i would love to play native 16:9 but i just cant, movement feels awkward and my aim is all messed up.

i play 4:3 with black bars, but i have to bring the monitor really close hahah or else i cant see shit it gets small.

only thing you can do is just play alot until you get used to it.
it will happen eventually.

Same but like I said, you have a massive disadvantage in certain angles. In ztn in rocket/YA room you don't see people coming from the right, or in aero it's filled with angles in which you don't see the enemy due black bars... FUCK.

Get a CRT.

thing is, i play in 4:3
but movies and youtube/ browsing the internet i use 16:9

no, i need the space.

Obviously as a second screen.

No space for extra CRT obviously, and my eyes hurt looking at CRT.

10 years 2 l8 m8

set the fov at least then everything should be around the same but your viewing area increases and yoda smiles : https://i.stack.imgur.com/jcBNn.jpg

Exactly. I never understand these threads the picture is exacltly the same with more on the sides and people choose instead to use black bars. 4:3 = 12:9 of your 16:9 its exactly the same so you dont even need to change FOV. I dont know what they try to adjust to there is nothing to adjust to.

Maybe what they need is those eye blinder cover things that race horses wear so they can just focus straight infront of them.

If you feel any different using 16:9 than 4:3 i would say the only thing it can be is that the screen size of the centre 12:9 has changed, or they are now sitting a different distance from screen.

I reduced fov from 100 -> 90, it's not exactly the result of the formula, because you'd lose additional vertical fov and that can be annoying.

Maybe reduce by 5 fov and see what you get. It will be a different feel anyway.

From what i've tested, to me, it looks the same, it just adds a wider field of view. I use fov 105, and the 4:3 area with fov 105 looks the same in 16:9, but without the side black bars, so that's good to go. I don't think im going to change the fov at all. I changed from 16:9 to 4:3 to get the advantage of a wider field of view, I dont want to reduce it again with a lower fov.

Now I just want to know about the mouse sens part.

You get +16 horizontal fov, otherwise everything else including sens/accel translates 1:1

Source?

Shoot green robot.

A problem i've overlooked. Since I use a mouse with a very old sensor (wmo) will it have problems with 1920x1080?

No.

No, but.

The only reason wmo begins to skip is when resolution and sensitivity is too high for its little 500dpi (450?) sensor. If you tried to use it at a res of 16000*9000 I can guarantee it would skip like crazy, but you arent using that much.

You need to keep thinking in terms of 4:3 (which is 12:9) and you can work it out.

1920pixels \ 16 = 120pixels
120pixels * 12 = 1440pixels

So you are now just playing at a 4:3 resolution of 1440*1080 with some extra on the sides that used to be off the edge of your screen. So if you were comming from say 800*600, then yes it will probably be skipping more at 1440*1080. Its all a matter how high mouse sensitivity is aswell.

edit: The only reason WMO got such a good reputation was because back then it was one of the only mice that had no prediction.

These days almost every gaming mouse has no prediction, so I dont really see the point of wmo anymore.

I guess it's mostly the shape, modern mouses suck.

https://medium.com/@lurppis/the-16-9-vs-4-3-a...7bd771b342

Stop thinking too much about settings and such.

Just set up a new FOV (or just leave it as it is), tweak your sens a bit, leave the mathematical formulas to czm and go by feel. Less care, more gameplay.

I would not touch sensitivity at all. His 360 stays the same no matter the fov is.

I found that ultra-precise sens matching and calculating is just overrated. Always go by the feel, no matter the game. If it feels slow on 16:9, then just crank it up a little a bit. Piff-puff, 5 minutes of bot match, fine, whatever, case closed.

Used to dwell on these things a lot, but they just don't really matter that much.

Did you check how exactly fov applies to different resolutions? So if you used 1440px pixels for fitting angle of 100 degrees, is it now the same view stretched to 1920px? If vertical fov is kept the same you should receive the same image in the middle of the screen with fov 133 to recreate fov 100 from 4:3, but it kinda seems ridiculously high so probably there are other factors that I don't see without testing it live.

The Quake engine bases fov off the vertical, that is to say vertical fov is locked and cant be changed, unless you use 5:4 or 16:10 then I think it has to slightly change how much vertical you see.

Going from 4:3 to 16:9 is no vertical change as 4:3(*3) = 12:9 so its just more on the sides.

When you use 4:3 @ 90fov you hit 90 degrees at the edge of the screen, When you use 16:9 @ 90fov you hit 90 degrees at exactly the same place which is 12:9 of the 16:9

So actually 90 fov at 16:9 gives you more view angle than 90 degrees but the same pixel aspect ratio? That would explain why I didn't change fov why I upgraded from CRT 4:3 to LCD 16:9.

Yea

It must be a mindfuck then, because I felt sens a bit different.

How about sens for a lower fov?

For instance, sens 3 for fov 105

what sens to get same feel in 90 fov for the railgun?

But it just isnt really any different. I made a few posts explaining why and the image that _dre_ posted comment #4 shows why it isnt any different.

Really all that has changed is your resolution to 1440*1080 with more on the sides. It would be like changing from 800*600 to 1024*768 and now to 1440*1080. You could cover edges of screen with cardboard and the image will be exactly as it was 4:3.

It would be good to know what resolution you were using at 4:3 - one easy mistake might be that you were using 1280*1024 previously? because that isnt 4:3 its 5:4 and so then you would expect to feel different now.

Also I dont think all monitors are the same shape. Two 4:3 screens from different manufactureres might both have 4:3 resolution but not actually be the same shape, and also distance from screen is important for getting same feeling. Nothing else I can think of.

Edit: Too add to that. Take a generic old square LCD screen the type everybody used to have.

Those screen can do the resolution 1024*768 which is 4:3. They can also do the resolution 1280*1024 which is 5:4. So which shape is it? because the monitor only has one shape but fits two different aspect ratios into that shape. Point of story being even aspect ratio can be warped to different aspects by the manufacturer, or just by switching resolution.

Well my previous monitor was a 2233rz so 16:10

but still, it was whatever higher resolution had a 4:3 scale.

In fact I have just checked my cfg before I modified these settings:

seta r_customwidth "1280"
seta r_customheight "960"

so 4:3 if im not mistaken.

It's probably my brain being tricked because of playing with a 4:3 res for 15 years.

Yea that is 4:3 because 1280 / 4 = 320 then 320 * 3 = 960

But unless you had black on the sides, and also on the top/bottom because 960 is not going to reach top to bottom with 1280*960 then you were stretching the aspect to the edges of screen? then your aspect was completely out of wack previously and is probably why you feel weird now.

Sorry I am probably missing info to say anything for certain about it.

How it should be....

4:3 means your picture should be 33% wider than it is tall because 4 is 33% more than 3

5:4 means 25% wider.

The quake engine is always going to keep vertical fov constant, so at 5:4 you see less on edges than you do at 4:3, just for example.

You can really get any aspect you choose, for example 1920*768 should give black bars top and bottom and be ultra wide screen horizontal.

Idk what else sorry, think about the maths of the ratios and it should begin to make sense.

I was using black borders around the corners with sizedown, because I wanted the old school 17 inch CRT beside 4:3. In fact I still don't use full screen even with native 16:9 1080p, i use a corner, I dont remember what cvar was it to attach a value ot it. I just don't need the screen to be that big, better to need to move my eyes less and have it all more centered.

Do you have any comments on this?

http://www.esreality.com/post/2920313/does-cg...-or-accel/

Just keep playing, and you'll get used to it.