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).