Had in my mind to go for the beautiful 1920x1080 Samsung syncmaster after posting; http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3316368/4.html but reading all the comments here about 1920x1200 I'm confused now.
Still wanting to know what type of screen would be the best for flying Rise of Flight flysim.
The Samsung 27" syncmaster
http://www.samsung.com/nl/consumer/pc-pe...b=specification
Or the Hanns.g
http://www.hannsg.com/EU/EN/Products/LCD%20Monitors/Common.aspx?categoryID=347
both Hanns.g 27.5" monitors seems to be same in performance btw.

I'm using a head tracking device so I guess to look around a 16:9 Samsung would be a better choice here.
On my work I have a 22" Dell 16:9 screen which suits me well and right know a 19" square at home.

Since both are the same horizontally (1920), i'd go for the one that has more vertical pixels (1200). More pixels is always better imo as long as vidcard can support it.

The HannsG is a terrible choice. I have seen it in person and avoid lowquality hardware like that.

1920x1080 is a newer format than 16:10 and 16:9 is to prefer as it is being standard. The problem is that some people recommend what they use them selves instead of looking at the facts.

Just as an example you often run into problems using 16:10 monitors while gaming because games today are programmed for 16:9. Many games does not support 16:10 and even if it does support 16:10 you will get a cropped picture.

In Rise Of Flight you will get a cropped picture using a 16:10 monitor so a 16:9 monitor is the obvious choice for you.

16:10


16:9

Thanks, I think also that using a head-tracking system the 1920x1080 is the way to go because the angle of horizontal view is wider, or do I have this wrong.

16:9 is the digital standard.

For gaming (Or mostly gaming) 16:9 is the way to go. For a bit of gaming but a lot of forum browing, document editing and so on 16:10 is the way to go.

1920x1080 can die in a fire for all I care. If it's a monitor of that res that can't fit a 1600x1200 image, it doesn't belong in the PC monitor market.

Go 16:10. You can still run 1920x1080 letterboxed on a 1920x1200 monitor, but you can't do the reverse!

Avoid hansg.

We have both 1080 and 1200 in the house. I use 1200 H-IPS screen (my center monitor) and my wife uses 1080 cPVA screen. Once I'm using one or the other for a few minutes, it seems right. We have 10 monitors in the house -- Samsung, Dell, HP. We've had ASUS LED and ACER cheap gaming monitors -- which we gave away.

The extra pixels of the 1200 come in handy for non-gaming applications (as others have mentioned).

Also, the bigger the monitor and the closer one sits, the higher the resolution needs to be. Our 27" 1080 monitor looks great for size. But, the pixels tend to be visible up close -- its better at a distance which is how we use it. Overall, I like it though -- 27" beats 24" for gaming. Still, if exceeding 24", one might want to go 1200 -- a matter of personal taste.

Mainly, get a good quality monitor. We DO see the difference between our normal-quality monitors and our higher end monitors -- in color mostly -- but also in black level and off-axis viewing.

Most monitors come with poorly adjusted colors. One can download free test charts one can use to "eyeball" the colors into better adjustment.

For what its worth. Just personal taste in monitors. Each person sees things differently.

Nothing wrong on Hanns.g read your self
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=654&Itemid=68
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/1579/21/...roter-conclusie
Last link is in Dutch btw.

But would that 1920x1200 bring me some benefit for RoF. Still think when using Head-tracking, like Face-track or Track-IR the 1920x1080 is the better choice, because of the wider horizontal view.

16:10 is a much better resolution as far as FOV. Unfortunately 16:9 is essentially the standard thanks to "1080p".

@speedo

You clearly dont know what you are talking about. Games today are made for 16:9 and using 16:10 means black bars or loss in FOV.

All my games support 16:10 resolutions. Of course the FOV might be a bit different. That depends on the game...

Actually, both are 1920 pixels across. The 16:10 monitor has 1200 pixels tall as opposed to 1080. The 16:10 should give you more view.

Wrong...every game I have can be played in 16:10 just fine. Only older games that don't support such high resolutions are the ones that usually get cropped.

Plenty of misinformation in your post.

1) Aside a few cheap console ports, most PC games do 16:10 just fine. I only know of about 5 or 6 titles that have black bars on 16:10 (letterboxing).

2) Just because something is "standard" doesn't mean it's better and to be prefered.

3) Your RoF shots are not saying much, it's a matter of zoom/FOV which can be set individually. To the contrary, if I want to see the same amount of lower cockpit (RPM meter) I have to zoom out more on the 16:9, losing detail.



If games today don't support 16:10, then they usually don't support 5:4 either (1280x1024). These are titles made with no love or respect to PC gaming, just squeezed from the 16:9 console format. Not generally titles worth having, in other words. Fixed aspect ratio/anamorphic letterboxing is the cheapest and least professional cop-out of budget game makers available to them.

The simple fact is that for any given simulation, both racing and flying, the 16:9 at the same width will cut off top and bottom of a 16:10 picture, reducing the visible amount of cockpit instrumentation. 16:10 also allows very nice editing of two pages side by side.

16:9 does not offer advantage to customers. None at all. The price savings the manufacturers have because they can cut more from the same die are not given to the customer, rather the prices for 16:10 have been artificially increased since.

Unless I am mistaken, with the exception of SHIII (the one I know of) every game should have different resolutions supported and I've yet to see a game which would force a player to use a 16:9 monitor.

Sadly, due to movie industry and lower manufacturing costs - 16:9 screens are standard nowadays. 16:10 are hard to find, and usually only IPS and higher panels come with 1920x1200 resolutions.

For everything else other than gaming and watching movies 16:10 is a must. You will miss that vertical space with 16:9. And since we're talking about flight (not car) sims here, more vertical space comes in handy for gaming as well.

You clearly don't understand what I'm referring to. At normal desktop viewing distances (half a meter or so) 16:10 fills your view more fully than 16:9, which appears obviously shorter. 16:10 is significantly superior for non-gaming usage, as well as the majority of games simply because you have more viewing area.



....No. PC games are made to support dozens of different resolutions and usually at least 4 different aspect ratios (4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10), and have done so for years. Designing a UI to scale correctly with different aspect ratios isn't exactly rocket science. I've done it before, have you?

The only games that might claim to be designed for 16:9 are lazy console ports (and granted, those are becoming more common), but the majority of studios put in the minimal amount of effort needed to support multiple aspect ratios.



If a game is lazy and uses black bars, then the 16:10 users experience is the same as the 16:9 user's. I've never seen a game which negatively impacts in-game FOV to support 16:10 (it'd be pretty foolish - you have a larger viewable area, but decrease the FOV? ). You example posted above is pretty meaningless, since you're only assuming the change is due to aspect ration - yet the 16:10 monitor was some 300 pixels more narrow than the 16:9 monitor. Do the comparison on two comparably sized monitors and I'll bet the FOV change magically vanishes....

Also, I have some 50 games at the moment. Only one that I know of uses black bars. None tinker with the FOV.

In summation:
16:10 is better for non-gaming.
16:10 is better for gaming when properly supported.
For the few games that don't properly support 16:10, the experience is no worse than on a 16:9 monitor.

@ArgonV. It doesnt work that way. The FOV is larger for 1366x768, 16:9 than 2560x1600, 16:10

Read this article. It explains the basics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

1. I disagree. Whether 16:9 or 16:10 is to prefer for non-gaming is a matter of opinion. I prefer 16:9 for nongaming too.
2. What you think is properly is irrelevant. 16:9 is better for gaming the way the developers handles the aspect ratios.
3. I assume you compare 1920x1200 and 1920x1080. First of all black bars makes the experience less good. Secondly 16:10 doesnt mean more pixels. 1680x1050 is the 16:10 standard resolution while 1920x1080 is the 16:9 standard resolution. In fact 16:9 products over all have higher resolutions.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Monitors that support HD resolution can have either 16:9 or 16:10 ratio. 16:9 ratio, or equivalent to 1680x1050 is 1600x900.

You're the first person that I've heard saying 16:9 is better for non gaming / movies. If it is a 27" screen, than maybe. However the percentage of people that use large 27"+ screens is very small.

I can't understand how 16:9 should be better for non-gaming either. Be it an Excel sheet, or just web surfing, less vertical pixels means more scrolling and less information being shown.

The argument can only be made if you are comparing 1680x1050 with 1920x1080. But for any 26" and above 16:10 the standard resolution is 1920x1200.

In gaming, FOV on 16:9 is obviously wider yes, but at the cost of vertical detail (which is the "cut off cockpit instrument" problem I spoke about above). Since many titles (most sim titles and most shooters) support FOV scaling/zoom this is not an issue either.

I find it funny that we computer users went as large as 1600:1200 in 4:3 panel times and are now expected to cut away vert resolution because it suits the manufacturers better.

I think if my current 1920x1200 27" goes dead - and hopefully it won't for a looong time - I'll run a dual monitor setup with a 1080p TV (for gaming since I can get more size for the same coin) and a good old 1280x1024 for work. A 1920x1080 computer monitor is too much of a compromise in size/prize over a TV screen with the same resolution.

16:10 is better than 16:9, period. I'm on my second consecutive 16:10 monitor. The first was a cheap 24" ASUS. It lasted long enough, I suppose. I now have a Dell Ultrabright IPS Panel, which is spectacular. A 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor. It's absolutely flawless. Yes, it cost a pretty penny, but it's worth it. I will never go back to 16:9, no matter the monitor size.

I was talking about on the Desktop, not in games. Sorry I should of made that clear.

I game with three 16:10 monitors in Eyefinity in 3x1 configuration. I would not go 16:9 with Eyefinity due to the loss of pixels in the vertical on the desktop.

a 16:10 screen will run games fine, 1920x1200 is a resolution, most DX9+ games support aspect ratio adjustments, from 3:4, 4:3, 16:9, to 16:10.

you'll notice letter boxing more on movies, unless you Pan&Scan them

My 16:10 Acer runs everything fine.

I've got 16:10 22-inch monitor that's pretty nice. But, for some odd reason, the letterboxing in games when I run them in a 16:10 resolution annoys me. The FOV annoys me. I usually like running them in a 16:9 resolution to avoid the black bars at the top and bottom of my screen.

I hate the black bars in some titles (Milestone Racing sims, mostly)... and use the GFX drivers to stretch 16:9 into 16:10. I guess the bars annoy me since I spent a lot of money on a large screen and those cheap console ports won't make use of that expensive screen estate.

One additional point about 1920x1080, it has come in handy now that I plug my PC + XBOX360 + PS3 into the same monitor, the consoles have a native 1080p mode which my monitor displays in it's native mode without having to do any funny scale changes.

That's about the most valid argument I've seen in favor of 16:9 here.

Nobody plays Xbox on a PC monitor. I can't stand console games, although I do play Fight Night Champions on the 360. But I connect it to a 55" HD TV. And I would never use a HD TV for PC gaming. Gotta have separate equipment. The only way to game on a PC is with a 1920 x 1200 (or higher) IPS Panel.

I do :-)

In fact, the idea of having to fight my wife and kids for TV time to play console games on the main family room large screen is what always kept me from making the jump into console gaming for years, but recently discovering that I could feed the XBOX360 & PS3 video into the DVI input on my monitor and the sound of both into my PC sound card line in ports, freed me up from having to decide between PC versus console.

I now look at the XBOX 360 ($235) and PS3 ($250) as cheap mini game PCs, all sit on my computer desk plugged into the same monitor, same headphones, same network, and with the same racing wheel. So I have all 3 platforms covered and get to pick the best games on each without having to fight the family for the TV time or worry about stands for my wheel. I couldn't be happier as a simmer and gamer.

I wanted to do that for a while but the PS3 prices were too much for my liking. Now that I will afford one I already have the living room TV to go with it.

Off Topic, but isn't there an easier way to get the Audio into the speakers than running them trough an (booted up) PC? Not very power saving solution... there are a lot of simple mechanical 3.5mm Audio cable "switch boxes" around you might find useful.

To follow up on my previous post.

Normally, I use 3x 24" (setup is 48" wide) 5760x1200 Eyefinity for everything. Yesterday, I was using 24" 1920x1200 single monitor. Today, I'm down the basement loading software into my "Bulldozerless" Bulldozer system (using Phenom II X6 in place of) with a 23" 1920x1080 monitor (this includes gaming tests).

If I did not own Eyefinity, I would want it because I want a choice to go "all out". And, if these were not hi-fidelity color monitors (IPS and cPVA) I would be bothered.

However, when actually using any of the three above resolutions, I don't "sorely miss" not having the other resolution in front of me.

Beauty is in the eye... If one is convinced 1080 is the answer ...


Also, it is interesting that XBox 360 and PS3 cost no more than a good medium level graphics card. I remember buying my ATI 1900 series card for $520 a few years back. Its was the same ATI circuitry as in the XBox 360. XBox and PS3 have always been cost effective hardware (though there is a price premium on the games). However, no reason for me to get one as the games I like all come out in a PC version.

+1

That 1080p is the standard make it much easier to use the 1920x1080 resolution or at least a resolution with the aspect ratio 16:9.

Foris, 1080p is a Standard for TV, not for computers. It's pretty evident by the fact that "p" for progressive makes no sense on the way computer screens work.

Even for running a game console, any modern computer monitor would offer "black bars" on 16:10 to 16:9 without scaling or image quality problems.

Yeah for me the setup works great since I leave my PC on 24x7, I use headphones for gaming and all 3 systems are on my desk, and so it's actually nice not to have to switch out headphones or speakers when I switch from playing a PC game to a console game.

Also since all 3 audio inputs go into my PC and are "mixed" realtime it also allows me to mix and listen to music or podcasts on the PC while I am playing console games.

What is theis "letterboxing" crap? I don't see any black borders or letterboxing in any games on my 16:10 monitor. I do have one game that is 4:3 but it would look the same on 16:9 as on 16:10. This letterboxing thing is just a farce.

This was correct in 2006. In 2011 it is just false cause now 16:9 is standard for computers. Basically everything goes 1080p in the computer world right now. Visit a computer store and you will notice that it is hard to find anything but 1920x1080 monitors.

Once Displays became HDMI Compliant they fell into the NTSC/PAL/SEACOM Digital Standard.
Which is 16:9, 1080p, 900p 720p etc for all 3 regions

PC's don't have a "standard", that's why you can set your resolution to pretty much anything (which you can't do on most TV's). It's only a "standard" for PC's because manufacturers are cheap and went for the cheapest solution...A smaller monitor that meets HD standards, while phasing out bigger monitors (that still meet HD standards).

Have you ever used a 16:10 monitor?

This sounds like a reasonable factual explanation. Still, my Dell has HDMI and 16:10.

I find the notion that there is a resolution or aspect ratio "standard" on PC fairly dangerous. It's always been the strength of the PC Platform to be open and customizable for everyone's invidual needs. Not just in the hardware and performance, but also for Audio and Display. Giving developers an "excuse" to stop supporting various aspect ratios leads to consolization of the PC world.

What he said! Amen, brother!

My IPS Panel has HDMI and is 16:10. I don't think Skatezilla is correct. Besides, I would never downgrade to 16:9.

Here's my take on this issue.

Less is always worse, and 16:9 will have less pixels and therefore less flexibility than 16:10. The FOV issue can be fixed in most sims by zooming the view out (and in fact most modern sims set the FOV correctly to begin with). In sims, particulary modern aircraft with detailed clickable cockpits, having more vertical pixels to work with make the job of using virtual cockpits much easier.

But all of this misses the point... for simulation gaming, the most important factor isnt aspect ratio, but *pixel pitch*, or the size of the physical pixels. On larger monitors running 1920x1080 (1080p), these pixiels are huge, and that makes target aquisition much harder. Also instrument and hud text readibility suffers badly. I'm running 2560x1600 (HP ZR30W), and I promise you this is the holy grail of simming. If you have the cash, just do it.

ok, how about manufacturers can build 22 inch 1080p matrix/screen, and use the same component in both HDTV and PC Screens :p, 1 Less manufacturing process.

Be nice, everyone...

Interesting discussion.

If you have the image stretched to fill the whole display (either on the PC graphics card end or the monitor's end), it wouldn't be letterboxed at all...

...but the aspect ratio would be completely skewed, and that irritates me. I'd only want it enlarged without distorting the aspect ratio in any way, letterboxed or not.

But this is why they give us resolution scaling options in the first place, isn't it?

Ok seems no real point on this discussion what is best for Rise of Flight using a head Tracking system like TrackIR, so I would really wanting to know; is it possible to run a 16:10 [1920x1200] monitor also in 16:9 [1920 x1080] mode, or having two monitor-resolution mode for the price of one!!

Not really sure about your question, but it's always best to run a monitor at it's native resolution, otherwise you just loose quality. However, HD movies and formats will run at 16:9 fine in letterbox; but pretty much all PC games will support your native res so you shouldn't need to worry.

I do mean, is it possible to adjust a 1920x1200 monitor to a 1920x1080 resolution.

With my Dell (in signature below) you can have it your way.

The monitor itself, using its on-screen controls, allows three settings.

One of the settings is to exactly mimic the aspect ratio coming from your graphics card. If the card says 4:3, then you get 4:3 with black bands on the sides. If it says 16:9 (1920x1080 and other 16:9 resolutions), you get edge to edge with black bands on top and bottom. If it says 16:10 (1920x1200 and other 16:10 resolutions) you get the screen filled edge to edge and top to bottom. This is what you want.

Another setting forces the image to cover the entire screen regardless of its starting resolution. So, for example, a 4:3 image will be distorted into 16:10 and a 16:9 image will be distorted into 16:10. This is not what you want, but it is a choice.

There is a third choice called 1x1. So, a 1400x900 image will only fill the center 1400x900 (with black bands top and bottom and both sides). Not what you want, usually. But, this would precisely reproduce whatever screen resolution you want to see up to 1920x1200.

So, one can have it all exactly the way they want it -- IF ONE BUYS A MONITOR WITH THAT CAPABILITY. My Dell is high end and has high end controls. Not all monitors do. So, one has to check the monitor being bought to find out the limits of adjustment.

P.S. I notice that my ATI Graphics Card Control Center software also allows the same three settings. I just looked; so, I don't know if it is specific to my Dell or it is useful for ANY monitor. If it is useful for any monitor, then my above statement has an exception -- exception: if you have an up to date ATI graphics card you can also change your resolution and aspect ratio to fit your desires. I have not tested this on our other computers. I'll give it a try on my wife's. It didn't work with her's -- don't know if its the monitor or the ATI GPU she happens to have. So, don't rely on the GPU doing it -- buy a monitor that does what you want.

FWIW.

You will get a stretched image in that case which obviously is no good.


As I demonstrated 16:9 is better than 16:10 for games and RF is no exception so a 16:9 monitor is the obvious choice for you..


In Rise Of Flight you will get a cropped picture using a 16:10 monitor.

16:10


16:9

Yep I did this experiment on my square 19" I had hoped it was possible, but results were negative.
But I also noticed that I always look side ways for entering enemy planes in RoF, so I guess the 1920x1080 is the way to go for!! I do not play them, but maybe for playing shooters a 1920x1200 could be a better choice.

What's stopping you from running 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, anyway? If the pixels are there, you can run whatever resolution you want on a PC. (Tolerances for letterboxing or aspect ratio distortion are another matter entirely.)

Cost is another matter, though...new 1920x1200 monitors are egregiously priced, but used models like older Dell 2405FPWs and 2407WFPs, for example, can be had pretty affordably on eBay these days. It's still your call in the end, but don't complain to me if you suddenly find yourself unable to run 1600x1200 because the monitor doesn't have enough vertical resolution to fit it. (Or that older games that handle widescreen badly actually REDUCE vertical FOV instead of expanding horizontal FOV.)

@Nameless, No it is not working, try to put in some kind of a 16:9 mode on my 19" 1280x1028 resolution screen, adjust to something like 1280x720 and noticed, that RoF planes were deformed. I was hoping that the ratio would be the same and I only had to face two black bars, like be seen playing old movies on your full HD-tv.

@Floris, I think the ratio in height/wide should always be the same, if your monitor can handle the resolution and height/wide ratio, only if you decline this the view will be deformed. Like your 16:9 monitor can not handle a 16:10 properly.

Yup, what he said! I have the same high-end monitor. I can do anything with it. With this monitor you have none of the disadvantages and ALL of the advantages. That's why I bit the bullet and spend the cash. People with 1920 x 1080 monitors, or cheap 1920 x 1200 monitors, have very limited flexibility. They also don't have an IPS panel.

You can't compare the Dell 24" Ultra Sharp IPS Panel to a 19" monitor trying to do 1200 vs. 1080.

I just tried Rise of Flight at 1920x1080 and at 1920x1200. I might have done this sooner except I had to download an 800MB patch first -- I don't play RoF often

With my Dell, I can simulate any monitor resolution and aspect ratio exactly -- as noted above.

You see MORE at 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080.

Using 1920x1200 adds more info at the top and bottom of the screen -- that info is cut off at 1080. Meanwhile, both resolutions show the same view side to side -- neither more nor less. In both cases, there is no distortion -- circular instruments remain circular, etc. This was one test in the default quick mission. Not obvious why playing a different mission would change things -- but, for completeness, I must point out I did not play other missions for the purpose of writing this post.

So, if one wants to see the most informative field of view and uses the basic RoF graphics setup screen to set the resolution, then buy a 1920x1200 monitor.

This seems contrary to the info posted above in the pictures. However, its how things turned out for me.

I also noticed that at 1920x1200 with all graphics max/ultra and 2x AA, the game says one needs a bit more than 1GB graphics memory. Since I effectively have 1GB, I had to back off something to stay under 100 percent memory usage (set to 0AA and medium HDR lighting -- no big deal, couldn't see the difference).

PPS

Like I wrote, I don't play RoF much.

Tried a bunch of graphics settings. Bottom line Eyefinity works fine when 0AA, no shadows, med HDR (says 50 percent graphics RAM used -- i.e. 1GB which is effectively what CrossFireX gives with my GPUs) -- all else maxxed. I notice all 6 CPU cores are in use -- but well under 100 percent each. 3.5GB system RAM used -- however, when all maxxed including shadows, AA, HDR it uses 4.5GB system RAM. The GPUs are used about 60 percent -- except near 100 percent when all maxxed.

The real-time zoom control works fast and well -- gives me either wide or close up as needed. So view is no issue.

Really, no RoF complaints at 1920x1200 or 5670x1200. Plays very smooth to the eye in both (maxxed at 1920 and three things cut down as noted at 5760). 1920 does NOT require CrossFireX to be smooth with all maxxed. Again, this is the quick mission with only a few planes. Neither the CPU nor GPU were close to being maxxed with the settings as noted.

What interface are you using to connect the computer to the monitor? Graphics card driver scaling doesn't work with VGA, so you'd have to use DVI or HDMI. And if the display insists on stretching the image if you're using VGA, you don't have much of a choice.

As Allen states, the second part of the scaling matter lies with the display itself, and cheaper displays won't give you as many options.

Fortis,

What method did you use to take your shots. If you do not have a monitor capable of taking a 1920 x 1200 resolution screen shot--how did you take that shot? I have included two shots I took, and just as Allen stated for his Dell and for my lesser quality Sceptre, this does not appear to be what the ROF sim does--at least with our 16:10 monitors.


My 24 inch Sceptre has a native resolution of 1920x1200. Even though it is a TN panel, it has a great picture and the color reproduction is pretty good. It does not have internal scaling features like the Dell, but I have an Nvidia graphics card and like ATI, the control panel software lets one choose how a game is scaled. (I wish now that I had bought two of the Sceptres because they also quit making 16:10)

Anyway, I can choose an option that overrides any stretching to fit the screen and have an image appear in what ever resolution I choose, which creates letter boxing. With my monitor set on its native 1920 x 1200 and ROF set to 1920x 1080 resolution, I get black bars at the top and bottom.

For an old game that only has a 4:3 ration, I set the game resolution to 1600 x 1200 and get black bars on the sides.

Also like Allen, it took me a while to even get ROF started, since I had not updated it in quite some time. I think I had over 1.4 gigs of updates.

Anyway, after that, all I did was enter the game twice setting the two different resolutions--first at 1920x1200 and then 1920x1080. I did this before each game start, since one cannot change resolution in-game. After each entry, I started up the same single mission with my plane on the ground and took a screen shot. In the 16:9 version, I had black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, but my horizontal FOV was exactly the same in both resolutions. The only difference is that in 16:10,I had a greater vertical FOV.

This is just the same as Allen's experience.

Here are the two shots--unaltered--other resizing both by exactly 50%. The shots were taken using FRAPS, so the black bars are not recorded on the 16:9 shots

Here is 16:10

By forwardobserver at 2011-06-26

Here is 16:9


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

One can see that the horizontal FOV is exactly the same. Observe that the point where the struts meet the wing is right at the edge of both pictures. The only difference is that at 16:10, one can see more of surface of the wing and more of the cockpit. You can see a bit of the top of the center instrument in the 16:10 shot.

16:9 has become the de facto standard because that is what most manufacturers are making to supply to the mass market and it is what John Q Public is told they need by chain stores like Bestbuy and Office Depot. I wouldn't call either of these places "computer" stores by a long shot. Bestbuy is an appliance store that sells overpriced PC and PC related accessories to the masses. Office Depot is an office supply that does the same. I use both as a show room and then buy on line from NewEgg or Amazon.

Of course 16:9 would come in handy is you want to channel a console through it, but I have a 1080P LCD tv for that purpose. However, for PC games and flight sims, I think you may find many of the PC users here at SimHQ a bit more discerning.

I also think that people such as graphic artists and serious photographers will continue to demand S-IPS panels with accurate color reproduction and high resolution, so I bet 16:10 will still be around---if one can pay the price. I'm looking a Dell refurb, just to buy and have if my Sceptre goes belly up. Otherwise, I will go full tilt and pay the price.

Cheers

To be honest I intitially felt the same, but for my racing titles (which in theory should look terrible since the round wheels aren't round anymore...) nope, you hardly notice the stretch (only if you look directly side-on to a car).

For games with people in them, stretching should be much worse I recon, long faces and tall heads and such.


Referencing the RoF screenshots above, the 16:9 shot is simple zoomed out wider. The Vert Aspect is the same, so of course 16:9 will be wider at the same vert FOV. But at the loss of detail (being more zoomed out).

While 1920x1200 are definitely better. The manufacturers are charging way more for it, twice as much. For every one 16:10 you buy, you can buy 2 16:9. With ATI eyefinity, you can get 3 16:9 LCDs for $300 which it will be so much better than 1 or 2 16:10 LCDs. That's just the way it is. Unless you are willing to fork out the dough.

Agree.

This thread focused on the difference between 1080 and 1200.

However, the bigger picture says consider Eyefinity -- if one is willing to spend more for a monitor(s). Going cheap Eyefinity will be a trade off of pixels vs picture quality. However, many gamers would be happier with more pixels -- and wide wide wide field of view

If I can get three 16:9 portrait mounted screens for my next big display, I will likely do that. Of course it'd be nice to get rid of as much of the bezel as possible. Can't see doing 16:9 triple wide, that seems far too wide for me.

@MUCAT, in my country's these two have more a less the same price, so this is never any issue.
About all those 2560x1440 high definition monitors like from NEC or Dell, are a way above my budget!

Triple monitor landscape 16:9 5760x1080 works great with sims, lots of us using that for iRacing, Race'07, Dirt3, Rise of Flight, FSX etc.

Angling the side monitors 30-45 degrees and setting FOV so side windows show in the side monitors makes it work great for me.

dutch, Samsung is a much more reputable brand name in the LCD market than Hanns.g. So that's the different in price. The Samsung is a more reliable product but more expensive and lower resolution.

I think 27" is too big for 1080 LCD. Right now, I am using a 24" 16:10 and I have no problem with the text at all. You can save some money and go 23" 1080 LCD (maybe even smaller depending on your eyes).

It's a bit wide, but it works.

3 widescreen portrait monitors, however, isn't a good idea. A 16:10 monitor in landscape orientation has an aspect ratio of 1.6. Three 16:10 monitors in portrait orientation have an aspect ratio of 1.875. You don't significantly improve your horizontal FOV in-game, but you spend a lot more money and you put bezels in the way. One big screen is better than 3 widescreens in portrait.

Relatively soon, I hope to test several 3D and 2D setups to find out what is the most immersive environment for IL2, LOMAC, Falcon and ROF. What I have found so far is that it depends on your focus; if you are primarily interested in winning (as a duelist lets say), then three 16:10 monitors in landscape gives you the widest view and the most situational awareness obviously. But for immersion, one larger 46 inch to 52 inch screen in 16:9 is best. The immersion also works better in 3D with one larger lcd screen than 3 smaller say 24 inch ones.

More fun when the article is finished

S! - WD

Sounds like a worthwhile experiment. Look forward to your final conclusions

Look forward to reading your review.
S!

Me to, because a headache free 3d is the future!! Should you use a 3D TV for doing this or is it only software thats making 3D?

I will be testing both methods, with both Nvidia 3D surround vision (on a 580 GTX SLI rig) and AMD crossfire tech. Also, several stand alone sets from the 24 inch LCD TVs up to 80 inches. Stay tuned for the article later this month perhaps.

S!

No 120hz monitor inhere??

I've got a monitor that can hit up to 160 Hz, depending on resolution.

I just haven't felt like buying NVIDIA's shutterglasses yet. If anything, I'd want something more powerful than the 8800 GT before I hammer it twice as hard for the sake of stereoscopic rendering, and funds are limited.

Forward Observer, your observations are interesting but I cannot follow them entirely. In fact all games scale to 1920*1200 based on the 16:9 ratio. This in turn means that they base the width on the height of 1080 and thus having 1200 pixels in height means you see LESS and not more because the game keeps the 1080, scales it up to 1200 and thus the width shrinks.

This is hard to understand without seeing it but it is generally true for ALL games I've seen and especially all major game engines.


What I do is the following. I use a main work screen with 1600*1200. If I play a game on it I run it in windowed mode. Thus I can see my taskbar, a bit of empty space and the game. playing it in 1900*1200 would shrink my view so I avoid that, plus I love the bonus of having access to my taskbar.

I use 2 other monitors with 1920*1080 - usually one in landscape and one in portrait - I can rotate them if I wish.

I suggest buying 1900*1200 for working and working / gaming if budget is not an issue. If you are on a budget just go with a 16:9 obviously. If you have additional funds add multiple monitors until desk space runs out.

Most titles I own - even ported/multi platform titles like NFS Shift, Just Cause 2 or such - are Vert+ on 16:10 compared to the same title on 16:9. Meaning the HOR aspect stays the same.

There are some titles (I think Cliffs of Dover is a recent simulator example) that do what you say, but then those have user defined FOV anyway.

I should add to this discussion that I have an NVidia GPU. In the GPU control panel there is a menu option to "adjust desktop size and position". There are three selections, and I use the first, which is titled: Aspect Ratio. In addition, I have it set to perform this scaling on the GPU. The other choice is to let the display perform the scaling.

The decription for this is "Stretches the desktop as much as possible to fit the display while maintaining the aspect ratio. If the desktop has a different aspect ratio, there may be black bands around the desktop.". With old 4:3 games I get black bars on the sides while with ROF,I get black bars on top and bottom.

With this setting chosen, I get the exact images that I posted when switching from 1920 x 1200 to 1920 x 1080 in ROF. Once again the black bands are automatically cropped out by FRAPS.

The other choices for the GPU are:

2. "Full-Screen" which stretches the desktop to fit the entire screen, even if the aspect ratio is not the same
3. "No scaling"---which is described as: The display image remains the original size and is centered on your display screen. The remaining image may have black bars around it.

There is also a check box titled: Override the scaling mode set by games and programs, but I do not have this checked.

When I get the time, I will experiment with the other GPU control panel settings just to see what happens in ROF. That's the only wide screen capable sim I have on my PC at the present, but I suspect that if I have the second GPU choice enabled, I might get the slightly distorted screen using a 16:9 resolution on a 16:10 monitor.

Cheers

FO, you're doing something wrong in your setup.

First, you shouldn't let the GPU do any scaling but just run the sim at native resolution of your screen. ROF should not give you black bands on your desktop at all. Unless you are still running 1920x1080 in the sim config and rescaling to 1920x1200 but that makes no sense since RoF does 1920x1200 native? Please check your RoF config to see if it's set to 1290x1200.

For older titles that only can do 4:3 yes you will get either stretching or bars. To avoid top/bottom bars on my few titles only doing 1920x1080 I have the GPU stretch them to 1920x1200 which disorts the shape a tiny bit but I prefer it to empty black screen area.

Also, even IL-2 from ten years ago could do widescreen properly. If you let me know what other titles you are currently playing - I have a hard time believing that RoF is the only sim that can take advantage of your 1290x1200 screen.

No offense, but I don't think I am doing anything wrong. In my opinion it's not a right or wrong choice, but one of personal preference. NVidia included these scaling choices for a reason, which is to give one a choice of how the system handles scaling.

I actually I have my GPU set up exactly as I want it to perform. I do not want any distortion--period. I want in game circles and dials to be perfectly round and squares to be pefectly square. It's a bit of an obsession with me.

I have to use the GPU scaling option under the aspect choice because my cheap TN panel monitor does not have the re-scaling capablilities of the more expensive 16:10 Dell.

I only have two flight sims on my rig (ROF and EAW) The latter--being from 1999 is not wide screen. I'm basically more into stuff like the Total war games now.


By using the aspect ratio choice in the NVidia control panel, any game I load will have no distortion, but will either have bands on the sides or the top and bottom---if the game is not 16:10 capable. If it is an older 4:3 ratio (only) game, I set the in-game resolution resolution to the highest possible (usually 1600 x 1200) and this scales the game with no distortion on my 1920 X 1200 native resolution screen. Of course there are two black bands of 160 x 1200 on each side of the image.

The black bands or "letter boxing" do not bother me and it tells me I am viewing my games distortion free. Also, if the game cannot be set to 1600 x 1200, it will play in it's highest resolution by temporarily resetting the resolution of my monitor. Thus, I still get an image that fills the screen and still maintain the 4:3 ratio--- with black bars filling in the difference in ratios. I have a older few games that have fixed upper limits on resolution, so this chice takes care of those. (Freelancer and Silent Hunter 3 are examples)

In ROF, the black bands are on the top and bottom if I set the in-game resolution to 1920 x 1080. Each of those black bands are effectively 1920 x 60 each. If I exit the game and reset the in-game resolution to 1920 x 1200. I get to see the area that that was blacked out by the bands--thus I get slightly more vertical FOV--my horizontal FOV remains the same since my horizontal resolution setting does not change.

Once again, in my opinion this is not a matter of the right or wrong procedure, but one of personal preference or taste---mine being no distortion of the image.

Cheers

New update. I went back into my GPU control panel and changed the option to the "full screen option" along with the option to let my display do the scaling.

Firing up ROF at 1920 x 1200 had absolutely no effect from the previously posted picture

However, 1920 x 1080 made the picture distorted because my screen stretched the 1080 vertical resolution to fit my 1200 vertica screen limit---causing all the dials to appear elongated vertically

Here is the 1920 x 1200 which shows no change--this and the following shot were resized to 50% of the original. They were also taken with no FOV adjustments



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Here is the 1920 x 1080 as viewed on my monitor--notice that not only are the dials elongated, the FOV is reduced both vertically
and horizontally. I expected the vertical, but not the horizontal and I have no explanation for this. I should add that neither FRAPS nor MSPaint would reproduce the picture to the exact image I was viewing, but instead re-scaled it to exactly a 16:9 ratio. I had to manually stretch the image to 16:10 through MSPaint to duplicate what I was visually seeing on my 16:10 monitor. In other words, my monitor would stretch the veridical, but any method of taking a screen shot reverted the image back to it's actual 16:9 ratio. I hope that makes sense.


By forwardobserver at 2011-07-27

I'm going back to the way that I know it works as I want it to for all my games.

Cheers

???

You can get perfectly round dials and perfectly square squares when using 1920x1200 in the game config. I just don't get why you would rather be running games with black bars on top and bottom when you could have more visible area instead. But hey, if you are not gonna use your hardware to it's fullest, it's your decision.

I have never disagreed with this statement for ROF or any widescreen game. In fact, I have said that over and over that I get no distortion when using my 1920 x 1200 (16:10) monitor for such games.

The issue, as I have tried to point out in numerous ways, is that any game that cannot be set to a 16:10 resolution ratio will not have round circles and perfect squares on my monitor unless I use the aspect ration option in the GPU---which in turn creates letter boxing.
The simple geometry of this concept seems quite obvious to me.

This setting works for any game that is not widescreen capable. I have over ten such games on my rig that I play regularily--EAW, SH 3, Shogun 1, Mafia, and Starlancer--to name a few. For newer games that are wide screen, I set them to a 16:10 ratio resolution in game. The aspect choice in my control panel sorts these out perfectly. All my games are distortion free--new or old.


I don't play ROF in anything but 1920 x 1200. I just posted those pictures to illustrate that using 16:9 or 1920x1080 results in a distorted picture unless I use the aspect option which in turn creates bars on a 16:10 monitor. It's not that I particularily want letter boxing, it just a necessary set up to avoid distortion when the native aspect ration of a game is not the same as my monitor.

I have no idea if using this option causes any perfomance limitations, but this is not an issue for older games on my gaming rig.

On newer games which are not re-scaled, I have tried both options and saw no noticible performance differences.

Cheers

Okay, got it now, thanks for the explanation.