hoom
Veteran
Definitely not reasonable
My package has been bounced around the city by the couriers
It better not have been being thrown around like you see in those hidden camera videos
Thinking of upgrading my monitor in a reasonable way.
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
My package has been bounced around the city by the couriers
It better not have been being thrown around like you see in those hidden camera videos
This is one of the reasons why ultra-wide, deeply curved monitors make a lot of sense. In the picture above you can see the glare (even if not glossy) from all the natural light against that enormous and perfectly flat screen. You'd indeed want tto back away to see the bottom and top of the screen comfortably. A curved monitor gives you the visual field wrap-around while also maintaining distance for actual desk / work space.
My next home monitor is going to be either the same 35" 3360x1440 setup I bought for work, or one of those megawide 5120x1440 screens like the newest version of the Sammy G9.
My next home monitor is going to be either the same 35" 3360x1440 setup I bought for work, or one of those megawide 5120x1440 screens like the newest version of the Sammy G9.
Ultra squashed screens never make sense, Im a programmer having 2160 pixels high makes much more sense than 1440 pixels (perhaps if you play games then having a squashed screen is good, but for productivity no, eg you're reading this page now you are scrolling up and down / not from side to side)
I wish I had glare from natural light on my monitor, my office room has 1 lux even on a sunny day, depressing actually
Fun fact the 35" 21:9 screen is actually slightly smaller than a 32" 16:9 screen
Maybe not for you; I assure you they do make sense to others.
Fun fact: the 35" 21:9 screen in my office is precisely the same height as my 27" 16:9 at home, with more room on the sides so I can arrange windows side-by-side for office producitivy reasons. This might surprise you to learn another Fun Fact: programmers are not the majority of PC productivity users!
Back when I wrote code for a living, I tried using a standard 27" monitor in portrait. The subpixel arrangement of the LCD being flipped 90* so Cleartype didn't quite work right was off-putting to me and I eventually fiipped it back to landscape. IIRC there was a cleartype update in Vista or Win7 that allowed for cleartype to get it right.You need a 5120x1440 ultrawide in portrait
Today, I'd pick an ultrawide 10 times out of 10.
I dont know if thats fun? Its a bit sad the 32" monitor has only as much vertical real estate as a 27" one, sure its nice having it wider so eg this web page is nice and wide so your eyes have to travel further to read stuff.
Sure maybe for some games having something wider works better? perhaps a driving simulation wheres theres not much vertical stuff, though some pictures Ive seen it looks freaking horrible the things on the sides are stretched out.
My game (isometric style) wider doesnt look better perhaps some thing not? 16:9 vs ~21:9, 4:3 or even 16:10 would prolly look better than 16:9
I am supporting >= 21:9, but judging by steam there seems to be bugger all with that ratio, I thought it would of been more ~2% !! (though no idea whats in other, but thats also only <2% )
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
I can only conclude that 21:9 is not attractive to gamers, whys that? As theres is some ppl that seem to prefer it, like alberquerque
16:9
21:9
digitalwanderer
Legend
What chair? This comment is driving me nuts just because I can't figure it out! Sorry in advance Orangpelupa, I love you and all but could you please explain to me what you meant? I think I'm missing something.
I take issue with the term 'wider' that is just the marketing term to 'sell something less by advertising it as being more'. (*)
We are seeing these deceptions being used in politics more and more nowadays, don't perpetuate them if you can help it.
Factuly a 30" 4:3 screen is larger than 30" 16:9 screen which is larger than 30" 21:9 screen which is larger than a 30" 32:9 screen, blah blah
Its like in nz years ago I think it was macdonalds. Drinks/fries used to come in 3 sizes, small medium and large, they got rid of small and replaced it with 'regular', same size but just different term to describe the size, cause noone wants 'small' I think now they have switched back again cause of 'health perception' ")
Even worse about 20-30 years ago pizza hut in NZ went from 2 sizes of pizza, I think it was medium and large, they went to calling them 'big' and 'large'. I remember there was a survey what is the bigger pizza 'big' or 'large'' and most ppl got it wrong
FWIW this talk has got me looking at 32:9 support for my game (I currently didnt have it supported) but doing it looks a bit ridiculous onscreen. I'm now supporting it but is it worth worrying about 32:9(**), how many ppl actually have them? judging by the steam numbers I doubt its more than 1%, hardly anyone has 21:9, 32:9 must just be a fraction of that. Theres prolly more deaf ppl or colorblind ppl than ppl with 32:9 monitors, I should prolly focus more on improving that
(*)not to mention my 3840x2160 screen can certain display more horizontally than a 3440x1440 sized screen
(**)path of exile (prolly the most polished ARPG game there is ATM so a bit of a benchmark) super squashed mode isnt this just a tad ridiculous to play? the UI is too far away from the center of the screen. (this screen is more than 32:9 I think but I couldnt find any 32:9 screens, which I guess highlights the rarity of that ratio)
another polished ARPG is divinity original sin (images doesnt want to be inserted here) -> https://www.wsgf.org/f/u/contrib/dr/29491/ingame_32x9.jpg
A bit better but still stuff is on the edges, ppl info and map
I think if you support 32:9 you have to redesign the UI to be more in the middle, So I'm gonna have to change my UI somewhat.
This threads been quite useful to me, I fixed a couple of issues
Squash vs. big screen. It's largely inconsequential besides ARPG looking dead wrong .Rather important thing is if you sit at "one screen width" you should be able to dial in some realistic value of FOV ( ARPG-s not even allow it so you should sit in a distance from a given screen size).
I think (fov dialing correctly) is not a practice now (and not used for marketing) because flatscreens ultimately won't deliver on this "realistic FOV value" format, because realistic depth cues out of flatscreens are next to unsolvable - you won't find flight sims with flatscreens beyond a level. Note a curved flatscreen still counts as flat from this perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_flight_simulator
So , it's a case of form over function, and with FOV value not matching up, even more function diminish..
I think (fov dialing correctly) is not a practice now (and not used for marketing) because flatscreens ultimately won't deliver on this "realistic FOV value" format, because realistic depth cues out of flatscreens are next to unsolvable - you won't find flight sims with flatscreens beyond a level. Note a curved flatscreen still counts as flat from this perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_flight_simulator
So , it's a case of form over function, and with FOV value not matching up, even more function diminish..
Sure it depends on the game, isometric games dont work, but racers etc (cause you dont typically want to look up/down) will work well with squashed screens.
I agree let the person choose the FOV and zoom amount etc, but in making a game you have to take into consideration what the person is typically gonna see, i.e. dont waste time making stuff that they wont be able to see cause its offscreen, concentrate on the onscreen stuff
Yes but the term 'wide' was choosen to imply it was giving your more, even though in fact its giving you less, they could of also called it short screens as they arent as tall, but didn't for obvious reasons.
They also do some similar BS marketing with resolutions, 720p -> 1080p -> what comes next for 3840x2160p, Yep you guessed it Its typically marketed as 4k? why, cause it sounds more.
Well there is at least one person with them, Davros, So I suppose if I get time, gotta make my stuff more compatible with 32:9
Similar threads
