7 votes

The most interesting thing about Days Gone is its PC settings menu

8 comments

  1. [7]
    joplin
    Link
    That's really interesting! I never understood why games limited players to specific aspect ratios since systems like OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal, and DirectX can very easily support any aspect ratio...

    That's really interesting! I never understood why games limited players to specific aspect ratios since systems like OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal, and DirectX can very easily support any aspect ratio with like 3 lines of code. I suppose pre-recorded cut scenes would be one problem, but I'm not sure how often those are used vs. rendered cut scenes these days.

    That said, are there many people using 32:9 monitors? I see them from time-to-time when I'm looking for a monitor, and never thought they were very practical. I can get the same thing for about the same price by buying 2 smaller monitors and using them side-by-side, and then I have the flexibility to put them into other configurations or pull one off to another machine temporarily if necessary. Is this the latest thing for hardcore gamers?

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      I generally avoid having to touch graphics code at all beyond CSS styling, but it is my understanding that the reason why so many console ports have limited resolution options is that they were...

      I generally avoid having to touch graphics code at all beyond CSS styling, but it is my understanding that the reason why so many console ports have limited resolution options is that they were built with screen coordinates built in for where to draw certain elements, especially HUD elements.

      Different ratios and selectable FOV can also be a problem because games aggressively cull polygons outside of the view of the player to get good performance, so if you have these really wide angles you are showing more of the world than the game was originally optimized to show.

      8 votes
      1. joplin
        Link Parent
        I could see that. I guess I'm thinking of less extreme aspect ratios than the mentioned 32:9, which is obviously pretty extreme. Like when 16:9 or 16:10 monitors first started showing up on...

        I could see that. I guess I'm thinking of less extreme aspect ratios than the mentioned 32:9, which is obviously pretty extreme. Like when 16:9 or 16:10 monitors first started showing up on regular computers, some games still limited you to 4:3, which was annoying. Or they would do 16:9, but not 16:10, so they'd either be distorted or have letterboxing on a 16:10 monitor. But yeah, I guess 32:9 really widens the field of view much more than going from 4:3 to 16:9 did.

        2 votes
      2. vord
        Link Parent
        Problems like that get mitigated over time with better hardware. Slower than the past, but still happening.

        if you have these really wide angles you are showing more of the world than the game was originally optimized to show.

        Problems like that get mitigated over time with better hardware. Slower than the past, but still happening.

        1 vote
    2. [2]
      whbboyd
      Link Parent
      Rendered cutscenes are actually still a problem, as many who have modded the FoV of their games will know. When you change the aspect ratio, you either expand or crop the viewing frustum: expand...

      I'm not sure how often those are used vs. rendered cut scenes these days.

      Rendered cutscenes are actually still a problem, as many who have modded the FoV of their games will know. When you change the aspect ratio, you either expand or crop the viewing frustum: expand it, and you may get geometry intersecting the near plane or just stuff in frame that was supposed to be out of sight; contract it, and you may crop out important content (getting half a face that was supposed to be fully in-frame is usually the most obvious symptom of this).

      Interactive cutscenes are usually okay, though you may still be able to get graphical glitches with very wide fields of view (since they result in clipping planes that are far from the camera at the edges), but of course, it's tough to be "cinematic" when the player is off throwing props at each other in the corner and ignoring the grand emotional masterwork you're attempting to stage for them.

      This is all to say nothing of geometry culling: the more stuff in frame, the more stuff that has to be drawn, and games that are pushing the limits of what their hardware is capable of could get pushed beyond by the extra work.

      4 votes
      1. joplin
        Link Parent
        OK, that makes sense. But then, I still get these kinds of glitches with more typical monitors in many games, so who knows?

        expand it, and you may get geometry intersecting the near plane or just stuff in frame that was supposed to be out of sight; contract it, and you may crop out important content (getting half a face that was supposed to be fully in-frame is usually the most obvious symptom of this).

        OK, that makes sense. But then, I still get these kinds of glitches with more typical monitors in many games, so who knows?

        1 vote
    3. hungariantoast
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It's complicated. 32:9 displays are amazing for playing games. I don't own one, but I've been lucky enough to use one quite a bit. For general computing though, you really need specific tools to...

      It's complicated.

      32:9 displays are amazing for playing games. I don't own one, but I've been lucky enough to use one quite a bit.

      For general computing though, you really need specific tools to take advantage of all that screen space. PowerToys on Windows works well enough, tiling window managers on Linux (Sway, i3, herbstluftwm) work best. I'm sure there are some options for macOS.

      On Linux specifically, the default behavior of most tiling window managers: treating each display as a single workspace, will probably work fine for most people.

      However, most tiling window managers also let you divide a physical display into multiple workspaces. Also called tags, virtual desktops, or virtual displays.

      So you can have your window manager split your 32:9 super ultrawide in half, giving you two virtual 16:9 displays on your one physical display.

      (I'm having a hard time explaining this, so let me know if I am being confusing.)

      If you have a high resolution 32:9 display like the Odyssey G9, you could probably even get away with dividing the display horizontally three times without feeling cramped.

      And that's really the best benefit of 32:9 displays: you get two or even three displays worth of pixels in a single package, and only have to hook up and manage one third the number of cables.

      Resolution though, is sort of the biggest limiting factor for these displays at the moment. You can get a 21:9 ultrawide 5K display for less than an Odyssey G9 and the pixel density will be higher, text will look better, and you can still fit more of it on the screen.

      So until 32:9 displays start bumping their vertical resolutions into the 4K territory, my first recommendation for programmers is a 21:9 5K ultrawide.


      Actually, that's not true.

      If you were a programmer, and you were chasing the best experience possible, I'd recommend you drop $4,000+ on an 8K display, and then scale that display to whatever percentage looks best to you. Whatever percentage gives you enough space, whatever percentage doesn't make text and interface elements too small.

      Regardless of what percentage you land on, 8K is such a high resolution that text is going to look fucking phenomenal.

      That costs too much? Then start looking at 5K displays, rinse and repeat.

      (And, unlike some font designers would have you believe, non-integer scaling is fine! It works! Try it! What's the point of dropping $300 on a 4K monitor if you're just going to run it like a 1080p display but with slightly crisper lines? It really just seems to be macOS and GNOME that shit the bed when you do this, but even then their issues aren't that bad.)

      3 votes