安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
So practical for everyone? Probably not. And if you have to ask maybe you're one of the probably-nots. (Don't worry I don't think it's practical for me either). But ultimately it's something customers have to decide for themsleves.
Anyway, I was just wondering if I'm in the majority or minority in terms of questioning the practicality of 32:9 screens.
I would need to relocate my PC but that's easy. I'd much rather have one monitor rather than 2.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3002759383
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3006928107
Distortion only happens if you set a very narrow fov in the option
The only impractical part of 32:9 monitor is it's expensive af
Well what I meant is you could play games in 16:9 or some other aspect ratio with black bars on the sides. I should have clarified that before ranging into productivity options of using screen regions or some other multi-desktop option.
You're in the majority of people who probably feel it's not practical.
You're probably in the minority of existing users or people who think/know it's practical.
This is not true at all