Fahzgoolin
Banned
I bet they aren't even rendering anything to the sides when they go to cutscenes lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
For 1080p PC players: Get Better FPS + 21:9 ultra wide by making it not 1080p
- Thread starter Fahzgoolin
- Start date
I bet they aren't even rendering anything to the sides when they go to cutscenes lol
This is what I did with my 16:10 monitor for my 360
Actually the thing is the game reverts to 16:9 even for non directed cutscene (directed cutscenes are those story cutscenes with moving/panning cameras and such). There is no reason why they couldn't be rendering the sides during a conversation cutscene or a cutscene like getting in and out of the Tempest.
Check my last two images here, one is from a scene where you are getting out of the Tempest and the last one is immediately a split second later.
It kind of does but also sort of doesn't...gameplay you get 21:9
But then when you have scenes where this could happen, this was taken during the Tempest landing scene:
But immediately a split second later:
Basically if it's a cutscene...even if it's a non directed cutscene (i.e. cutscenes without panning/moving cameras) and just a conversation the game reverts to 16:9.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Some devs like to restrict resolution/aspect ratio in cutscenes because they might load assets like characters outside the normal vision to have them walk in. It prevents you from seeing models popping/spawning suddenly into view, so they might have kept the 16:9 to prevent that from happening in any cutscene as an easy fix. That's my guess. Otherwise it's just a silly oversight that needs patched.
cleveridea
Member
4x4 pixels would have an incredible framerate
you could get like 5 million frames a second
1 pixel would be even faster but thats just being ridiculous
you could get like 5 million frames a second
1 pixel would be even faster but thats just being ridiculous
Cutscenes being 16:9 is fairly common for a lot of games. Even if they otherwise support ultrawide resolutions in gameplay.
Batman: Arkham Asylum, The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XIV, etc all do this.
robotzombie
Member
What happens when you play the evil within? Does it just look like the monitor is off?
I'd assume it'd look exactly the same as it's rendering at the same FoV that it wants to.
Beside TEW was patched to include an option to remove letterboxing.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yeah, I think the new Hitman did as well. It doesn't bother me too much, but I do wish they would have some programming logic in there to go ahead and render the full screen when that happens and then transition back to your custom resolution.
Assuming the game supports custom resolutions properly, it would look the same/better with a wider native FOV.
edit: just looked it up... apparently you need flawlesswidescreen "hack" to just increase the FOV. I don't think it will work with that game unless you can fix something in an .ini file or something. Otherwise, if you have a 21:9 monitor or resolution/aspect ratio there will be black bars on all sides. LOL at that point it's not worth it. TEW is hardly PC friendly.
NICE shitpost bro, you did good!!
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
I will respect your right to disagree!
While noting that you are, in fact, wrong.
cleveridea
malboroking
Banned
This post is bad and you should feel bad for posting it.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
It's not though. It's the same distance from the camera. Open up two comparison shots from the OP in separate tabs and you can see what I mean. It only looks "further away" because the same assets are rendered smaller (but in the correct scaling mind you) to fit everything into the screen.
What is nice though, is even if you want to make some of the models look bigger, you can decrease the FOV, but still end up with a higher FOV than the default you would get with 16:9. Once you play around with it you might understand. No harm though if you don't like it!
Too much effort required for a small subset of 21:9 users who are playing on a 16:9 monitor.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Too much effort required for a small subset of 21:9 users who are playing on a 16:9 monitor.
LOL well 21:9 monitor users complain about it too. What happens with them is the 16:9 actually renders with black bars around all sides of the cut scene on their monitors, effectively shrinking it lol
I can see why someone might prefer that to reducing the resolution to 1600x900, since it renders a similar number of pixels but the image is still 1:1 mapped.
I don't think I'd want to play letterboxed games though.
I really didn't like it in The Evil Within for example.
The annoying thing is that you can't have DSR and custom resolutions enabled at the same time.
I use custom DSR resolutions (beyond 4x) so there's no easy way to toggle between the two.
You can use custom aspect ratios with DSR, but only when downsampling.
So you can't use 1920x800 on a 1080p screen via DSR, you would have to use something like 3440x1440 - which gets you the 21:9 view, but not the performance boost.
It's really stupid that some 'competitive' games have a fixed vertical FoV so that using a wider monitor gives you a larger view.
If they're going to lock the FoV controls for competitive reasons, they should actually lock it so that the view is the same on all monitors.
Pillarbox 21:9 displays and letterbox anything taller than 16:9.
Give those users the option to crop it if they want a screen-filling view, but don't give them a larger view.
Alternatively, give all your players proper FoV controls.
FoV is supposed to be set based on your screen size and viewing distance.
If you use a larger display, FoV is supposed to be proportionally higher.
This keeps the scale of the objects in the game the same, but expands your view.
Increasing the FoV while keeping display size the same reduces the scale of everything and warps the edges, giving you a fisheye look.
Here's an example I put together a while back, showing how things look if you adjust FoV proportional to screen size.
The 34" Ultrawide presents a wider view than the 27" 16:9 display, but the 55" 16:9 display presents a larger view than both.
FoV should not be determined by aspect ratio.
I don't think I'd want to play letterboxed games though.
I really didn't like it in The Evil Within for example.
The annoying thing is that you can't have DSR and custom resolutions enabled at the same time.
I use custom DSR resolutions (beyond 4x) so there's no easy way to toggle between the two.
You can use custom aspect ratios with DSR, but only when downsampling.
So you can't use 1920x800 on a 1080p screen via DSR, you would have to use something like 3440x1440 - which gets you the 21:9 view, but not the performance boost.
It's really stupid that some 'competitive' games have a fixed vertical FoV so that using a wider monitor gives you a larger view.
If they're going to lock the FoV controls for competitive reasons, they should actually lock it so that the view is the same on all monitors.
Pillarbox 21:9 displays and letterbox anything taller than 16:9.
Give those users the option to crop it if they want a screen-filling view, but don't give them a larger view.
Alternatively, give all your players proper FoV controls.
FoV is supposed to be set based on your screen size and viewing distance.
If you use a larger display, FoV is supposed to be proportionally higher.
This keeps the scale of the objects in the game the same, but expands your view.
Increasing the FoV while keeping display size the same reduces the scale of everything and warps the edges, giving you a fisheye look.
Here's an example I put together a while back, showing how things look if you adjust FoV proportional to screen size.
Scale remains the same on all three displays, the only thing that changes is how much you can see.
The 34" Ultrawide presents a wider view than the 27" 16:9 display, but the 55" 16:9 display presents a larger view than both.
FoV should not be determined by aspect ratio.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Your point about CSGO is pretty accurate IMO. They restrict everything in that game from giving you an advantage, but this is actually a loop hole. If I wanted to be even sillier I could probably render it even WIDER. Let me try this....
edit: WOW it actually worked...This is CRAZY
1920x510 (how low can we go?)
1920x610 (uh..why not? LOL)
1920x810 (what I have in OP, which is 21:9)
1920x1080 (16:9 standard)
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Not true at all.
21:9 users get 16:9 cutscenes at times which keeps the vertical ratio but crops down the horizontal ratio.
it's a minor grievance but it doesn't "shrink the image on all sides"
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Well that's great then! I just saw that complain in regards to specific games like Hitman. Perhaps I was just misinformed then. Sorry!
cleveridea
Member
wow tough crowd was just a joke. Interesting concept though, I ordered a 1080 Ti thinking I would need it for mass effect max setting 1440p, currently have a maxwell Titan X and waiting for the 1080 Ti to arrive. But Mass Effect at 1440p I really didnt notice a lot of difference setting a couple settings below ultra to get smooth framerate. That makes me think that a 1080 Ti would be great at 4K on this game, especially an HDR monitor.
OTOH games like Watchdogs 2 make it feel like this Titan X (since its maxwell its basically the same performance as a 980 Ti) cant cope with good enough settings at 1440p and that problem would get even worse scaling to a 4K on 1080 Ti. Unlike Mass Effect, I can tell a big difference for certain elements like outside areas like trees etc (interiors run ok though there is less to render so that makes sense) with settings lowered enough to be 60 fps
So its an interesting idea getting less demanding games full screen 4K then lowering it using the letterbox technique, especially if the monitor is large enough to almost feel like a super wide. That way get native pixel scale but good performance.
Cool concept, was going to hold off on buying a 4K, but this may be a workaround. I really dont like lowering setttings if I can tell a big difference like I can in Warchdogs 2
Ghost Recon also seems very demanding on ultra.
So lets see how much we can get for 32+ inch 4K gsync monitors, there was a post I saw today about a $999 32 inch HDR 4K set but wasnt gsync. May be a while before they are out but also affordable...
OTOH games like Watchdogs 2 make it feel like this Titan X (since its maxwell its basically the same performance as a 980 Ti) cant cope with good enough settings at 1440p and that problem would get even worse scaling to a 4K on 1080 Ti. Unlike Mass Effect, I can tell a big difference for certain elements like outside areas like trees etc (interiors run ok though there is less to render so that makes sense) with settings lowered enough to be 60 fps
So its an interesting idea getting less demanding games full screen 4K then lowering it using the letterbox technique, especially if the monitor is large enough to almost feel like a super wide. That way get native pixel scale but good performance.
Cool concept, was going to hold off on buying a 4K, but this may be a workaround. I really dont like lowering setttings if I can tell a big difference like I can in Warchdogs 2
Ghost Recon also seems very demanding on ultra.
So lets see how much we can get for 32+ inch 4K gsync monitors, there was a post I saw today about a $999 32 inch HDR 4K set but wasnt gsync. May be a while before they are out but also affordable...
Kataploom
Gold Member
Thank you! I was just messing around buying a 21:9 monitor but was worried about whether it would benefit me for real, this helped me test on my current 16:9 monitor with some productivity apps. I'm mostly playing last-gen games (even on my new rigg coming soon), will I have issues playing at native 21:9 resolution on my future monitor? I don't care about black bars but I LOVE how the FOV looks so I'd like to try it on any game!
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Well, this thread had a lot of people getting illogically defensive and aggressive, so you just looked like another ignorant drive by post. I have learned that it's probably best to always put a "/s" at the end of sarcasm. It doesn't translate well into text and if we don't know you. =p
You are welcome! I actually had a 21:9 monitor about 4 or 5 months ago and decided the increase of size and resolution wasn't worth it compared to just doing this on my 1080p monitor. I ended up returning it the day I got it--felt like a jerk, but Best Buy didn't mind.
Played a couple rounds of Rocket League at 1920x810. It has certainly sold me on the idea of 21:9 gaming! Not sure if I'll stick with it (things are maybe a little too tiny for me), but it's definitely an interesting experiment.
Can't get it working for Witcher 3, though. Anyone have any ideas? I have it running fullscreen and it just stretches the picture vertically. I have scaling disabled in NCP as well.
Can't get it working for Witcher 3, though. Anyone have any ideas? I have it running fullscreen and it just stretches the picture vertically. I have scaling disabled in NCP as well.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
For Rocket League:
You can adjust the "camera" settings to be closer to the car ("distance" I think they call it?) OR decrease the FOV a bit. Either way, you will stil have a much wider native peripheral FOV than 16:9.
For Witcher 3:
Checkout the update I have in the OP regarding GPU scale overriding. That sounds like the issue. Make sure it's "no scaling" and the override option is ticked.
cleveridea
Member
Yeah will do that in future.
Its a really good idea actually. When I was at 1080p, I could just max all settings and play at 60+ fps and not worry with tinkering settings.
When I got the 1440p monitor, most games ran maxxed but some didnt like watchdogs 2 and ghost recon. And it gets really annoying fiddling with settings, especially when like watchdogs 2 you can see how much better it looks with a higher setting, but you just cant justify running it at that res because framerate is too low.
So it really made me want to put on hold my plan to buy a 4K HDR monitor to match with my 1080 Ti. I dont want to buy another card (and it sounds like SLI is a hassle with a lot of games) so it made me think 4K has to wait until the next generation of cards come out. This is a way to get the best of both worlds. It also ironically would mean an ultrawide would actually work against this, presumably it starts becoming really narrow if further letterbox a ultrawide.
Ah, it was the override I was missing. Thanks!
Fahzgoolin
Banned
No problem mate!
I played the Witcher with this as well and it was goregous. Made the vistas really pop.
cleveridea
Member
When people say they want 144 fps, especially for competitive games, is that because they can respond faster and get better results (and say 60 fps feels laggy and slow in comparison)?
I'm surprised people can react faster than 60 fps provides, or at least 90 fps which is recommended VR speed (presumably matching your brains ability to visually detect movement corresponding to the head motion). I never play MP games and typically play RPG games. Nioh at 60 fps seems super fast and responsive to me, cant imagine more than that.
I'm surprised people can react faster than 60 fps provides, or at least 90 fps which is recommended VR speed (presumably matching your brains ability to visually detect movement corresponding to the head motion). I never play MP games and typically play RPG games. Nioh at 60 fps seems super fast and responsive to me, cant imagine more than that.
potatohead
Member
This is.... silly. Neither is it new.
Crazy. When you go that high FOV you also lose detail and resolution in the center, which is actually not great for many games like FPS or strategy games.
If it's like Witcher 3 or Rocket League sure, but it's not for every game.
Every game is just your preference what aspect ratio you want. I prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 depending on how the game was originally e.g. for many emulated games. In other games I'd use 21:9, or 16:9 for most. It's all game and personal dependent.
Applying this to all games as some sort of magical solution tells me you just discovered this thing on your own recently and are just going buck wild with it. It will settle down, trust me.
Crazy. When you go that high FOV you also lose detail and resolution in the center, which is actually not great for many games like FPS or strategy games.
If it's like Witcher 3 or Rocket League sure, but it's not for every game.
Every game is just your preference what aspect ratio you want. I prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 depending on how the game was originally e.g. for many emulated games. In other games I'd use 21:9, or 16:9 for most. It's all game and personal dependent.
Applying this to all games as some sort of magical solution tells me you just discovered this thing on your own recently and are just going buck wild with it. It will settle down, trust me.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I was skeptical at first too, but the difference is astounding. Our eyes definitely can tell the difference, even with moving a window around in the Windows operating system. So, you not only see a smoother image, which already helps with aiming and input lag, but you literally see more info than someone else. That means if someone in Counter Strike tries to "quick peek" you, you see more of them at a time than you would at 60fps. It's hard to describe, but once you see it in motion it's hard to go back.
Okay man i am reporting back -- you have fucking CHANGED my life dude. Jesus. First of all, 21:9 gaming is amazing. Second of all, it produces better performance. And lastly, this has allowed me to FINALLY use my 55 inch TV as a full-on desk monitor. So glad you pointed this out!
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I'm not pretending this is my own idea. I learned this from a small tech forum a long time ago. However, for certain games (especially Rainbow Six), the difference is truly massive and gives me an edge. If you disagree, that's fine, but from my experience it isn't placebo at all.
Actually, I included some at the bottom of the OP. Also, I mentioned the black borders. If you are so clever, you could even open my original images in a new tab which displays the black borders.
=D
cleveridea
Member
Interesting. I wonder if the adrenaline state of competitive games also has an effect on reaction times, making the difference even more pronounced.
The few times I have had crazy adrenaline rushes in real life (dangerous situations), time FEELS like it slows down even if it actually doesnt
Fahzgoolin
Banned
LOL that makes me really happy man! I'm very glad it's helped you! Your post alone made it worth my time =D
Sometimes I put my 50" plasma on my desk RIGHT behind my wheel in racing sims and my stomach actually feels funny at the sensation lol It looks and feels really good.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I'm sure there is a way to look it up, but you could always increase the vertical resolution from 810 to 910 or something like that and see how it looks.
LOL I just played a game of CSGO in 1920x610 just to see how strange it is and I can still perform well enough. Got 4 one deags (dunno where to upload GIF, so it's tiny):
This is a demo with enemy highlights, so no, I'm not wall hacking lol
It's ridiculous, but you see sooo much more on the screen. Obviously I won't play this way, but it's fun that you can do it.
The Hermit
Member
This.
I might use that on my 4K TV though. Keep the wide FOV and use less pixels.
Yup! Wanted a gsybc monitor and went with a freesync 21:9.
I care more about the ration than the damn sync thing now. Doom was awesome in it.
cleveridea
Member
I dont know, it seems like it gives you more options if you have a graphics card that cant always pump out the desired framerates at the native monitor resolution.
Like in my case I was going to keep at 1440p due to not being able to max out all games at 4K. But using this technique, I could play less demanding games at a full resolution on a 4K monitor and more demanding games using this letterboxing - yet keep the game rendering at the native scale of the pixels of the monitor (which should produce a better image right?)
If you buy an ultrawide I would imagine its starting to get a bit too much if you further letterbox at that point
back in my day we'd just open the console and type "fov 150"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQOJ3yCK8pI (ignore everything past standard 150º)
It's not a new concept, except arbitrarily adding black bars top and bottom which also then make the resultant image correspond to a number of contemporarily accepted aspect ratio standards.
It's always been a tradeoff between how much you see to the side (and indirectly how much fisheye you can put up with) vs. clarity in the center for fine aim.
Sora the Cat
Member
Wait, does this actually give an advantage in csgo like OP claims? You can see people entering from the side faster? Cause that would suck for other players.
wow what a throwback
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Lol yeah totally...
You can see from that GIF that CSGO has a fish eye effect no matter what. Even at regular ol 16:9 it stretches. Wonder why they do it that way?
Yup. If you look at the csgo and rainbow six shots you can see how I can see more of the map and therefore win more engagements. It's harder to be caught off guard essentially.
Rendering a 3D image onto a 2D plane always results in a fisheye the further the angle from center of view. This is why most more modern FPS tend to have a lower FOV limit (when you can even change them) compared to old games, because graphics trump everything and you don't want things looking wack anymore.
I still push towards 110-120º whenever a game allows me to.
You'd win more close-quarter engagements. At range, a lower FOV means an opponent has an aim sensitivity advantage over you.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
I actually find this not to be true because I usually play PC games at a very low mouse sensitivity anyways. As a result I can have very fine aim with a large mouse pad and not have to worry about that at all.
Most engagements in games, including in high precision games Like CSGO, don't ever reach large enough distances for it to really matter. Better map situation awareness is a bigger plus for me. However, if you are a high sensitivity player... Yeah you might struggle, you are right.