21:9 will never have 100% support in games.

[RaistlinZ]

You take your voodoo aspect ratios somewhere else there, buddy.

 

[Thinker_145]

16:9 will never have 100% support in games. 16:10 will never have 100% support in games.

Nothing will ever have 100% support in games because there is and will forever be limitations.

Whats the point of this thread exactly?

16:9 does have 100% support for many years now....

 

[Bacon1]

16:9 does have 100% support for many years now....

No it doesn't. Recent games sure, but not 100% of all games. Not to mention all of the iOS games that are developed only at 4:3 and 3:2 and is only recently using 16:9.

 

[Thinker_145]

No it doesn't. Recent games sure, but not 100% of all games. Not to mention all of the iOS games that are developed only at 4:3 and 3:2 and is only recently using 16:9.

My assertion of 100% support did not state that old games count. It's literally grasping at straws now to bring 10 year old games and mobile games in the picture. For all practical purposes 16:9 has 100% support for a PC gamer in 2016.

 

[Bacon1]

My assertion of 100% support did not state that old games count. It's literally grasping at straws now to bring 10 year old games and mobile games in the picture. For all practical purposes 16:9 has 100% support for a PC gamer in 2016.

Your OP had zero actual info. Are you talking about AAA PC ports from consoles games only or what?

 

[moonbogg]

When wide screens were new there was a lack of support. Same thing now. Most new games and many old ones support it fine. My opinion is that 21:9 is far superior to anything else other than neuronal based hacking. The world always falls inline with my opinion, therefore, 21:9 will become far more popular and become the new norm. It is better because it better. Also because I declare it to be better.

 

[Thinker_145]

When wide screens were new there was a lack of support. Same thing now. Most new games and many old ones support it fine. My opinion is that 21:9 is far superior to anything else other than neuronal based hacking. The world always falls inline with my opinion, therefore, 21:9 will become far more popular and become the new norm. It is better because it better. Also because I declare it to be better.

The consoles adopted widescreen as well with the Xbox 360 so there wasn't a problem there. There is almost no chance consoles will support 21:9 in the foreseeable future so it's a totally different ball game.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I run 3840x1024 and I rarely find a game that doesn't work with it, sometimes UI's suck with it but rare and apps like flawless wide screen have almost always taken care of that. I find your position very odd and not reflecting reality seeing I run a very uncommon resolution without issue.

my next monitor will be 21:9 its just a matter of when i'll allow myself the indulgence.

 

[Headfoot]

I run 3840x1024 and I rarely find a game that doesn't work with it, sometimes UI's suck with it but rare and apps like flawless wide screen have almost always taken care of that. I find your position very odd and not reflecting reality seeing I run a very uncommon resolution without issue.

my next monitor will be 21:9 its just a matter of when i'll allow myself the indulgence.

I run 5760x1080 and it almost never works right, so I have no idea what games you're playing. UI is almost universally broken (Titanfall 2). Sometimes the game plays fine but your HUD is gone or wonky (Fallout 4). Sometimes it plays fine but you can't change FOV so the super-wide screen gives you ridiculous zoom levels (h1z1).

The only games that worked right on triple monitor that I've played lately were BF1, SWBF and The Long Dark

 

[Chapbass]

I run 5760x1080 and it almost never works right, so I have no idea what games you're playing. UI is almost universally broken (Titanfall 2). Sometimes the game plays fine but your HUD is gone or wonky (Fallout 4). Sometimes it plays fine but you can't change FOV so the super-wide screen gives you ridiculous zoom levels (h1z1).

The only games that worked right on triple monitor that I've played lately were BF1, SWBF and The Long Dark

The couple games I played with it didnt seem to have issue (world of tanks, the division).

For more general conversation (not to the quote poster):


Just bought a 34" 3440x1440 screen the other day. Overwatch doesn't support it, but it doesn't matter much. Division supports it and it is miles better than my old 1080p 16:9 screen. Never going back. And the games that don't support it? They're the same 16:9 that I would get with a 16:9 panel...but on games that support it, then I get 21:9 goodness, and you don't. Failing to see the negative here.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Many games wont support this out of the box, but some of those can be modded to support it, typically by editing ini files to set custom resolutions and FOVs. The main downside is that it's such an extreme aspect ratio that even if you can set it, you might find in game that there's problems with a crafted singleplayer, like stuff spawning inside your FOV or near plane clipping. For the most part it doesn't matter though games are still enjoyable either way, this is the benefit for the PC.

Having said that I'd got 16:9 4k over 21:9 any day.

 

[NTMBK]

1080p master race

 

[Ansau]

21:9 isn't crippled by consoles, but by 2 aspects:
- How its extreme ratio inhibits these monitors from being all around solutions. 16:9 is now the standard because is in the sweet spot, not too narrow for the panoramic content and with the enough amplitude for the vertical content like web browsing, office docs, CAD... 21:9 monitors are niche products for specific users, and will never have significant popularity, because it doesn't come by being the best, but by being the one that suits the most.
- And how high they're priced. Any decent 21:9 monitor is so expensive that you can easily jump to a higher 16:9 resolution for the same price, getting the same width and immersion while also benefiting from a bigger amplitude, win-win after all.

 

[bystander36]

21:9 isn't crippled by consoles, but by 2 aspects:
- How its extreme ratio inhibits these monitors from being all around solutions. 16:9 is now the standard because is in the sweet spot, not too narrow for the panoramic content and with the enough amplitude for the vertical content like web browsing, office docs, CAD... 21:9 monitors are niche products for specific users, and will never have significant popularity, because it doesn't come by being the best, but by being the one that suits the most.
- And how high they're priced. Any decent 21:9 monitor is so expensive that you can easily jump to a higher 16:9 resolution for the same price, getting the same width and immersion while also benefiting from a bigger amplitude, win-win after all.

1) I'm pretty certain 16:9 is chosen due to TV's using it, and has nothing to do with anything a PC does. Once it became standard, then all those other things were designed around it.
2) They are priced low because that is the aspect ratio TV's chose.

 

[crisium]

Correct, TV panels killed 16:10 monitors. 16:10 was superior, as it was built as a tall 16:9 and of course word docs and the internet both love vertical space. 16:10 was intended as a wider 4:3, so we went from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200*. And it was close to 16:9, so the letterboxing was easy to live with as was designed.

They did not expand the 16:10 monitors horizontal, but instead castrated them vertical. You can tell because it went from 1920x1200 / 2560x1600 to 1920x1080 / 2560x1440 and NOT ~2134x1200 / ~2844x1600 or whatever. Cheaper to follow the TV panels.

Good news for 21:9, it's based on expanding 16:9 more, and there's no castration. They are wider 1440s and 1080s.

Side note, we are seeing the occasional 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio in laptops. I think this makes sense for laptops where you are less likely to split the tiny screen into multiple so vertical is king.

*I have no idea why the hell 1680x1050 was created. A wider 1280x1024 with a little vertical buffing? 4:3 1400x1050 was very rare, so odd to expand that.

 

[Bacon1]

I doubt anyone who has used 3440x1440 would settle for 2440x1440 or even 4k.

It is far superior for both gaming (immersion) and working (2 documents side by side perfectly)

 

[crisium]

Are you comparing 21:9 to 3:2? You need to make it relative. 3440x1440 equivalent in mega pixels is similar to the real, existing 2880x1920 (this is only ~11% larger). I'd take the former for heavy office use or gaming or watching videos, don't get me wrong, but for non-multitasking use (laptops come to mind) think about how often you scroll vertically on web pages and in word docs, and how you nearly never scroll horizontally.

edit: Na, I change my mind I'd take even 21:9 there. I'd just make sure it's a swivel monitor and then we get 1440x3440 (9:21!). Much of the internet is still fine with ~1366 wide pixels thanks to 1366x768 sticking around, so that would be a great resolution just to browse webpages on. Anyone have swivel?

 

[IEC]

3440x1440 is awesome. When reasonably priced *VA panels with 120Hz+ refresh come out, I'll be getting one.

 

[Headfoot]

Are you comparing 21:9 to 3:2? You need to make it relative. 3440x1440 equivalent in mega pixels is similar to the real, existing 2880x1920 (this is only ~11% larger). I'd take the former for heavy office use or gaming or watching videos, don't get me wrong, but for non-multitasking use (laptops come to mind) think about how often you scroll vertically on web pages and in word docs, and how you nearly never scroll horizontally.

edit: Na, I change my mind I'd take even 21:9 there. I'd just make sure it's a swivel monitor and then we get 1440x3440 (9:21!). Much of the internet is still fine with ~1366 wide pixels thanks to 1366x768 sticking around, so that would be a great resolution just to browse webpages on. Anyone have swivel?

I run a 1080p monitor vertical at work. Some sites still work at the 1024 responsive design point, it ends up being enough to put a Word doc at 100% zoom on it and see a page and a half of text at a time

 

[Bacon1]

3440x1440 is awesome. When reasonably priced *VA panels with 120Hz+ refresh come out, I'll be getting one.

There is a MVA 34" 100hz Korean one for $700ish I posted in the display forum . Uses the latest Samsung panels.

 

[xthetenth]

21:9 isn't crippled by consoles, but by 2 aspects:
- How its extreme ratio inhibits these monitors from being all around solutions. 16:9 is now the standard because is in the sweet spot, not too narrow for the panoramic content and with the enough amplitude for the vertical content like web browsing, office docs, CAD... 21:9 monitors are niche products for specific users, and will never have significant popularity, because it doesn't come by being the best, but by being the one that suits the most.
- And how high they're priced. Any decent 21:9 monitor is so expensive that you can easily jump to a higher 16:9 resolution for the same price, getting the same width and immersion while also benefiting from a bigger amplitude, win-win after all.

21:9 is a bezel-free twin 10.5:9 setup. It's actually the tallest common setup because it's two screens in one when you start using them. On laptops, a taller ratio works well, but on desktops, there is no excuse to not have a monitor setup optimized around multiple open windows. Splitting a 16:9 gets narrow, which leaves 21:9 as giving two nice regions when split. And regarding going to bigger 16:9, 40+" 4K is similarly niche to 34" 3440x1440, while 2x2560x1440 is somewhat awkward to use in practice (the outer edge of the secondary screen isn't particularly easy to use) and uses two ports and has two stands to buy decent versions of if you want a better setup. Right now, the ultimate setup in my opinion is 2560+3440+2560x1440. It's amazing if your desk can fit it.

 

[ElFenix]

I doubt anyone who has used 3440x1440 would settle for 2440x1440 or even 4k.

It is far superior for both gaming (immersion) [b[and working (2 documents side by side perfectly)[/b]

Wrong.gif

Any 2 documents that will fit side by side at 3440x1440 will fit side by side at 3840x2160.

After using 4k, everything else lacks vertical space. Moar lines! 3840x2400 would be even better.

5760x3840? Can'twait.gif

And I don't think I could find a 21:9 27" screen immersive. Just too small.

 

[citan x]

Wrong.gif

Any 2 documents that will fit side by side at 3440x1440 will fit side by side at 3840x2160.

After using 4k, everything else lacks vertical space. Moar lines! 3840x2400 would be even better.

5760x3840? Can'twait.gif

And I don't think I could find a 21:9 27" screen immersive. Just too small.

This.
I got one 40" 4k TV at work and just got my second one for home.

The vertical space is awesome.

 

[Ansau]

1) I'm pretty certain 16:9 is chosen due to TV's using it, and has nothing to do with anything a PC does. Once it became standard, then all those other things were designed around it.
2) They are priced low because that is the aspect ratio TV's chose.

And why do you think TV standardized for 16:9? Initially, 5:3 was the ratio used for widescreen content. But since in UK and US 1.85 ratio was used for theatrical films, they ended up with the 16:9, a mid term between both standards. So yes, 16:9 isn't popular because someone decided to be it, but because how good it is at being a middle ground to display any type of content.

21:9 is a bezel-free twin 10.5:9 setup. It's actually the tallest common setup because it's two screens in one when you start using them. On laptops, a taller ratio works well, but on desktops, there is no excuse to not have a monitor setup optimized around multiple open windows. Splitting a 16:9 gets narrow, which leaves 21:9 as giving two nice regions when split. And regarding going to bigger 16:9, 40+" 4K is similarly niche to 34" 3440x1440, while 2x2560x1440 is somewhat awkward to use in practice (the outer edge of the secondary screen isn't particularly easy to use) and uses two ports and has two stands to buy decent versions of if you want a better setup. Right now, the ultimate setup in my opinion is 2560+3440+2560x1440. It's amazing if your desk can fit it.

What? 27" 2560x1440p is better at having 2 windows side by side than 29" 2560x1080p. Both can be found around the same price, have the same horizontal pixel count, and panel width of a widescreen 1080p 29" is only 13% wider than a 1440p 27", so while being more panoramic, the content displayed is a bit tinier. But with the 1440p panel, you get 360 pixels more in vertical, very helpful in multi window display, and when rotated to a vertical position if the panel allows it to achieve a 1440x2560 resolution, the experience becomes premium at web browsing or document writing.
And btw, multimonitor doesn't count as an argument in a ratio aspect discussion, as there are tons and tons of possible configurations suited for the best use.

 

[railven]

As long as modders get 21:9 working in the games I love, I'm covered

Everything else I'll feed to the TV and call it a day.