Assassin's Creed Revelations - No 16:10 Support Again?

P

PC_User

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
5,022
I know that I'm probably very late to the party but I just launched Assassin's Creed Revelations and... black lines at the top and bottom!

Did Ubisoft really not implement 16:10 support again for the last installment of AC, or is it just a problem with my graphics settings? Can someone confirm?
 
PC_User said:
That just puts Ubisoft at the very bottom of my favorite list of publishers. This is just pathetic.
Click to expand...

That they don't support a dying aspect ratio? Maybe we should all be mad at bf3 for not supporting WinXP too..
 
PC_User said:
That just puts Ubisoft at the very bottom of my favorite list of publishers. This is just pathetic.
Click to expand...
its just small black bars so I do not see the big deal. and on a 30inch monitor how could it possibly be a problem? I guess you refuse to watch movies on your monitor too?
 
Dion said:
That they don't support a dying aspect ratio? Maybe we should all be mad at bf3 for not supporting WinXP too..
Click to expand...

say what there are STILL TONS of new 16:10 aspect ratio monitors for sale.... it will be years before that res is gone expecially with smaller ones supporting 1400*900 and 1680*1050.....
 
Dion said:
That they don't support a dying aspect ratio? Maybe we should all be mad at bf3 for not supporting WinXP too..
Click to expand...

PC gaming is about flexibility. Not supporting resolutions is a kick in the pants, 16:10 is not dead or dying, its a standard PC resolution that is just less mainstream, I recently had purchased for me a brand new 16:10 monitor for work, and people spend a lot of money on 16:10 30" monitors. Not supporting an ancient OS is annoying, but a necessary advancement... not supporting resolutions is just cheap. There's no reason why a game shouldn't support the full range of resolutions possible on desktop and laptop displays.
 
Tudz said:
PC gaming is about flexibility. Not supporting resolutions is a kick in the pants, 16:10 is not dead or dying, its a standard PC resolution that is just less mainstream, I recently had purchased for me a brand new 16:10 monitor for work, and people spend a lot of money on 16:10 30" monitors. Not supporting an ancient OS is annoying, but a necessary advancement... not supporting resolutions is just cheap. There's no reason why a game shouldn't support the full range of resolutions possible on desktop and laptop displays.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are tons of 30" and 24" monitors with 16:10 resolutions. Anyone who thinks this is a dying resolution is just plain ignorant.
 
Didn't brotherhood support 16:10 no problem? I'd have to boot it up again to be sure, but I don't remember having any black bars when playing that game. Makes it even more stupid imo, since the engine is pretty much the same in both games.
 
MatDef said:
Didn't brotherhood support 16:10 no problem? I'd have to boot it up again to be sure, but I don't remember having any black bars when playing that game. Makes it even more stupid imo, since the engine is pretty much the same in both games.
Click to expand...
ALL of the Assassins Creed games are 16:9 anamorphic so no it did not support 16:10. but whats the big deal about small black bars?
 
I have a 16:10 monitor but I don't mind 16:9 for the AC games as it gives it a more cinematic type of look...plus if you have a decent sized monitor then the black bars are not that big of a deal

P.S: 16:9 is best for TV's and movies...16:10 is best for gaming
 
polonyc2 said:
I have a 16:10 monitor but I don't mind 16:9 for the AC games as it gives it a more cinematic type of look...plus if you have a decent sized monitor then the black bars are not that big of a deal

P.S: 16:9 is best for TV's and movies...16:10 is best for gaming
Click to expand...
no, 16:9 is best for gaming. lol, saying 16:10 is better than 16:9 for gaming is like saying 4:3 is better than 16:10 and 5:4 is better than 4:3. that makes no sense unless you want black bars or to cut off the fov. 16:9 is how most games are designed and give a better fov than 16:10. I am not saying to buy a 16:9 monitor but that aspect ratio is indeed better for gaming.
 
The only difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is one has a higher horizontal.. and one has a longer vertical. I prefer to see more on left and right in games... Which ever is better is pure opinion based. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to gaming. The only thing that makes 16:9 better over 16:10 is 16:10's lack of support in some games..
 
Dion said:
The only difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is one has a higher horizontal.. and one has a longer vertical. I prefer to see more on left and right in games... Which ever is better is pure opinion based. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to gaming. The only thing that makes 16:9 better over 16:10 is 16:10's lack of support in some games..
Click to expand...
um what? wider aspect ratios in modern games just add more to the sides. 16:9 has the same top to bottom view in a properly done widescreen game as 16:10, 4:3 or 5:4. again it simply adds more to the sides. there is zero advantage for using a 16:10 aspect ratio since modern widescreen games are almost always hor+.
 
cannondale06 said:
no, 16:9 is best for gaming. lol, saying 16:10 is better than 16:9 for gaming is like saying 4:3 is better than 16:10 and 5:4 is better than 4:3. that makes no sense unless you want black bars or to cut off the fov. 16:9 is how most games are designed and give a better fov than 16:10. I am not saying to buy a 16:9 monitor but that aspect ratio is indeed better for gaming.
Click to expand...

Can't really argue that one is better than the other because its in the eye of the beholder and purely subjective. I will always prefer 16:10 to 16:9 because to my eyes, the latter seems to wide and not tall enough (vertically). That being said, most good games flawlessly support 16:10 and it is just disappointing when some do not (i.e. clearly resembling console ports).
 
You can't really argue one is better than the other in the context of gaming. Its simply the ratio of height to width, there's nothing magical about the aspect ratio, its just subjective. I would still own 4:3 or 5:4 monitors if they sold decent quality and large ones for a reasonable price, but since the mainstream went 16:10 and 16:9, that's what's cheapest.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Who watches movies in a pc monitor? most watch on a TV
Click to expand...
I watch netflix movies every week on my monitor. even if he watches movies on his tv there will still be black bars for many of them since they are wider than 16:9 in many cases. point is on such a large monitor the small black bars are hardly a big deal. in fact when I use a 16:10 monitor I force 16:9 from my driver for games.
 
Tudz said:
You can't really argue one is better than the other in the context of gaming. Its simply the ratio of height to width, there's nothing magical about the aspect ratio, its just subjective. I would still own 4:3 or 5:4 monitors if they sold decent quality and large ones for a reasonable price, but since the mainstream went 16:10 and 16:9, that's what's cheapest.
Click to expand...
that makes no sense. a wider aspect ratio adds more to the sides giving you a wider fov while keeping the same information on the screen from top to bottom. its like the silly people that still want to play movies in full screen instead of widescreeen. so again 16:9 is better for modern gaming because it gives you the fov that is intended to be seen. if you were on a 5:4 monitor than you would literally be missing 1/3 of the fov in the game or either have massive black bars if that game was anamorphic. its that simple.

now I do understand that some people feel a 16:9 monitor is not physically tall enough and that's fine for them. that does not change the fact that again 16:9 gives a wider fov while keeping everything else constant.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
The developer is too lazy to do it right.
Click to expand...
thats one way of looking at. if I developed a game it would also be in 16:9 anamorphic though so everyone would see everything as I intended them to see it. its sort of like making a movie as for as I am concerned.
 
cannondale06 said:
that makes no sense. a wider aspect ratio adds more to the sides giving you a wider fov while keeping the same information on the screen from top to bottom. its like the silly people that still want to play movies in full screen instead of widescreeen. so again 16:9 is better for modern gaming because it gives you the fov that is intended to be seen. if you were on a 5:4 monitor than you would literally be missing 1/3 of the fov in the game or either have massive black bars if that game was anamorphic. its that simple.

now I do understand that some people feel a 16:9 monitor is not physically tall enough and that's fine for them. that does not change the fact that again 16:9 gives a wider fov while keeping everything else constant.
Click to expand...

No, you make the common assumption that aspect ratio is linked to field of view. It isn't, there's no requirement that a wider aspect ratio would have a wider FOV, it's simply how the developers wish to program it. Modern games tend to be fixed vertical FOV, so wider aspect ratio means wider FOV, but if they were smarter, they'd leave the FOV free an let the user decide, allowing the gamer to select an aspect ratio and FOV independently.

For a movie I'd agree with you, as it is shot with a camera of fixed FOV and aspect ratio which has been used to capture a world that no longer exists. Gaming is not the same, the game world exists and the monitor is your window into it, the developers might have a particular FOV and aspect ratio they want you to view the world, but I see no good reason it should be fixed and the user unable to change it, we are on PCs after all, not dirty stinkin' consoles. :p

Most people made the jump from lower res 1024x768 or 1280x1024 to expanded 1680x1050 or 1920x1200/1080, so expanding horizontal FOV was logical. If you'd instead gone from a 1920x1080 24" to a 1920x1536 28", it would make more sense to expand the vertical FOV and fix the horizontal. But there's no inherent requirement either way.
 
Last edited:
Aspect ratios are a matter of preference. With a Horz+ game a 16:9 screen will give you a very slightly wider FOV than 16:10 but that's not necessarily a benefit, it depends entirely on your preference. You can also alter the FOV in most modern games and set it however you like.

Saying 16:10 is a dying aspect ratio is stupid and ignorant, there are many 16:10 formats still being produced and used. In the steam hardware survey the following stats are available.

1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900 and 1280x800 account for 39.12%
2560x1440, 1920x1080, 1600x900, 1366x768, 1360x768 and 1280x720 account for 37.47%

So 16:10 while not the single highest used resolution is still dominant overall. 16:10 is the original widescreen aspect ratio for the PC and is a pure PC standard where as 16:9 is a film/tv standard. The PC has screen sizes which encapsulate both HD resolutions, 1280x800 is 720p with the extra height and 1920x1200 is 1080p with extra height, so the more robust screens are clearly the 16:10, they can display the 16:9 content pixel perfect with black bars, but also offer the original intended widescreen size which is native to the PC.

Ultimately PCs are open formats and EVERYTHING should be supported which is how the majorety of games behave these days, except for Assassin Creed, the developers demonstrate over and over again they're incapable of sticking to accepted standards.
 
At Newegg, there are only 20 1920x1200 to choose from and 178 1920x1080,
so I would say that 16:10 on the higher resolution is slowly dying.
newegg-monitors.jpg
 
Assassin's Creed: Revelations had thousands of different resolutions at different aspect ratios, but 95% of them were stolen by pirates :rolleyes:.
 
16:10 > 16:9. Especially for editing 16:9 films. (though no cinema released film has ever been 16:9, it's a "average" size between 4:3 and 2.35:1 and a few others. As we don't have 4:3 anymore, it's kind of pointless for films. Blu rays are cropped into 16:9 or letterboxed.)

Dion said:
That they don't support a dying aspect ratio? Maybe we should all be mad at bf3 for not supporting WinXP too..
Click to expand...

Isn't that because of DX11?
 
cannondale06 said:
ALL of the Assassins Creed games are 16:9 anamorphic so no it did not support 16:10. but whats the big deal about small black bars?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I for one didn't even notice that AC2 had black bars until someone pointed it out.
 
DeathPrincess said:
16:10 > 16:9. Especially for editing 16:9 films. (though no cinema released film has ever been 16:9, it's a "average" size between 4:3 and 2.35:1 and a few others. As we don't have 4:3 anymore, it's kind of pointless for films. Blu rays are cropped into 16:9 or letterboxed.)
Click to expand...

Aspect ratio doesn't really matter on the editing machine, but wider gives you more horizontal timeline area while vertical resolution gives you more track area.

this is Edius on my triple screen setup,
edius-layout3.jpg
 
Zepher said:
Aspect ratio doesn't really matter on the editing machine, but wider gives you more horizontal timeline area while vertical resolution gives you more track area.

this is Edius on my triple screen setup,
edius-layout3.jpg
Click to expand...

What I mean is that you can play a 1080p 16:9 video on a 1920x1200 screen and have the full resolution video and hate infomation junk above and below it. (GUI makers seem to like to do this). The extra horizontal width is much better for lots of other editors too as most lists (effect chains, lists of footage) tend to be horizontal. It always makes me want to set up a horizontal and vertical monitor for lots of things (would be perfect for reason...) :D
 
MatDef said:
Didn't brotherhood support 16:10 no problem? I'd have to boot it up again to be sure, but I don't remember having any black bars when playing that game. Makes it even more stupid imo, since the engine is pretty much the same in both games.
Click to expand...

The black bars are very small but that's not going to stop some people from having a coronary anyways.



As for the rest of the argument that's being repeated for the millionth time: I'm 16:10 for life.
 
According to the steam hardware survey the top 4 resolutions are:

1920 x 1080 24.12% +0.39%
1680 x 1050 17.97% -0.11%
1280 x 1024 11.28% -0.11%
1920 x 1200 8.14% -0.15%

So I wouldn't exactly call 16:10 dead. That being said when I played the first two AC's on a 16:10 I didn't even notice the black bars. If it was a FPS sure - but the game is rather cinematic and the bars weren't distracting at all. I believe the second Witcher only supported 16:9 on launch as well. It's much simpler to program an interface when you know exactly where each element is going to be (See: websites with fixed width layouts).
 
Zepher said:
At Newegg, there are only 20 1920x1200 to choose from and 178 1920x1080,
so I would say that 16:10 on the higher resolution is slowly dying.
http://transamws6.com/pics/pc/2010/newegg-monitors.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not a good way to determine if something is "dying." Generally speaking 16:10 monitors are of a significantly higher quality than 16:9 displays, and are subsequently more expensive. I've got 6 24" 1920x1200 monitors in the house and they were all ~$500 each. Just because there are hundreds of shitty cheap 16:9 displays doesn't mean the other isn't desirable. Think about it like speakers....there are hundreds of times more crappy 2.0 desktop sats out there than there are mid-range 5.1's, but that doesn't mean 5.1's are dying.

Also, if you're going multi-monitor, 3x1080p is just retarded looking IMO. Games look much better at 5760x1200 and that effect is dramatically increased if you want to flip to portrait mode.
 
Drakenfeng said:
It's much simpler to program an interface when you know exactly where each element is going to be
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I believe that. Most games which have an adjustable field of view, the HUD floats over it so doesn't change as you change the FOV. I dont know much about game programming and crap, but it seems that this is how the game would exist in its development stage, and then the FOV is chosen and locked at a certain value. The 3D world exists, you tell it to display a certain portion of that 3D world and then paste your HUD on top of that, the problem with stretched HUDs seems to be a higher level issue, where after pasting the HUD on top of the 3D window, they lock it in place, causing stretching when people try and hack it to adjust the FOV.

But like I said, I have no experience in game development... that's just my observation as a casual observer.

TW2, as you said, released at only 16:9, but people were changing it through mods almost immediately, and the HUD behaved like I described above. The reason the game didn't release like that, according to their official statements, was because they ran out of time to implement the menu option to adjust it, which would have required further QA. A few simple things like this weren't in the release copy for the same reason.
 
Oldie said:
That's not a good way to determine if something is "dying." Generally speaking 16:10 monitors are of a significantly higher quality than 16:9 displays, and are subsequently more expensive.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is true. The 24" 1920x1200 is where the good PC panels start, below this size and good panels are far more rare, this size and above the opposite is true, most of the large panels are PVA or IPS which are more expensive.

Tudz said:
I'm not sure if I believe that. Most games which have an adjustable field of view, the HUD floats over it so doesn't change as you change the FOV. I dont know much about game programming and crap, but it seems that this is how the game would exist in its development stage, and then the FOV is chosen and locked at a certain value.
Click to expand...

FOV is usually irrelevant to the HUD, the HUD is a fixed overlay.

Usually you'd write a bunch of dynamic elements such as health bar, radar, etc. They would be their own programming objects which you can set properties of. So you'd probably set "top" and "left" properties of each HUD element to position it on the screen. Gaming engines will store the screen height/width resolution as a variable that can be accessed by other objects (some games expose these sort of variables to the console) and then you can just use maths to work out relative positions of HUD elements, so to keep a radar in the top right you might get the ScreenResolution.Width of the screen and find that's 1920 px and then subtract/add the right amount of pixels to put the HUD in the right place.

Websites are can do the same sort of thing, you can use javascript to read the current value of the heigth/width and then resize the site based on that, although few sites tend to do this.
 
Last edited:
PC_User said:
I do. All the time.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I work from home, when I don't have something thought intensive to do, TV on the left screen, work or internet on center & right. It's the bomb-diggity.
 
16:9 as an aspect ratio wouldn't even exist if the manufacturers didn't want to cut costs at every corner. It's that stupid.
 
I played AC1 on a 1680x1050 monitor... the black bars weren't a big deal at all. I didn't even notice it until I displayed the FRAPs counter and saw it was residing in a black area.

I wouldn't call 16:10 "not supported". Adding bars is one way to 'support' a resolution. Whether or not you like it is another issue.

The fact that the AC series from AC2 and on have pretty much perfect multi-monitor support more than makes up for it as a developer in my opinion.
 
Oldie said:
Ditto. I work from home, when I don't have something thought intensive to do, TV on the left screen, work or internet on center & right. It's the bomb-diggity.
Click to expand...

Same.

I used to watch everything on my PC as my 30" monitor doubled as a good TV, I use my projector now mainly but still nice to be able to watch TV on it from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top