![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Quake has an uncapped FOV. Try setting the FOV to 360 and find how how useful it is when another player standing two feet in front of you is approximately one pixel as opposed to thousands of pixels (at 90 degrees).
You should educate yourself a little: multi-display gaming is NOT an AMD-exclusive technology.
Oh sorry, I forgot that the vast resources needed to duplicate Call of Duty screenshots couldn't possibly be possessed by a mere mortal such as myself. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself by doubling down on a claim that I can easily disprove. Your exact quote:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/846/cod1680.jpg
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/826/cod2560.jpg
Not surprisingly, I am right and you are flat out wrong. The viewable area on the 2560 screenshot is exactly the same as the 1680 screenshot. All I did here was snap one shot, hit escape and change the resolution, then snap the other shot. There is no "opening of the view to speak of." The shack on the left is in the exact same place, the bushes on the right are in the exact same place, and the vertical area is exactly the same. It's very obvious that resolution by itself has absolutely nothing to do with "opening the view." Hell, if I wanted to, I could run my monitor with black bars on the top and bottom, decreasing the resolution but increasing the amount of viewable gameworld. But I guess since you KNOW FOR SURE and you CAREFULLY RESEARCHED IT, the view is a lot more open at 2560.
Someone with a 2560 monitor does not see more of the gameworld than someone with a 1680 monitor. There is no advantage there, and arguments to the effect of "locking eyefinity is hypocritical if they aren't going to lock resolution" are faulty.
What he means by his statement is obviously "wider aspect ration should open up more field of view"; this is usually, but not always linked to higher resolutions (simply because you need more monitors to display it). It also allows more detail to come out, simply because with more pixels you get a larger and/or sharper image depending on your monitor.Oh sorry, I forgot that the vast resources needed to duplicate Call of Duty screenshots couldn't possibly be possessed by a mere mortal such as myself. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself by doubling down on a claim that I can easily disprove. Your exact quote:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/846/cod1680.jpg
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/826/cod2560.jpg
Not surprisingly, I am right and you are flat out wrong. The viewable area on the 2560 screenshot is exactly the same as the 1680 screenshot. All I did here was snap one shot, hit escape and change the resolution, then snap the other shot. There is no "opening of the view to speak of." The shack on the left is in the exact same place, the bushes on the right are in the exact same place, and the vertical area is exactly the same. It's very obvious that resolution by itself has absolutely nothing to do with "opening the view." Hell, if I wanted to, I could run my monitor with black bars on the top and bottom, decreasing the resolution but increasing the amount of viewable gameworld. But I guess since you KNOW FOR SURE and you CAREFULLY RESEARCHED IT, the view is a lot more open at 2560.
Someone with a 2560 monitor does not see more of the gameworld than someone with a 1680 monitor. There is no advantage there, and arguments to the effect of "locking eyefinity is hypocritical if they aren't going to lock resolution" are faulty.
My statement is badly worded and incorrect. That happens after discussing this for two days. It is all good. I would like to see pictures of the monitors to scale though as it further comments towards how immersive the game experience is. My apologies to TH@TGUYUKNO, I misspoke. In the research we were doing we were looking at older 4:3 monitors till we got up to newer 16:9 and 16:10 displays.