Aspect ratio 21:9 for Ultrawide monitors

[tonschuh 3]

In this moment, i found this monitors 21:9 aspect ratio:

Philips: http://www.philips.ie/c/?locale_org=es_es

Aoc: http://us.aoc.com/monitor_displays/q2963pm

Dell: http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=au&cs=audhs1&l=en&s=dhs&sku=210-41183&redirect=1

Lg: http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-29EA93

Nec: http://www.nec-display-solutions.com/p/es/es/products/details/dp/Products/LCD/Current/LCD-EA294WMi/LCD-EA294WMi.xhtml

In the next standar format for games or ideal for gaming (included Arma3)? :confused:

5-8ms Response Time is more for an Office.

:)

[Ezcoo 47]

5-8ms Response Time is more for an Office.

:)

I have 27'' 144 Hz Asus VG278HE and really wouldn't recommend it nor any other TN panel screen if you're playing simulators or other heavy games only, because you do nothing with the higher refresh rate or "2 ms" response time (that is kind of false information itself, but it's much more complicated to explain, google if you want to know more) if you're not able to reach stable 120 FPS or even eg. stable 80 FPS with your PC. In addition, Arma is so slow-paced even in the PvP scenarios that you basically won't get any benefit with over 60 FPS, which renders the 120/144 Hz TN panels absolutely pointless if you're playing Arma (or other heavy simulators) only. They're made for very fast paced games, like COD, BF and CS. In addition, you need hardware that is able to run those games +100 FPS if you really want to actually benefit from the refresh rate.

Shortly; if you're buying new monitor for Arma (and/or other simulators) and normal daily usage only, get IPS screen and enjoy the beautiful, strong and vibrant colors that it can provide with its wider gamut. In addition, you don't have to tweak your every video setting to the minimum in order to get benefit from the refresh rate of screen, and the screen is also very suitable for photo and video editing thanks to the wide color gamut. TN panels have always poorer colors (and usually poor contrast too) when compared to the IPS screens. Get TN screen if you're going to play also more fast-paced games (like the ones mentioned above), and you're not image quality enthusiasist and if you're not going to edit videos or photos.

5-8 ms response time will do fine even in fast-paced FPS, and it's more than enough for Arma. You'll benefit smaller response times (like the "2 ms" on my screen) only in very, very fast-paced action games, but not at all in anywhere else. Locking the FPS to be screen refresh rate or 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8 of it will result in maximum smoothness, because every frame is displayed the equal time compared to other frames. If the FPS exceeds the screen refresh rate, there will appear tearing, and if the screen refresh rate is not multiple of FPS, the image is not so smooth because different frames are displayed variable times in order to match the FPS to the screen refresh rate. Eg. the image is much smoother and pleasant to watch with 60 FPS and 60 Hz screen that is not suffering from high input lag than with 75 FPS and 120 Hz screen. 120/144 Hz screens support often also lower refresh rates like 75 Hz though, so you could have it at 75 FPS and 75 Hz, resulting in very smooth picture. If I had to choose between that or 60 FPS with 60 Hz IPS screen with all its benefits related to the image quality, I'd select the latter though.

[Dwarden 1124]

qualite monitor usually declare close to true grey2grey or black2black values and usually similar value or little higher is for colored subpixels

while cheap TN displays often boast 2-5ms g2g (real usually is 7-10) and then e.g. 30ms blue, 35ms green and 45ms red subpixels ...

input lag is another problem ... in moment your display is over 16.7ms input lag, it's 1 frame behind for 60 FPS and if it's 20-33ms it's 2 frames behind and so on ....

some displays are capable these days to came with 50+ms input lag (which is worse than cheap displays from decade ago)

it's all because of crappy logic and software and hardware put together as fast and cheap possible ...

or ironically You can end with great monitor hardware and terrible logic or in some rare cases crippled software (firmware)

recently I read review of great hardware (display is 10bit, low latency, quality) and processing logic (again 10bit) and they use firmware which cripples it into 8bit

[tonschuh 3]

@Ezcoo / @Dwarden:

I have to admit, that this field is a bit more complicated and can't be simply reduced to g2g response time. :o

Here are some quotes from a mate (@Drac, he is a game-dev and gamer) out of the TOG-Forum, but firstly the previous post from @kEv_:

that LG looks nice but you might wanna check out the response time before you part with your hard earned, 14ms,

IDK too much about it, but afaik you want as low as possible for FPS,

this may not matter to you tho, just thought i'd mention it

cheers

kEv_

Answer from @Drac:

*face-palms*

This is the lab, how many times must we go over how little 14ms actually matters. Also, LG are reporting that number way more truthfully than pretty much any other display maker. Any company that claims 4ms or less is flat out fudging their numbers or not measuring the entire delay from input to measured display change, they're probably just spitting out the direct value of the processing component and not measuring anything either side of that. For instance, Dell use the same panel in their 21:9 29" display and quote 8ms in their specs. As I've said a million times, specs mean nothing.

Come on guys, lets up the bar a little for the Lab, if you're going to post a performance metric of some kind leave the spec sheets where they are and focus on posting stuff measured in a way that can be properly compared and understood.

This is a display designed for gamers. I linked the following review in my first post, it has a whole page on the lag and response time, perhaps linking directly to that page will help some of you figure out how these new fan-dangled interwebs work :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6741/l...view-rev-125/7

Or perhaps reading is too hard for TOG lab goes and you need some someone to draw you a picture:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

... more Info's after a view replies:

Originally Posted by Rick Fortune

was the condescending attitude needed?

Kinda, yeah (sorry). You posted against my recommendation so you either though I was ignorant of the display's performance of that I'd misguidedly recommend a non-gamer-friendly display on a gaming forum.

Spec sheets are written my marketing departments, they can be a useful guide for certain things but for something highly subjective like response-time it is always best to look for a trusted review. No one really trusts contrast ratio's on spec sheets but I've never much understood why everyone automatically thinks response times are indeed super accurate. We're dealing with tiny time-frames that are very difficult to measure accurately, and the measurement process is highly variable from manufacturer to manufacturer --- and --- response time isn't the full measure of display latency because there are other factors in the system that can add extra time as well.

Also, this isn't the lounge, it's the lab, science my good friend, science!

For an idea of how variable even something like measuring a "typical grey-to-grey" response (grey to grey is not an ISO standard btw) read here:

Temporal behavior of LCDs: Relationship between Gray to Gray Response Time and Moving Picture Response Time — ELDIM website.

Also also trust the marketing department about as much as I'd trust Hitler to report the correct times and measurement method used, thus the response times as reported on spec sheets is really quite useless.

Source: Click

The LG 29EA93 Monitor Rev. 1.25 seems to be quite good.

Here are some comments from buyer's about the Firmware: Click

You should be careful, if you buy from newegg.com:

carloverthepond - Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - link

I purchased this monitor from South Korea arrived with build date Dec 2012 Rev 00 shockingly poor panel over 30 stuck/dead/live pixels. This month I purchased one from Frys again build date Dec 2012 Rev 00, then one from MicroCenter yet again build date Dec 2012 Rev 00. The money I have lost in shipping and restocking fees is now a joke. Currently awaiting one I ordered from Newegg arrives 03/22/13 their website photos show build Feb 2013 Rev 01, so how do we know if this is revision 1.09 or 1.25. After several conversations with LG USA they posted the comment below on Neweggs website, how can you truly tell what revision you have when it's not labeled clearly and manufacturer just says it's revision 1.25 are we to take their word? If anyone has any idea how to identify which revision other than sticker on rear of panel? An LG USA have been very clear they will NOT update older revisions to their knowledge they don't even have the means to do so.

Manufacturer Response:

1. The older version is neither defective nor low quality. It was just a running change to update the firmware

to newer versions (like is done with other electronics).

2. Currently, there hasn’t been any game resolution support issues reported for this model. Please contact us with

any issues you find so we can test. Our previous internal testing did not find any resolution support issues for

any games. Also, Software version is not related to resolution support and different versions do not effect ability

to support full 2560 x 1080 resolution.

3. All of models sold to newegg.com are firmware version 1.25.

Please call us with any more questions. 800-243-0000.

Here another good side: The Lagom LCD monitor test pages

I try to buy fast screens which are affordable, as I play games like BF3 / Hard Reset / COD etc., but I would not go over the top.

My Main-Screen for Gaming: Asus VE278Q 27" Wide Led Black Full HD 2ms

My additional Screen for other things: Dell S2409W - Review | Dell S2409W - Spec's

:)

[Dwarden 1124]

that 29" LG is only 8bit panel (or processing logic) ... so no thanks...

I take instead this one : http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27EA83-D-led-monitor

10bit per color component , 2560 x 1440 (WQHD), 27", 16:9

it's sad LG decided to not put 1 billion color on the 21:9 ...

[Fuse 1]

~snip~

Not sure why you left in all the bits where your friend sounds like a jerk, but whatever. :)

My question: what's wrong with NewEgg? I've had nothing but good experiences with them and the quoted post sounds like a complaint about LG.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Fuse

[tonschuh 3]

Not sure why you left in all the bits where your friend sounds like a jerk, but whatever. :)

My question: what's wrong with NewEgg? I've had nothing but good experiences with them and the quoted post sounds like a complaint about LG.

There is nothing wrong with Newegg, beside that they was saying that the LG would be the one with the improved Firmware, but that info was not right.

that 29" LG is only 8bit panel (or processing logic) ... so no thanks...

I take instead this one : http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27EA83-D-led-monitor

10bit per color component , 2560 x 1440 (WQHD), 27", 16:9

it's sad LG decided to not put 1 billion color on the 21:9 ...

Very nice Screen.

:)

[Forrest 10]

Hello guys,

My new monitor: :yay:

The aspect ratio is correct?

[Mr. Charles 22]

Hello guys,

My new monitor: :yay:

The aspect ratio is correct?

What is this? A monitor for ants?

[Phluxus 10]

Hello,

I've got myself a 21:9 monitor recently and its great!

But there is a small draw back which bothers me in Arma 3, I enabled a custom Aspect Ration and it works fine for me but on the left and right edges the scenery "warps" or is distorted and changes size when you turn the camera. If you don't move the camera its all perspectively correct but if you turn further the objects change size and warp which is a bit annoying.

I assume it has something to do with the FOV settings.

I am running atm TOP: 0.94, LEFT:2.19001 I tried TOP: 0.75 and Left:1.7777778 but it didn't change anything.

A friend of mine is running a Triple Screen 3x 16:9 HD and has the same effect although it's not as prominent because its more in his peripheral vision, as with me looking straight at 21:9 it looks extremely unrealistic, especially if you fly and turn your head with head tracking.

I don't have this problem in other ego perspective games e.g. Borderlands 2 or BF3.

It would be great if somebody could give me some advice how to tweak this in the config or tell me if this is an engine problem.

Phluxus

[jw custom 56]

Hello,

I've got myself a 21:9 monitor recently and its great!

But there is a small draw back which bothers me in Arma 3, I enabled a custom Aspect Ration and it works fine for me but on the left and right edges the scenery "warps" or is distorted and changes size when you turn the camera. If you don't move the camera its all perspectively correct but if you turn further the objects change size and warp which is a bit annoying.

I assume it has something to do with the FOV settings.

I am running atm TOP: 0.94, LEFT:2.19001 I tried TOP: 0.75 and Left:1.7777778 but it didn't change anything.

A friend of mine is running a Triple Screen 3x 16:9 HD and has the same effect although it's not as prominent because its more in his peripheral vision, as with me looking straight at 21:9 it looks extremely unrealistic, especially if you fly and turn your head with head tracking.

I don't have this problem in other ego perspective games e.g. Borderlands 2 or BF3.

It would be great if somebody could give me some advice how to tweak this in the config or tell me if this is an engine problem.

Phluxus

I'm having same issue but with time you get used too it and notice it less.

Im running:

fovTop=0.94;

fovLeft=2.1900001;

This seems to be the best setting for me.

[Phluxus 10]

I'm having same issue but with time you get used too it and notice it less.

What bothers me here though is that this doesn't happen in other games, like Borderlands 2 or BF3.

I don't know how to put it but I absolutely loved to play every Arma game and I bought a new PC and Monitor just for Arma 3 and this I just so annoying I can't stand it, it would be great if we could get a solution for this... :'(

Phluxus

[Leon86 13]

Isn't it just warping because the fov is too large? is there a hardcoded minimum fov?

[Phluxus 10]

Hello 21:9ers,

I experimented with FOV settings yesterday a bit more and figured some results deceasing the warp effect and thought if somebody is equally annoyed by it like me it would be nice to share the results.

tl:dr

I'm running fovTop: 0.80 and fovLeft: 1.8962963 now.

If you want to figure your right FOV settings here is what to do:

I tried to use the Hia3.com FOV calculator, but the results seem to be wrong. So I ended up using the good old calculator.

This example is for an 2560:1080 (21:9) Monitor:

Divide 2560/1080 = 2.37037037

Multiplie that number by your desired fovTop e.g. the standard 0.75 (75°):

2.37037037 x 0.75 = 1.77777778

=> so your fovTop: 0.75 and fovLeft: 1.777778 giving you the standard FOV of 75° with the correct aspect ratio for 21:9.

Now you can alter the fovTop value and calculate the matching fovLeft value giving you your desired look.

The lower the fovTop value the narrower your horizontal field of view and less warp, but also slightly zoomed image.

The higher the Top valeu the wider your horizontal FOV and more warp, but also zoomed out.

I settled with the values mentioned above of 0.80... giving me a slightly wider FOV than the standard 0.75 but less warp then the suggested 0.94 value.

Here are some example sceenshots:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175651149

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175651110

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175651070

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175651026

Hope this is at leas a bit helpful

Phluxus