Okay,

Obviously I'll be getting a new monitor when I upgrade my PC, but in anticipation of that I might spring for it now. Question is, will a widescreen 22"+ help me in LFS (i.e. make is easier to hit apexes, set entry points etc). I'm currently using a 17" 4:3 and find that spotting vanishing points or apexes a bit hit & miss. Also having no peripheral detail might be part of the issue.

Also is 1680x1050 enough or go for full HD?

Anyone got any before/after stories when they changed to a widescreen monitor?

If you have a really old graphics card, (or even old integrated GPU) make sure it supports this resolution. If it's a card made in the last 3-4 years you should be ok.


I got a 22" 1680x1050 screen about 2 years ago. I had a radeon9800 and it didn't support this resolution. I could get something close however. Before that I had a 17" CRT and even though I was using and incorrect resolution and VGA cable with the 22" it still ran rings around the 17" crt 4:3

It's been glorious for gaming while upgrading through 2 PC's since getting it.

Only problem I had was trying to run RBR. Being an old game, it didn't support 1680x1050 but there is a software mod (CamHack) for the game to fix that.


You can see a little more 'peripherally' so that assists a little when going around bends, you also don't feel as claustrophobic. I guarentee when you get the 22' you will wonder why the hell you didn't get it 2 years ago. These screens are so cheap now, I fail to see why anyone wouldn't get one.

I got a 40" now, but if I had to I would be quite happy using the ol' 22"

I might add that the sensation of speed is much more greater on a widescreen monitor. That's of course my subjective impression (after swapping my medieval 19' 4:3 CRT with a 22' widescreen TFT)

Peripheral vision in LFS is entirely dictated by your FOV setting in LFS. This is due to the FOV being tied to the width, not the height (as seems more common in games). I can see no more at the sides on my triple monitor setup than I can on my old 17", if I use the same FOV. In fact I see less, as the top and bottom of the image is cropped off.

The two main benefits to wider aspect ratio, and generally larger displays, is that you can run a higher FOV without suffering from as much perceiving image distortion, and making distant objects overly small. This helps greatly with immersion, and as commented, will help the sensation of speed (even without an FOV increase).

I found that on a non-widescreen a 'natural' FOV chops the mirror off the side. With a widescreen, setting the FOV to the same 'feel' lets you see the side-mirror too and helps a lot with your driving.

ah yes, I remember when I switched over to wide screen, I went from 90 degrees to 100 degrees. So after that I could see more on the sides, but the image wasn't squished on the wide screen like it was when I used 100 degrees FOV on the 17".

So it ALLOWED me to increase the FOV without bad "side effects" yeah.

But Bob said it better.

Hi guys, could anybody post a shot from LFS with 90FOV and in 1920x1080 resolution?

sure...

XRG BL1
1920x1080
Default Cockpit view
FOV=90


(addons; real adverts, enbseries bloom, hi-res sky, personal bump mapped textures)

Thanks a lot

Quote from JasonJ :

sure...

XRG BL1
1920x1080
Default Cockpit view
FOV=90


(addons; real adverts, enbseries bloom, hi-res sky, personal bump mapped textures)

I´ve just seen your gauge´s color setup. Thanks a lot, they look so much more realistic. I had all blue or orange before. Don´t know why I didn´t get it earlier. Or is this the standard setup and I messed it all up?

If your pc can run ut its good since most modern games look alot better with it.

But widescreen start from 1440x 900 ??

no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUXGA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... ctor_Video_Standards2.svg

This is what triple screens look like 3860x1024 @ 115deg FOV.

Quote from Chrisuu01 :

But widescreen start from 1440x 900 ??

Even 320x180 is widescreen

Time we gave this baby a re-thread (bwahahahahaha)...

16:9 vs 16:10...is there a clear difference between them with regards to viewing window?

Specifically, if I can get screenshots of a 1920x1200 and a 1920x1080 at 90FOV, that would be greatly appreciated?

In this very case, you can make FoV a bit bigger on 1920x1200, this way you'll have same horizontal range, but bigger vertical range.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

In this very case, you can make FoV a bit bigger on 1920x1200, this way you'll have same horizontal range, but bigger vertical range.

Good point. I guess what I'm really trying to find out is how much peripheral vision you can get with a 16:9 vs what you would get with a 16:10. My current monitor runs at 1680x1050 and it's big enough, I just can't see enough out of the sides. If only I had enough space for a triple head setup.

Quote from anttt69 :

This is what triple screens look like 3860x1024 @ 115deg FOV.

Where are the graphics?

Quote from BlakjeKaas :

Where are the graphics?

If there'd be any, his FPS counter wouldn't stay above 30 alot of the time

With a 16:9 monitor @ 1920x1080 and a 16:10 monitor @ 1920x1200 the only gain is 120 vertical pixels.

16:9 monitors are widely accepted in the gaming world, and every day fewer manufacturers actually make 16:10 monitors. Since your horizontal viewing angle is exactly the same (1920 pixels wide for both aspect ratios) and the 16:10 monitors being slowly phased out, it is definitely not worth it.

Hope this helps.

Quote from Krayy :

Good point. I guess what I'm really trying to find out is how much peripheral vision you can get with a 16:9 vs what you would get with a 16:10. My current monitor runs at 1680x1050 and it's big enough, I just can't see enough out of the sides. If only I had enough space for a triple head setup.

just use a whole bunch of "virtual" monitors to create an approximated cylindrical projection on your one screen

Quote from Coxis :

16:9 monitors are widely accepted in the gaming world, and every day fewer manufacturers actually make 16:10 monitors. Since your horizontal viewing angle is exactly the same (1920 pixels wide for both aspect ratios) and the 16:10 monitors being slowly phased out, it is definitely not worth it.

Certain gaming benefits aside, I definitely think this phasing is more directed by the manufacturers than the user preferences. It's no wonder since manufacturers can sell less for the same inch size and thanks to the "Full HD" term borrowed from living rooms, they have managed to make 1080 sound greater than 1200.

Quote from Coxis :

16:9 monitors are widely accepted in the gaming world, and every day fewer manufacturers actually make 16:10 monitors. Since your horizontal viewing angle is exactly the same (1920 pixels wide for both aspect ratios) and the 16:10 monitors being slowly phased out, it is definitely not worth it.

Mind finding me 16:9 alternative of Dell U3011? ;P

Dell U2711?

I have 2 of these at work, I'm not a fan of 16:9, but they're really great, I'd take them over my U2410. U3011 is better, but U2711 is a better bang-for-the-buck.