Ultrawide Support (21:9, 32:9, etc)

[S I L E N C E R]

NOTE --- This thread is for ULTRAWIDE OWNERS and USERS ONLY.

If you wish to participate, WELCOME, but if you start adding non-constructive criticism against the usage, adoption, or purpose of this technology --- kindly STFU and GTFO or prepare to get your feelings hurt. No one cares about your time, effort, or comments and you'll be blocked by everyone in moments. You have been warned.



---------------------------------------------------------
Good Evening All,

This is an open letter to the developers themselves :)

How Ultrawide Support is PROPERLY Implemented.

SOURCE: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Glossary:Scaling

PROPER implementation of this support stretches the viewable area as large as possible while maintaining aspect ratio, then increases the field of view to fit the screen resolution, allowing more of the game world to be visible. Some games may only increase the field of view horizontally (Hor+) or vertically (Vert+). The most optimal, and preferred, scaling behaviors are Expand Aspect Ratio (Hor+/Vert+) for modern high definition games, and Pixel-perfect for games that focus on lower resolutions or retro-based art styles.

With proper implementation, a game designed for 16:9 will show more of the game world when played on a 21:9 (Hor+) monitor without losing any of the “reference” field of view it would have on a 16:9 monitor.

Roughly 3.81% of All Steam users are on an Ultrawide screen resolution.

SOURCE: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

That's more people on Ultrawide (monitors) than those who are on 4K (monitors).
I myself own a 3440x1440 monitor and unfortunately many developers have flat-out not supported these ratios (21:9, 32:9) either at all or as a badly implemented after-thought. My question - Could the Dev team PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE implement full *NATIVE* Ultrawide Monitor support and everything that entails (User Interface, etc.)?

So many Ultrawide users in the community feel like they are either an afterthought or not considered part of the target audience.

With so many games being developed to the typical 1920x1080 / 16:9 and all others depending on a code-savvy member of the community to "FIX" this oversight for the rest of the community, it is very frustrating to see the same old problem surfacing in NEW games.

Ultrawide monitor ratios have been supported for over 17 years already.

It's time to get serious about this. Half-Life 2 (2004) had full native support for all monitor ratios and ultrawide screen resolutions. This has been supported for at least over 17 years already from both big-budget studios and even tiny, 3-person development teams over the last 2 decades. It was supported natively, even back in an era when 1080p wasn't the common resolution for the masses.

Myself and MANY other people would be grateful to you all if you provided full NATIVE support for other monitor ratios besides the common 16:9 ratio. Your games would LITERALLY reach a wider audience. There is truly no reason Ultrawide screen support should ever be unaccounted-for in a game's development cycle, especially when it directly results in a loss of profit by excluding a VIABLE audience willing to pay for your product. Thank you so much for your time :smile:

Very Respectfully,
~ S I L E N C E R

[Masquerade]

+1 I'd love for this to be ultrawide

[moose]

it works on my ultrawide just fine but needs to be set to borderless and not full screen.
i am playing on 3840x1080 with no problems.

[MOHAPX]

We need to change the interface so that the windows are closer to the center of the screen. You can enter a setting for shifting the right and left border of the interface.

[Masquerade]

Originally posted by moose:

it works on my ultrawide just fine but needs to be set to borderless and not full screen.
i am playing on 3840x1080 with no problems.

I've figured this out too on other games, anything without fullscreen support scales great with borderless

[DarkBlueAgent]

wow ~70% of people still play in 1080p. wth? and i am complaining that i can't average 60fps @4K.

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by DarkBlueAgent:

wow ~70% of people still play in 1080p. wth? and i am complaining that i can't average 60fps @4K.

1080p is a perfectly fine resolution. 4k in particular is a gimmick, like VR. It'll be a while until it's mainstream - if it ever becomes mainstream.

[Masquerade]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by DarkBlueAgent:

wow ~70% of people still play in 1080p. wth? and i am complaining that i can't average 60fps @4K.

1080p is a perfectly fine resolution. 4k in particular is a gimmick, like VR. It'll be a while until it's mainstream - if it ever becomes mainstream.

4k is not a gimmick at all what

[Masquerade]

people who say 4k is a gimmick have never played a game in 4k

[The Unicorn]

Widescreen works fine for me? 3440x1440

[Shawn]

Originally posted by Masquerade:

people who say 4k is a gimmick have never played a game in 4k

4k is a gimmick unless your playing on a huge screen (40 + inches) its barely noticeable to the average person its the same thing that happen years ago with the fps arguments

[WoodLeagueLumberJack]

Originally posted by Shawn:

Originally posted by Masquerade:

people who say 4k is a gimmick have never played a game in 4k

4k is a gimmick unless your playing on a huge screen (40 + inches) its barely noticeable to the average person its the same thing that happen years ago with the fps arguments

I have 20/10 in my left eye and 20/15 in my right. There is a massive difference between 1080p, 1440p and 4k on my 27" monitors. But as you said barely noticeable for most people (as 20/20 is average). EDIT: Also FPS matters in what kind of game is being played. When the viewpoint shifts quickly around or the scene has fast moving objects, high FPS does make a difference. If it's a static viewpoint or slow moving such as in movies, then low FPS is manageable.

[Shawn]

Originally posted by Park 1VP:

Originally posted by Shawn:

4k is a gimmick unless your playing on a huge screen (40 + inches) its barely noticeable to the average person its the same thing that happen years ago with the fps arguments

I have 20/10 in my left eye and 20/15 in my right. There is a massive difference between 1080p, 1440p and 4k on my 27" monitors. But as you said barely noticeable for most people (as 20/20 is average). EDIT: Also FPS matters in what kind of game is being played. When the viewpoint shifts quickly around or the scene has fast moving objects, high FPS does make a difference. If it's a static viewpoint or slow moving such as in movies, then low FPS is manageable.

Yes i know FPS make a differences i was refering to the debates years ago where people were claiming they can tell a huge difference between 200 fps and 240 fps (stupid high numbers)

[The Unicorn]

To be fair, I can't even say the difference between 100 +++.

30-60 is Huge for me, 60-100 is noticable, but 100+ is absolute 0 difference for me, no Skill increase if I can run 144 FPS/HZ or even 160 hz/FPS.

[GlassDeviant]

+1 for ultrawide support.

Originally posted by Shawn:

Yes i know FPS make a differences i was refering to the debates years ago where people were claiming they can tell a huge difference between 200 fps and 240 fps (stupid high numbers)

Wow, finally someone else who realizes that high FPS monitors are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. ^5

Most people who argue for high FPS monitors are just in denial, believing they actually see a difference when it's just their subconscious not letting them admit that they paid extra for nothing (although I suspect a lot of them are outright lying and they know it). Maybe 1 person in a million can actually tell the difference between 100Hz and anything faster.

[Rocket]

We will be implementing full ultrawide support. For next beta weekend as a minium we have increased max FOV to 140, investigating the additional aspect ratio supports as well.