imo) unless you can set a virtual primary monitor space with all extents additional fov. Otherwise you just make all scene elements JUMBO and bend your eyes (and even micro neck bend) to the periphery rather than experiencing a more zoomed out immersive perspective via added periphery (i.e. more game world "real estate" to relate it to the desktop real-estate term). A wider aspect ratio monitor does this by nature of it's aspect ratio, at least in width which is the best you are going to get for now (outside of mutli-monitor LLL) without a highly customizable FoV/zoom game.
Click to expand...
 
Zepher said:
I did notice that objects stretch a bit when they get to the edge of the monitor but I only noticed it after trying to see if it was fish eyed, and it is slightly but I never noticed it in the 14 or so months I've had this monitor.

And the Map and Health Weapon HUDs on the other screenshot you posted looks out of place, mine are on the far edges,
View attachment 5325

and there is no built in screenshot button either, you have to go to the console and type a command.
Click to expand...
The screenshot he posted is from a multimonitor projection that looks to be 48:9, so it's an extreme case scenario. The second shot with the arrows pointing at the trees is zoomed in from the first. Our eyes naturally stretch and distort shapes and colors beyond 40 degrees of the center of our cone of vision, anyway. In a multimonitor setup the point isn't to look directly at the side monitors, but just to have an extended image available when your eyes move side-to-side.
elvn said:
You are confusing game world FoV with your real world perspective.

Most games use HOR+ based on the vertical.
The wider the aspect ratio, the more game world you are seeing, regardless of resolution. The same is true of lenses. Games and cgi suites use virtual cameras.

eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg

eyefinity_config-aspects_5x1P-vs-16x9PLP_sm.jpg
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. This is what we mean when we say we want proper support for a given aspect ratio. The horizontal FOV stays the same, but the view frustum is just projected out wider to accommodate the aspect ratio (the focal point of the rendered scene is extended outward on the z-axis). You can force the FOV wider to get more use out of your wider aspect ratio if the game doesn't support it (hacks, ini edits, etc.), but this is what causes the fish eye effect.
 
bigbluefe said:
Nice personal insult there. You're a real winner. Too bad you're completely full of shit.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous thing to claim that something in the tech industry will never be supported, ever.

bigbluefe said:
Many of the games that come out don't even support 1440p or even 1080p natively
Click to expand...

What? What games are you talking about?

bigbluefe said:
21:9 is never going to be supported by consoles. That aspect ratio is a never-was. Look at what happened to 16:10. Completely missed the boat. Why? Think about it really hard and you might get it. Consoles were never 16:10.
Click to expand...

What? Wait, wait, wait.

Okay, I think I understand. You're complaining about consoles not supporting 21:9. At this point I can't imagine you're talking about PC, because, well, you're just plain wrong on pretty much every account. Since this is primarily a forum for computer enthusiasts, I had assumed you were talking about PC gaming, but clearly, either that's not the case, or you're an idiot.

16:10 was an industry standard for a while before the cheaper-to-manufacture 16:9 took over, much to the chagrin of pretty much everybody. Consoles were 16:9 because TVs already were, and that's how consoles are used. That's all. Consoles do not dictate the market's adoption of aspect ratios, period.
 
It isn't ridiculous to say that something's never going to go anywhere when it's obvious it'll never go anywhere.

I know 21:9 isn't going anywhere just like I knew LCD screens in keyboards would never be widely adopted. It's weird, exotic shit that nobody cares about or is going to support.

Have you ever played a Japanese PC game? Apparently not. Because those don't support 21:9 or even 1440p most of the time.

And yes, the movie/console industries do dictate the market's adoption of aspect ratios. If they didn't, 16:10 would still be around.

I'm done with this thread. No point in talking to a wall.
 
bigbluefe said:
It isn't ridiculous to say that something's never going to go anywhere when it's obvious it'll never go anywhere.

I know 21:9 isn't going anywhere just like I knew LCD screens in keyboards would never be widely adopted. It's weird, exotic shit that nobody cares about or is going to support.

Have you ever played a Japanese PC game? Apparently not. Because those don't support 21:9 or even 1440p most of the time.

And yes, the movie/console industries do dictate the market's adoption of aspect ratios. If they didn't, 16:10 would still be around.

I'm done with this thread. No point in talking to a wall.
Click to expand...
The movie industry demands the usage of anamorphic lens (eg: Panamorph UH480) to be fitted on the projector. That's something only a true enthusiast is willing to spend. The console market was meant for average Joe gaming. The PC market...well, it's getting worse with console port.
 
the console industry also pigeon holes 60hz and 1080p and less so that isn't relevant.

VR is using 90hz now too.

The console industry is just always way behind and in happy meal / valu-meal land.
 
VR is even more dead in the water than 21:9. Too expensive, and there's no good interface for it. This round of VR isn't going to be big. It has too many problems and limitations.
 
I went through ACER XB271HU, ASUS PG348Q, ASUS PG279Q and now finally settled with an ASUS PG279Q. 21:9 was great for movies. Also loved the desktop real estate. In games which were 3rd person it was also fine. However, FPS games were a chore. I got cross eyed and sometimes motion sickness due to the wide angle. Most games felt stretched or just wrong. I also missed the higher refresh rate. In terms of resolution it was comparable (except the wide angle) since the PPI was similar.

All said and done, whilst PG348Q was a fantastic display, I did not feel it was a gaming display. I am back with a 165 Hz, bitch pumping, fps raping monitor and love it! Doom is so smooth. So if Forza 6 APEX. And countless other games I play. I wish they would make a 32" 1440P 165 Hz monitor and I will jump on it asap!
 
There are going to be 144hz and higher 21:9 as well as 4k screens out by end of 2016 and into 2017. The refresh rate might help with your motion sickness. That is the reason VR has to be 90hz and why there are online "VR test" apps of your hardware to ensure that you can average 90fps-hz (and higher would be even better) - any lower induces nausea.

I understand the nose up about VR , especially since it's first gen and beta like atm and expensive for the state it's in. I mentioned it because like PC gaming, it is capable of higher hz. bigbluefe ignored that I mentioned resolution and refresh rate first, which consoles have always been terribly behind in since they are made as cheap happy meals/toy-r-us sets bought at department stores for tv's. I guess other than the obvious real-time rendering power limitations of consoles a big difference is consoles are bound to tv technology due to their market while pc's have always had pc monitors, so consoles will continue to and likely always be behind.

The fact that most devs now market games more toward the masses of mcdonald's console kiosk consumers rather than higher end and more capable pc setups doesn't mean they'd have to limit the pc options, that's just being lazy. They do support higher resolutions in pc ports at least, and many support higher hz too. The only reason they'd have to limit anything would be fps-hz wise if their game engine was old or just so bad that the physics is tied to the fps-hz. Another benefit on pc that should be standard is allowing people to mod games, so that things can be improved and fixed for the life of the game (for decades in some cases). Valve has been great about this historically which is why there is a workshop built right into steam. The best way is to vote with your dollars but people seem to lap up whatever devs deliver no matter what the limitations (or how late they release pc versions) especially on "AAA" titles.

Kissasscop - there is a monitor similar to what you are looking for in production this year as per my tftcentral link in a prior reply in this thread.
"Then there's a new 31.5" sized 16:9 aspect ratio panel scheduled for some time in Q4, with 2560 x 1440 resolution and 144Hz refresh rate. This is the first 31.5" sized panel we've seen mentioned by AUO up until now and will also mark the first high refresh rate VA panel we've seen in this size and resolution."
The VA panels to date have only had really tight motion clarity at high frame rate up to about 120fps-hz though, anything over that the panel can't keep up so it starts losing it's blur reduction again. Most people don't get over 100fps-average in the most demanding games on ultra at 1440p anyway. We will have to see if the newer panels are any faster toward 144hz I guess.
I'm intersted in the similar 21:9 144hz and 200hz models personally.
 
Last edited:
At least it runs over 30 or 60 fps eh? Wolfenstein: new order was locked to 60fps/60hz Which is why I didn't buy it.

This thread is like deja-vu of the 4:3 to 16:9 days.
J
4:3 DoTa 's broken widescreen
PSA: You see more of the battlefield with 16:9 resolutions. • /r/DotA2

Gaming: Widescreen vs. 4:3 or 5:4 Hardforum 2005
Gaming: Widescreen vs. 4:3 or 5:4
I like widescreen monitors way better, but I voted for regular in the Poll. Having a widescreen LCD on my laptop, I can say for sure that it's a pain in the ass with some games. Best case, it actually supports widescreen, worst case it will look "stretched" when you play it.

So if you want a completely hassle free experience, you should go with a regular monitor. It is quite rewarding though when you're playing on a widescreen monitor with a game that actually supports it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's nothing like the 4:3 to 16:9 transition. That was a transition from one standard to another.

This is an exotic, non-standard aspect ratio that'll never make it.
 
bigbluefe said:
It's nothing like the 4:3 to 16:9 transition. That was a transition from one standard to another.

This is an exotic, non-standard aspect ratio that'll never make it.
Click to expand...

if it doesn't make it, I wonder if these will be available used for a decent price,
LG-105UC9.jpg
 
Zepher said:
if it doesn't make it, I wonder if these will be available used for a decent price,
View attachment 5465
Click to expand...

Suppose you bought this oddity, and proudly presented it to your friends. I wonder what kind of jokes they would make at your expense while watching latest game broadcast with pillar boxes. "So you payed 100 grand for this shorty with glaring hole beneath it? Did they run out of panel material or something?".

Here is dissent even on dedicated "constant height" theater forum:
Should I go for a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen? - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

21:9 ratio is doomed. Even multiplex theaters are mostly 16:9 nowadays. It is time for Hollywood to nuke it for good.
 
Last edited:
Exotic and non-standard or not, regarding game support many here have the exact same sentiment that I quoted from 2005 regarding 4:3 vs widescreen game support so saying that this thread reads nothing at all like it is not exactly true.
 
Last edited:
I've used every ratio and I think it's ridiculous to believe that one is an unfair advantage over the other, because the scale of the advantage is as small as or smaller than the million other variables at the computer. FPS, mouse, chair, how much sleep or food you had, not to mention screen size rather than ratio... there are a million variables that matter as much or more than a couple more inches on the side

I think it's basically bigotry. ratioism!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top