From a performance pov 5:4 might be better due to fov effectively being lower. Everything else is placebo.

Today using 1080p isn't really a problem anymore, unless you still use your very old PC, so I'm not saying 640x480 is lame, it used to be my all time favorite ='D, but 1080 is sharper, wider, and for a game like QL no performance impact. Highest 5:4 resolution I used was 1280x1024... But still I'm using native resolution only now.

Edit: on pro scene you meant on QL or in general? When I look at some cfg or POV videos I see that on QL and CS people still use 5:4 resolutions sometimes, reasons are personal or maybe there is no reason for some of them, I don't know. On BF3 I know some people use 5:4 resolutions too, because hehe, here it makes sense for performance.

so why does rapha e.g. play in 1280x1024? (youtube footage dreamhack)

because he's used to it, he also plays on the standard ql's cfg most of the time and that doesn't mean you have to do that too so u'd get better.
those are only visuals - same as aspect ratio

evil plays on 5:4 also, av3k, cypher afaik, if it will make you feel more like a pro why not then but it doesn't give any advantage

maybe you should provide sources for that to proof your point, because theres plenty for that he uses 16:9 (or 16:10)

DH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtXd7fM5Z_Q
IEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNXbxi_YLN0

to answer the initial question: there are no relevant pros or cons to neither. just stick to whatever you are used to and/or whats native to your monitor. some "pros" have stayed with what they started, some didnt. doesnt matter at all.

I thought he uses 1920x1080 D:

I guess most people would use 5:4 because they first played on it (I might be getting a bit old here) and aren't sure to get widescreen monitors during tournaments

there was a good post by lorfa that I read which said that the brain has different ways of chunking the screen space. a narrow resolution allows you to chunk the screen as a whole which offers a more focused experience.

Coming from a (professional) background in visual design and neurology, I would posit that this is personal preference. It's just as easy to 'chunk' (zone division) 16:9 as 5:4.

The additional zonal information seen with widescreen can be beneficial to your play and ability to target. There is no right or wrong, people's eyes/minds see and work differently.

Edit: for example, 5:4 would only have 'input' benefits if you sat in front of a screen in which the furthest edges of the screen sat in extreme positions in your peripheral vision. The retina - rods and cones - are less effective/accurate at the very edges.

Basically, have the gameplay in your 90º field of view (real eyes, not QL FOV) and you're set.

Should also be noted that 4:3 mimics the human eye’s field of view (155°h x 120°v)

16:10

4:3

/thread

I played 4:3 even on widescreen monitors until like maybe a year ago. I didn't want to change because my mouse felt so weird to me but eventually I said fuck it and did. Yeah at first it kind of sucked but you do get used to it, honestly I don't feel like 4:3 is much better considering once you go back, you feel like you lose a lot of field of view. but even just going back to 4:3 and changing your fov seems worse to me, the side of my eyes could see stuff on 16:9 that I couldn't on 4:3 unless my face is crammed in the 4:3 monitor

just say screw it and do what you want

I swapped to 16:9 a few weeks ago and at first it feels strange. If you take pictures and compare 4:3 and 16:9 all 16:9 does is give you more screen space.
Had to change my crosshair size but I got used to it. It's just better for QL. Not all games just add more screen space like ql but change your fov.

personal preference


/thread

Well for duelers it doesn't really matter, because all they have to do is focus on one guy, but if you play team based modes then you would want more space and a better FOV so you can see everything that goes around you and of course wide resolution is great for that.

I went from 640x480(17")-> 800x600(19")->1920x1080(21" wide).

16:10 is best ratio for gaming. Same horizontal with extra vertical. Can't think of a reason to use anything else for FPS and RTS. I will admit that 4:3 and 5:4 have unique feelings, though. You just have to get used to it when you switch.

.

Yeah you're correct. Although the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is negligible to some people. Input latency is a much bigger concern in my opinion.

What about 9:16 (or 10:16). Widescreen in portrait mode. Can you run like this?

Just gave it a try for fun. I found it really uncomfortable. You'd be surprised how tall/narrow a 16:9 monitor looks when its in portrait. Also if its a TN panel, the narrow viewing angle becomes a problem no matter where you sit.

Screenshots in case you were curious
http://drok-radnik.com/junk/9-16_fov100.jpg
http://drok-radnik.com/junk/9-16_fov130.jpg

Try 3 monitors in portrait now D: !

69 > all

I played on 5:4(1280x1024) with rare exception with 16:10 for few days then back to 5:4. Right now I was stubborn and didn't switch back and after 1m+ I aim/move/play better overall on 16:10(1680x1050). It's sharper, more view, just better. Otherwise: personal preference.

ah k, so you actually see more with a widescreen resolution.
what about the fov.

what fov do most of the duellers, who play on widescreen, use?
90 seemed pretty zoomed in and im currently playing on 100 (@1080p)

Was quite funny in some online tournament, can't remember which one or which players but it was duel. The pov player was obviously using 4:3 or 5:4 whilst the streamer was using 16:9/10 and you could clearly see the enemy at the edge of the screen yet the pov didn't react....

Dunno why people wouldn't use widescreen for the added space!?

zoom sensitivity algorithm is borked on anything but 4:3

The mechanics/results behind this?

I sent a write up to sponge about it, not sure if I should release is + it's badly BADLY written.

basically one of the values that gets pushed in to the zoom algorithm is wrong because they're still dealing with horizontal fov values, and the zoom algorithm is looking for the horizontal value at 4:3, but in one section of the zoom algorithm it gets a widescreen fov value and your sens is off.


The fix is to make sure it converts the value to the 4:3 equivalent or stop using horizontal fov values and start using vertical values.

if we start using vertical values the zoom algorithm will just be as simple as (zoomfov / basefov) * sens

Thanks. Seems the only workaround is to create your own fov/sens zoom script.

Or get used to it, of course :)

Yep, it's just a bit of a roundabout thing though, since every zoom fov will need a different cg_zoomsensitivity value at different aspect ratios.

i thought they fixed zoom for good with cg_zoomsensitivity 1 in ql? i know it's really weird behaviour in q3 depending on 4:3 AND viewsize for some reason. anyway, do you know how to get real value ala q3's cl_showmouserate 1?

zoomsens 1 vs. 0 is a different issue (0 uses old q3 algo).

zoomsens 1 is a much better algo, just happens to be broken at non 4:3 at the moment.

There is no showmouserate in QL unfortunately. (would have been useful for many of my experiments)

ok, i was under the impression thats why they made zoomsens 1(since zoomsens 0 is broken same way too, but prob alot of other ways, dno)

Too bad they removed showmouserate really, it was really useful, specially when you play zoomed.

It's also extremely useful for diagnosing problems exactly like this one!

a metre rule, a stable mouse/mousepad setup, and lots of trial and error.

kind of thing I think syncerror might be more interested in than sponge tbh, could be wrong though.

Well I idle on an IRC channel that sponge frequents, just sent it to him and he said he'd pass it on.

Ditto, tried linking them to this too but they're generally busy, I'm a fan of anything that improves control feel :)

I'm surprised that it's broken again. It was fixed before.

Simple way to test for it:

\m_yaw 360
\sensitivity 1
\cl_mouseaccel 0
\cg_fov 100
\cg_zoomfov 100

then +zoom. At 4:3 there is no perceived horizontal mouse input when zoomed.

At non 4:3 there is.

I'll PM you the writeup, for all I know they might've fixed it and said nothing.

Hmm, poking around with it. Looks like the sens is indeed coming out higher than it should be (noted in the writeup). You measured 28 cm/360, whereas the correct value was 33.8623 cm/360. (16:10 15cm/360 fov 100 zoomfov 50).

Seems like cg_zoomfov is being treated incorrectly (also noted in your write up).

If the user inputs cg_fov 90, it should internally become 106.26020470831. Should be the same for cg_zoomfov. That way if cg_zoomfov = cg_fov the sens would remain the same.

If cg_zoomfov and cg_fov are both set to x they appear identical when zooming and not though, so the zoomfov is being calculated correctly there. Just for some reason it gets put into the function modified somehow.

I wonder how crazy the results would be if an unmodified zoomfov were passed in. Hmm, nope it's not that at all (get 0.372).

It's getting ~0.535715 when it should get 0.442971.

That's pretty subtle. I wonder what's happening?

Can't it just put zoomfov through the same maths it puts fov through, and change the zoom calc algo to match the aspect ratio or am I missing something?

As I stated in my write up, converted fields of view are being chucked in to the zoom fov part of the zoom algorithm as far as I can tell, and I can't remember whether sponge confirmed if I was correct or not.

my guess is that they forgot to make sure it take the fov from the left side instead of the right when dealing with zoom fov, when:

fov 90 = 106.3 @ 16:9

where they actually made sure it was correct when dealing with base fov values.

I'm just waiting for the time that we start using vertical fov values instead of horizontal ones.....

It's worth noting that I came to the conclusion of the converted zoom fov value being thrown in by measuring cm/360, then using m_cpi's 360/sens trick to get the sensitivity value, and then looked for a zoom fov value that had the same sens value when comparing it to the base fov, because I don't think I made that part of the procedure that clear in my writeup, but, oh well.

As I stated in my write up, converted fields of view are being chucked in to the zoom fov part of the zoom algorithm as far as I can tell, and I can't remember whether sponge confirmed if I was correct or not.

It doesn't seem to be the case as I get a way off value if I do that.

One way that I can get very close to the erroneous value is to convert zoomfov an extra time.

So let's say user inputs some zoomfov and fov value, and they get converted such that they result in 50 and 100 respectively.

If zoomfov gets converted again (4:3 to 16:10), and becomes ~58.46 then the resulting k is close to the problematic case (with the ratios for 16:10), in fact it yields 28.5 cm instead of the reported 28 cm.

Er, upon reading your post again I think we might be saying the same thing.

yep

Temp fixes?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comm...best_zoom/
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuakeLive/comments/5...algorithm/

Issue come to affect with any aspect ratio that isn't 4:3.

does anyone have proper no border + crosshair for ql hud yet in 16:9

like dis http://i.imgur.com/QWClRYT.jpg

qlhud.net ??