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

B

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
It's never going to be supported well. Worst case scenario, games won't even support the aspect ratio. Best case scenario, they'll support it, but in a half-assed way that's actually worse than 16:9.

Overwatch 21:9 support has arrived*!!!!!111!!1!11!!

Nope. Weird, non-standard aspect ratios blow, and buying 21:9 monitors for gaming is dumb.
 
That's one game that kind has a BS reason for not supporting it correctly. There are a lot of games that do support it correctly and player greatly benefit from the extra screen space that they get. I don't use 21:9 anymore. I have a Dell P2416D 1440p screen now, but I could see why this would really piss off 21:9 players.
 
Pretty sure it will get better support overtime. I plan to go ultra wide soon but if I end up not liking it I can always go back to my 16 9 display anyways
 
So Blizzard went full retard by going full Vert-... This is something I would have expected 10 years ago, not today. FFS, CS:GO, which is a much more competitive game than Overwatch is now, properly supports 21:9 resolutions. The "unfair advantage" argument has always been BS. You can never make an even playing field due to all the different variables in hardware out there.
 
Armenius said:
So Blizzard went full retard by going full Vert-... This is something I would have expected 10 years ago, not today. FFS, CS:GO, which is a much more competitive game than Overwatch is now, properly supports 21:9 resolutions. The "unfair advantage" argument has always been BS. You can never make an even playing field due to all the different variables in hardware out there.
Click to expand...

Right? They might as well limit the fps to 60 to prevent people with high refresh monitors from having an "unfair advantage" too :rolleyes:
 
MistaSparkul said:
Right? They might as well limit the fps to 60 to prevent people with high refresh monitors from having an "unfair advantage" too :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Even then, you have mice with different types and quality of sensors, variable and adjustable DPI, and high polling rates. Keyboards with different repeat rates, buffers, actuation, etc. Locking FPS doesn't account for input lag in different monitors. Even though the ticrate is locked to 20, ping is going to affect how the game plays out. Variations in DPC latency due to different motherboards and other hardware. Hell, running different versions of drivers and/or operating system will affect how the game plays.

Etc., etc. etc.

Might as well just release the game on consoles if they're so worried about making it "fair." The only possible variables there are SCUF-style controllers, K+M adapters, and internet connection. The former will only affect a small percentage of the player base.
 
I don't think 21:9 for gaming is dumb. I love the aspect ratio, feels more immersive.
Now the Overwatch thing, that kinda irritates me.

fallout4-desk-setup.jpg
 
Blizzard is being dumb. Who ever made this decision and everyone involved and should be fired and black balled from the pc gaming industry. This is closed garden thinking and does not belong on the PC.

They make the argument that 21:9 provides a huge FOV advantage and would force players to pay hundreds of dollars to upgrade to 21:9 for it to be fair.

Yeah well....then cap the game at 60fps...because you forcing all your players to pay hundreds of dollars on new video cards and 144hz monitors....

See how silly that sounds?
 
pooloffire said:
That's one game that kind has a BS reason for not supporting it correctly. There are a lot of games that do support it correctly and player greatly benefit from the extra screen space that they get. I don't use 21:9 anymore. I have a Dell P2416D 1440p screen now, but I could see why this would really piss off 21:9 players.
Click to expand...
I imagine all 3 of them are all over Blizzard support formus
 
They said the same thing about 16:9 back in the day.

To really play fair you need 4:3 lol


image.png
 
Outside of desktop real estate, the 16:9 ones are all the same fov, but this also shows just how narrow the extension on each side of 21:9 compared to 16:9 is. It's not really that much like PLP or triple monitor would be.

4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
 
I used to be a big 16:10 user until 1440p came along. Now with 4K, there's no reason to have a 16:10 or 21:9 monitor.
I never bought into the 21:9 hype because I felt it was a stop gap until 4K became more affordable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
I was at Microcenter last week and picked up a open boxed Acer 34" B346C 21:9 Ultra-Wide Monitor for $219. I think they are $299 new.

It was a terrible terrible experience. Screen and content was beautiful. Awesome contrast, great response time. My issue with the monitor and why I called it a terrible experience is it's such a small viewing area for 90% of the content you're going to come across. Youtube videos? Forget it. It's like looking at a 4:3 image. Web? Forget it, huge empty areas on either side of the web page. Games are about the only thing worth anything on these types of monitors.

For me personally. They need to make these ultrawide monitors about at least 50" and curved.

I would never buy another one that's for sure.
 
4k doesn't change the aspect ratio though. It's the same scene with higher pixel density (and lower framerate). Unless you run 21.9 on a 4k with bars perhaps. Desktop/app real estate is no comparison though obviously.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I was at Microcenter last week and picked up a open boxed Acer 34" B346C 21:9 Ultra-Wide Monitor for $219. I think they are $299 new.

It was a terrible terrible experience. Screen and content was beautiful. Awesome contrast, great response time. My issue with the monitor and why I called it a terrible experience is it's such a small viewing area for 90% of the content you're going to come across. Youtube videos? Forget it. It's like looking at a 4:3 image. Web? Forget it, huge empty areas on either side of the web page. Games are about the only thing worth anything on these types of monitors.

For me personally. They need to make these ultrawide monitors about at least 50" and curved.

I would never buy another one that's for sure.
Click to expand...


2560 x 1080 ?

Yeah that's going to be an awful experience, especially at 34". Very low PPI. The 3440x1440 ultrawides are the ones to get...
 
SixFootDuo said:
I was at Microcenter last week and picked up a open boxed Acer 34" B346C 21:9 Ultra-Wide Monitor for $219. I think they are $299 new.

It was a terrible terrible experience. Screen and content was beautiful. Awesome contrast, great response time. My issue with the monitor and why I called it a terrible experience is it's such a small viewing area for 90% of the content you're going to come across. Youtube videos? Forget it. It's like looking at a 4:3 image. Web? Forget it, huge empty areas on either side of the web page. Games are about the only thing worth anything on these types of monitors.

For me personally. They need to make these ultrawide monitors about at least 50" and curved.

I would never buy another one that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I like watching movies on mine,
lg-34um95.jpg
 
Zepher said:
I like watching movies on mine,
View attachment 5272
Click to expand...
That's actually pretty nice!
However, there are too many variations and in betweens for Aspect Ratio's that 21:9 doesn't cut it. If the film industry had simply 2 AR's , 16:9 and 21:9, it would be ok.
But we have 2:35:1 , 2:40:1 as common, but then .. the list spirals

It's also a waste of time on 16:9 content which is the majority of things. If you watch animated films for example, you're kinda SOL.
  • 2.37:1 (64:27 = 43:33): TVs were produced with this aspect ratio between 2009 and 2012[8] and marketed as "21:9 cinema displays".
  • 2.39:1 (~12:5): 35 mm anamorphic from 1970 onwards. Aspect ratio of current anamorphic widescreen theatrical viewings. Often commercially branded as Panavision format or 'Scope. Specified as 2.40:1 for Blu-ray Disc film releases (1920×800 resolution).
  • 2.55:1 (~23:9): Original aspect ratio of CinemaScope before optical sound was added to the film in 1954. This was also the aspect ratio of CinemaScope 55.
  • 2.59:1 (~13:5): Cinerama at full height (three specially captured 35 mm images projected side-by-side into one composite widescreen image).
  • 2.66:1 (8:3, 24:9): Full frame output from Super 16 mm negative when an anamorphic lens system has been used. Effectively, an image that is of the ratio 24:9 is squashed onto the native 15:9 aspect ratio of a Super 16 mm negative.
  • 2.76:1 (~11:4): Ultra Panavision 70/MGM Camera 65 (65 mm with 1.25× anamorphic squeeze). Used only on a handful of films between 1957 and 1966 (and one in 2015), for some sequences of How the West Was Won (1962) with a slight crop when converted to three strip Cinerama, and films such as It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) and Ben-Hur (1959). Quentin Tarantino used it for The Hateful Eight (2015).
  • 4.00:1: Rare use of Polyvision, three 35 mm 1.33:1 images projected side by side. First used in 1927 on Abel Gance's Napoléon.
 
elvn said:
Outside of desktop real estate, the 16:9 ones are all the same fov, but this also shows just how narrow the extension on each side of 21:9 compared to 16:9 is. It's not really that much like PLP or triple monitor would be.

4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
Click to expand...

Finally thank you. It gets irritating hearing all the 21:9 owners talking about "immersion" and "wider viewing" vs a 16:9 monitor when a 4k 16:9 monitor is more immersive and even wider viewing than a 21:9.
 
Seyumi said:
Finally thank you. It gets irritating hearing all the 21:9 owners talking about "immersion" and "wider viewing" vs a 16:9 monitor when a 4k 16:9 monitor is more immersive and even wider viewing than a 21:9.
Click to expand...
4K doesn't make it more immersive. It's size and shape. what is more immersive, a 27" 4k or 34" 21:9? both are the same height, the 34 is wider.
Now if you compare a 34" 21:9 to a 55" 4K or 1080p at the same viewing distance, the 55 will be more immersive, not because of 4K, but because of the size.

Here is an example using a 21:9 movie.
If you have a 34 21:9 and a 4K monitor that is the same horizontal width, the image will be the exact same size on both, you'll just have black bars on the top and bottom of the 4K screen.
 
PocketMusic said:
ultrawides are too bleeding edge in the gaming industry. 16:9 is still the way to go.
Click to expand...

LMAO.

How long has Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround been a thing with even more extreme aspect ratios?

More like they don't care to support it out of laziness.
 
Blizzard and Rockstar will tell you what to do. If they tell you to go drown yourself you will. That is just how it is. Thank god I don't play their games.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I was at Microcenter last week and picked up a open boxed Acer 34" B346C 21:9 Ultra-Wide Monitor for $219. I think they are $299 new.

It was a terrible terrible experience. Screen and content was beautiful. Awesome contrast, great response time. My issue with the monitor and why I called it a terrible experience is it's such a small viewing area for 90% of the content you're going to come across. Youtube videos? Forget it. It's like looking at a 4:3 image. Web? Forget it, huge empty areas on either side of the web page. Games are about the only thing worth anything on these types of monitors.

For me personally. They need to make these ultrawide monitors about at least 50" and curved.

I would never buy another one that's for sure.
Click to expand...
The ultrawide was meant for cinematic movies (most of the movies are). I have no idea why it went to the pc arena. Gaming on ultrawide just feels wrong due to the serious fisheye. One may try various FOV, but the fisheye is still there.
 
Skylinestar said:
The ultrawide was meant for cinematic movies (most of the movies are). I have no idea why it went to the pc arena. Gaming on ultrawide just feels wrong due to the serious fisheye. One may try various FOV, but the fisheye is still there.
Click to expand...

the FOV in all the games I have been playing is the same as a 16:9 but I see more on the sides, I see no fisheye effect

bf-hardline-setup.jpg
d3-21x9-photo.jpg
 
92miata said:
Blizzard and Rockstar will tell you what to do. If they tell you to go drown yourself you will. That is just how it is. Thank god I don't play their games.
Click to expand...
Rockstar and cd project red are some of the most respectable game developers. Stop being salty
 
i love my X34...great monitor. there are a couple of games i play that don't support 21:9 because they were ports and it just didn't work out, but for the most part new games are going to support it and will continue to...people are buying these monitors, a lot of people, and 4k won't be mainstream for a couple more years so why wait? i didn't go 4k because the next Titan on the way will be the first card that can plausibly run 60 frames at 4k...and it'll the most expensive card on the market. the games that do support 21:9 are really more enjoyable to play than they were on my old 27 1440p. Widescreen was a game changer for me.
 
Rockstar respectfully released gta 5 in September 2013 on consoles and April 2015 on windows... because they needed time to make it better for windows /s


4k is not a wider game world viewing aspect it's the same exact 16:9 scene no matter how big of a screen it is. Where it gains is pixel density, (however loses here in regard to frame rate), and desk/app real estate . Only a few games, if any, would gain any actual game world real estate (prob a few sometric or rts games that don't use HOR+). Game developers are preventing resolution giving you game real estate gains as well as aspect ratio.
 
Who remembers Battlefield 2142, when anything but 4:3 got FOV-crapped on? That one got me steaming mad.

21:9 is still pretty ass though unless you are doing it for bezel-less desktop use, and you are basically getting an overpriced neutered 4k/sub-4k monitor with a very poorly supported ratio. (hence the overpriced: catch-22)
 
Aluminum said:
Who remembers Battlefield 2142, when anything but 4:3 got FOV-crapped on? That one got me steaming mad.

21:9 is still pretty ass though unless you are doing it for bezel-less desktop use, and you are basically getting an overpriced neutered 4k/sub-4k monitor with a very poorly supported ratio. (hence the overpriced: catch-22)
Click to expand...

Shoot that is nothing.

When I first did Eyefinity with the 4+-months post-B&M-retail release of AMD Radeon HD6000-series cards....AMD in their wisdom provided NONE ZERO ZIP NADA proprietary drivers for Linux. You couldn't use even Xorg. Forget about *box or Gnome or KDE, you couldn't do anything with those cards than CLI for months.
 
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.
 
I'm missing why limiting to a 16:9 ratio (or 4:# for old games) with black side bars isn't an option.
 
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...

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.
 
Dp 1.3 can do this

A7QjyOz.jpg


I did mention letterboxing 4k in one of my previous replies here Dash.
 
"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.

bigbluefe said:
It's never going to be supported well.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true troglodyte.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Dp 1.3 can do this


I did mention letterboxing 4k in one of my previous replies here Dash.
Click to expand...

If you have a monitor and GPU that does DisplayPort 1.3 and a 2 meter cable. The $5,000USD 120Hz 4K Dell, that is months late to market, has posted specs of HDMI v1.4, DP v1.2, and USB-C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top