OFF in wide screen?

[Todt Von Oben 0]

What do you think of how well this would adapt itself to use with OFF?

 

 

Would it work well with the screen views and image quality we have in this game?

 

Howsabout with TRackIR?

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[Flyby PC 23]

I'd like to volunteer myself for testing.

 

 

Woooha!!! $16,000 ???

 

- Test failed.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Flyby PC

[Todt Von Oben 0]

I'd like to volunteer myself for testing.

 

 

Woooha!!! $16,000 ???

 

- Test failed.

 

ARGH! I didn't catch the pricetag! Suddenly, my little ol' PC monitor is looking better and better all the time.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

It's a valid question though... I still have a 19" monitor, because I have never liked this wide screen thing!..It always looks wrong to me!..and stretched...does anyone else find this? (same with TV's)

[Gous 0]

It's a valid question though... I still have a 19" monitor, because I have never liked this wide screen thing!..It always looks wrong to me!..and stretched...does anyone else find this? (same with TV's)

Agree! I see all these new LCD TV sets and they seem to show things...well...wrong!

[Olham 164]

Widow - here we agree. Even on a 19", the view can only concentrate on the

mid section - for the corners, you must really look there, away from the mid.

 

So, I don't want a widescreen. It's a bit like panorama fotos - funny to look at,

but you can't see the whole at once.

[Guest British_eh]

Hey there:

 

I have an LG 22" 4:3 screen, which after a 19" I find quite fabulous. It's all I can fit in my desk configuration, but it's resolution is fantastic. Certainly my Geforce 8800GTX although not the best, is giving me 25 - 50 FPS, which I find quite good.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[almccoyjr 7]

Widow - here we agree. Even on a 19", the view can only concentrate on the

mid section - for the corners, you must really look there, away from the mid.

 

So, I don't want a widescreen. It's a bit like panorama fotos - funny to look at,

but you can't see the whole at once.

 

16:9 or 16:10 is very natural IF the software is written for it and BHaH fully supports it. I agree with unclean; for desktop use, 30" is just about perfect.

 

I run a Sony GDM-FW900 which is a 24" flat panel monitor. Being glass, she weighs 109lbs. 1920 x 1200 x 32 @ 75hz and is very natural, very good, especially with TIR4. I can go up to 2048, but that's out of the recommended sweet spot for best viewing.

 

You can try a little test and get a better understanding why wide screen is "wide screen". Sit at your desk and put any scene up on your monitor using your browser. Now in the address bar, put a single character in the middle of the address bar. Center yourself so that your eyes and the character are inline. Try to relax and look only at the character. Without taking your focus off the character, take "note" as to what's in your sight at 12 o'clock in the background, at 3, 9 and 6 as well. After doing it several times, I think you'll find that your peripheral vision a 3 and 9 is better than at 12 and 6, with 6 being the worse. That's what wide screen does with well written software, it brings your 3 and 6 into play without having to look, and heightens your awareness at 12. If you "play" at it long enough, you can actually map out the "ark" from 3 to 12 to 6. It's really cool. While working on the center, you don't lose what's in the "background" at 3 and 6 and your 12 recognition is much better.

 

 

16:9, 16:10 is really close to natural vision, imho, where 4:3 is closer to a mild case of tunnel vision.

 

Panorama photos aren't natural, so they do look funny.

[catch 81]

I agree with unclean ....

 

... so do I .... when I can stop laughing