ultrawide monitor as tv???

[Witski]

Im seriously thinking on going big or go home by buying an Samsung odyssey g9 neo but at the same time I don't know what to do with my current uw 3440x1440 monitor,so i thinked to slap it in the kitchen/lunch-dining room and use it as a regular tv by using a dtv-2 or smart thing,but how the images will be? Everything with black bars?
Atm the programs here are just hd and even then is nothing special imo,any thoughts?

[Soulreaver]

Well, beside the relatively famous LG CX OLED's (16:9) there is the lesser known 38" UW.

That's what I own.

Same aspect ratio as 34" but ~25% bigger. Especially verticaly that was what sold it to me as I found 34" to narrow in height.
But it's surface area is 17% smaller than the G9 so if it's just about surface area or width the G9 is the better choice. Although 38" is still higher than the G9.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por AiR-Soulreaver:

The G9 has 7.4 mil. Pixels and 4k is 8.3 mil.

So in general it's a bit easier to run than 4k. But probably not noteworthy.

That's true if pixel fill rate or something is the limitation, but people often overlook that a wider aspect ratio has more it is actually drawing for both the CPU and GPU as well, so with a pixel count somewhat close to but a bit less than 4K, I'd imagine the wider aspect ratio might often be more difficult to drive.

Escrito originalmente por The:

16:9 was set as the TV standard. For some reason it rolled over to PCs, but there's no reason why 16:9 should be considered the PC standard.

Probably had to do with cost of manufacturing the panels? Or just consolidating things? I'm not sure, but as someone who preferred 16:10 over 16:9 when it started replacing everything, I also found it disappointing, but that's something that long passed so oh well.

TV just went from 4:3 to 16:9, but PCs went from 4:3 to 5:4 to 16:10 to 16:9, and now other ones (like 21.5:9) aren't too niche anymore.

[Witski]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por AiR-Soulreaver:

The G9 has 7.4 mil. Pixels and 4k is 8.3 mil.

So in general it's a bit easier to run than 4k. But probably not noteworthy.

That's true if pixel fill rate or something is the limitation, but people often overlook that a wider aspect ratio has more it is actually drawing for both the CPU and GPU as well, so with a pixel count somewhat close to but a bit less than 4K, I'd imagine the wider aspect ratio might often be more difficult to drive.

Escrito originalmente por The:

16:9 was set as the TV standard. For some reason it rolled over to PCs, but there's no reason why 16:9 should be considered the PC standard.

Probably had to do with cost of manufacturing the panels? Or just consolidating things? I'm not sure, but as someone who preferred 16:10 over 16:9 when it started replacing everything, I also found it disappointing, but that's something that long passed so oh well.

TV just went from 4:3 to 16:9, but PCs went from 4:3 to 5:4 to 16:10 to 16:9, and now other ones (like 21.5:9) aren't too niche anymore.

Time to make 21:9 32:9 more standard!
Im amazed how some devs are so lazy to make it work when games from 2007? nativelly supports all aspects rateos without patching.Most of the time is just a hex edit,i don't ask for cutscenes and everything but at least this can be done easily enough imo.

Look at Elden Ring,it clearly supports 21:9,there's some work done on it but they decided to stick fake black bars while behind it the game still renderds and eating resources,to make it work we need to play it offline with eac disabled and game modded,such a shame,meanwhile supreme commander,which is from 2007 have native support for it,i think wow had it too alongside a lot other games,then god of war comes praising it self because they have done a mandatory homework lol

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por Witski:

Time to make 21:9 32:9 more standard!

I'm all for things supporting more things, but I hope those don't become the most common, de-facto standard ratios/resolutions in which everything is made with them in mind. I'll let my preference for 16:10 over 16:9 despite the "mere" difference between them be a clue as to why.

I find those ultra-wide monitor great substitutes for those wanting horizontal multi-monitor view spaces (namely, increased peripheral/immersion for games, ultra wide cinema stuff, or a preference for a work space of that orientation) but I hope it never becomes the standard.

Escrito originalmente por Witski:

Im amazed how some devs are so lazy to make it work when games from 2007? nativelly supports all aspects rateos without patching.

That's not actually how it was in 2007 though. It was all over, with some things supporting it, and some things not, much like today. And it's not like in 2007, games from that year were all that mattered, so you had a plethora of older games that were still relevant. For every Supreme Commander (using your example), there was a Battle Fore Middle Earth II. 2007 was no bastion of perfect widescreen support, very far from it. Back then (including the still relevant content from years prior), things were still often made for 4:3 by default, and took some work to get many of them working with the then-new widescreen ratio of 16:10, and often times it'd come with some side effects. If you were lucky, you could edit a settings or options file with a text editor and be on your way... until you changed settings again. Often times though, more work might be incurred (patches or backing up files as you replace them with community edited assets, and good luck in cases with online, competitive, fairness, etc. was involved here), and this might impact cut-scenes, the FOV, the UI, the camera zoom, etc., etc. Often times it might not just work well as the game simply didn't present information needed (which is why vert- instead of hor+ was the default fallback in a lot of cases)

The widescreengaming.com website pretty much came about because of this issue back then, and then sort of lost some relevance a bit later on as basically widescreen was now the established norm until these new even wider displays started to become a thing.

[Witski]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por Witski:

Time to make 21:9 32:9 more standard!

I'm all for things supporting more things, but I hope those don't become the most common, de-facto standard ratios/resolutions in which everything is made with them in mind. I'll let my preference for 16:10 over 16:9 despite the "mere" difference between them be a clue as to why.

I find those ultra-wide monitor great substitutes for those wanting horizontal multi-monitor view spaces (namely, increased peripheral/immersion for games, ultra wide cinema stuff, or a preference for a work space of that orientation) but I hope it never becomes the standard.

Escrito originalmente por Witski:

Im amazed how some devs are so lazy to make it work when games from 2007? nativelly supports all aspects rateos without patching.

That's not actually how it was in 2007 though. It was all over, with some things supporting it, and some things not, much like today. And it's not like in 2007, games from that year were all that mattered, so you had a plethora of older games that were still relevant. For every Supreme Commander (using your example), there was a Battle Fore Middle Earth II. 2007 was no bastion of perfect widescreen support, very far from it. Back then (including the still relevant content from years prior), things were still often made for 4:3 by default, and took some work to get many of them working with the then-new widescreen ratio of 16:10, and often times it'd come with some side effects. If you were lucky, you could edit a settings or options file with a text editor and be on your way... until you changed settings again. Often times though, more work might be incurred (patches or backing up files as you replace them with community edited assets, and good luck in cases with online, competitive, fairness, etc. was involved here), and this might impact cut-scenes, the FOV, the UI, the camera zoom, etc., etc. Often times it might not just work well as the game simply didn't present information needed (which is why vert- instead of hor+ was the default fallback in a lot of cases)

The widescreengaming.com website pretty much came about because of this issue back then, and then sort of lost some relevance a bit later on as basically widescreen was now the established norm until these new even wider displays started to become a thing.

Doesn't need to be "standard" as if will be the only aspect ratio,just supported fully as all the other rateos,if some random dude can do it day one in minutes/hours i don't see why the devs couldn't spend that amount of time to cater to uw users,all in all they will make more money than what they spend to support such resolution and aspect rateo than not doing anything

You are right,weren't that perfect back then but still it was a thing,even indie devs fully supports it,i still can't find an unsupported game these days,except elden ring,i don't buy a lot of games but so far is what i encoutered so far (bandai namco hates uw tho,no game of theirs supports it,they wait for remastered,same for some japanese games,at least those i tried)

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Many game devs don't cater to Ultra-wide because most of those devs who might not care are simply making games for Consoles and then maybe doing a PC port.

[Illusion of Progress]

Oh, yeah, I'm all for everything being perfectly supported in an ideal world, but there's often many considerations we as consumers might not think of which prevent this sometimes.

For example, "effort in getting it working" isn't always the hurdle/reason it isn't done, so saying "some third party random gets it 'working' so why can't developers" isn't always the reason it's not supported to begin with. Sure, sometimes it might be "laziness", for lack of better terms. Sometimes though it might simply be because 16:9 is the target ratio, and deviations from that incur other considerations that become more common or pronounced the further you deviate from it. Keep in mind, 16:9 to something times and a half to twice as wide are major, not subtle, differences, and that can add a lot of considerations.

And I think you're giving the late 2000s time frame too much credit. It was a "thing" like it is today, where support is all over. Stuff like Peggle (2007) and Plants vs Zombies (2009) were 4:3 locked on PCs IIRC (not sure if it later changed). Why? Because stuff like that just didn't have the assets for ratios wider than that as the levels and screen information was made for 4:3 (I think the later Xbox 360 release of one of them, Plants vs Zombies I think, did support wider resolutions), and besides cutting off information on the top and bottom (vert-), which isn't ideal, how do you force wider without the necessary information to fill it in? I get that blank space is not fun, but in the current landscape where there is such a huge gap in width between the standard (16:9) and some of the wider options (up to 32:9 I guess?), I wouldn't expect all games will be able to gracefully deal with this.