Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Why do you think we will limit ourselves to a monitor?
I'm still somewhat sceptical about this, it will prob take few more generations of VR hardware to be the proper VR experience. The current kits dont seem to be that impressive and could use some tweaking and getting rid of the early kinks.
Try this. Go to the beach. Sit down. Start counting how many grains of sand you can see next to you, till the next wave comes. Repeat. (grains of sand = pixels | wave = refresh rate)
We need retina display (where the human eye can no longer count between pixels) but we don't actually need 4K or 8K, etc - Unless the monitor is huge 36 inches minimum (just for UltraHD 4K).
UltraWide is more immersive as it surrounds you a bit more (so long the game supports it), but then again still not quite.
Now take a simple app like Pokemon Go - a lazy human being actually gets off their butt, goes outside and explores... just to get hit by a car. It's full immersive.
It's just the resolution needs to be retina and the movement needs to be controlled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cML814JD09g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTtfAQEeAJI
Sure, it's early stages, but it is here to stay and only can get better.
I used to run a 3 screen setup but I find the ultrawide much better as even though it isn't as wide an FOV you do not have the bezels which distract from the image a bit.
1080p Ultra-Wide isn't enough.
However, 1440p Ultra-Wide is quite immersive... I personally would ONLY go for one of these:
- Asus ROG Swift PG348Q
- Acer Predator X34
IPS Panel = Richer and brighter colours
G-SYNC = Syncs with Nvidia graphic cards up to 100Hz
It's like two monitors side-by-side without edges. Great space to work upon and wide screen gaming is nice too. Some apps/games/movies however won't fit the aspect ratio, therefore you get black edges on the sides with those, that is something you have to learn to live with. Latest games, like Tomb Raider 2016, will look impressive. Ideal you want a high-end graphics card to keep up, but it's not as demanding as 4K and the monitor appears larger in most cases.
As for UltraHD 4K, wait till end of this year for higher refresh rates. Still not worth it at the moment. Ignore monitors smaller than 36 inches, to make the PPI (pixel per inch density) worth your while. You would want a minimum GTX 1080 or GTX 980 SLI to run that. Best bet is to actually wait for Nvidia Volta (which is another huge leap after Pascal) graphic cards.
Even Nvidia Pascal has been moving from the standard 2D image generation, to creating 12 3D objects in a single pass which light, sound, and physics can bounce between realisticity.
Lets both of them will have z inches diagonal.
First will have x1 width and y1 height while second will have x2 width and y2 height.
We know that they have the same diagonal, so x1^2+y1^2=x2^2+y2^2=z^2
x1/y1=21/9. x2/y2=4/3
Lets compare their screen areas which equal width*height.
I.e. we should calculate x2*y2/(x1*y1). It is pretty obvious that this ratio does not depend on the screen diagonal.
x1^2+(9/21*x1)^2=x2^2+(3/4*x2)^2
After simplication we get that 58/49*x1^2=25/16*x2^2
While x2*y2/(x1*y1) = x2* 3/4*x2/(x1*9/21*x1)=3/4*9/21*x2^2/x1^2=7/4*x2^2/x1^2
We can substitute x2 from previous equation and get that screen area ratios is 7/4*58/49*16/25=232/175=1.32571
I.e. 4:3 screen has nearly 1/3 more area than 21:9 with the same diagonal.
Say you were going from a 4:3 19" monitor, you would get a say a 29" 21:9 so the vertical height is about the same and therefore end up with a larger area. At the end of the day you are replacing a square with a retangle so the diagonal needs to be longer to maintain the height.
Regardless, 4K is WAY over priced right now, we all seen what happened to 1080P flat screens. They used to be like $3-4000 when they came out, now you can get a 65" Samsung for around ~$600. If you're buying 4K or VR right now, you're paying a massive premium. In a year you will see equivelent of both technologies for probably a few hundred dollars.
3440 > 2560
1440 = 1440
Pushing 4,953,600 pixels versus 3,686,400.
Thats approx 35% increase in pixels.
UltraHD 4K (3840 x 2160) vs Ultra-wide QHD (3440 x 1440)
3840 > 3440
2160 > 1440
Pushing 8,294,400 pixels verus 4,953,600.
Thats approx 40% increase in pixels. UltraHD 4K is 4 times 1080p resolution.