16:10 aspect ratio monitor and PMDG 777

[777simmer 117]

Why?  I have been using 1920 x 1200 monitors for many years and and to my eyes they are just great for FSX - no issues whatsoever.

 

Bruceb

I like the 16:10 format of a 1920x1200 monitor better as well. I just looks more balanced optically.....I dont know how else to describe it.

 

The problem is that many FSX addon developers have choosen to create their graphics in 1920x1080 (16/9) format.

So if you display their cockpit on a 1920x1080 monitor or TV, round knobs are round and square things are square.

If you display the same texture on a 1920x1200 (16:10) display then the GPU or hardware in the monitor will STRECH your textures vertically. This makes round things look oval and square things rectangular.

 

Also, if you want to use 3 displays for NVIDIA 2D surround gaming or Matrox Tripplehead2go.....their max resolution is 3x1920x1080.

(3x1920x1200 was not supported last time I checked and so I have three unused 1920x1200 24" monitors sitting around.....:-( )

 

I have spoken to quite a few guys who are not bothered by this streching....but it does bother me and so my advice is to go with 1920x1080.

 Not sure why you'd say that. 1920x1200 gives you an extra 180 pixels of vertical space - I vastly prefer it to 16:9 displays.

Hi Ryan, see my post above. Am I wrong in that I thought that the PMDG cockpit textures are optimised for 1920x1080?

[777simmer 117]

So, I wanted to proove my streching point by posting a screenshot.

The top view is 1920x1080. This is a 46" SONY TV at its native resolution

The bottom 1920x1200. This is a DELL monitor at its native resolution.

I ran FSX in full screen mode and opened a second virual cockpit view that I mooved to the bottom monitor and enlarged it so it too fills out the whole display space.

Both are full screen views and both are at 100% zoom.

 

There is a difference, but I have to say I cant see streching, ore things not being square where they should be.

If anything the top picture looks less streched horizontally (I did not expect this!)

I think the defference is so small that either resolution is ok. (but the NVIDIA Surround gaming advantage with 1080 is still something to considder)

 

Comments Anybody?

 

EDIT: Oh my attached picture does not show. Anyone now how to upload a picture here?

Ok, got it now.

[777simmer 117]

Disregard

[Fabo 213]

 

 

Hi Ryan, see my post above. Am I wrong in that I thought that the PMDG cockpit textures are optimised for 1920x1080?

 

Textures are just textures, you would just see a bit more VC top and bottom. It was a valid concern when 2D panels were still made though.

 

It was a no brainer for me to go 1080... cheapest 24" 1200 monitor with parameters I would consider (contrast and light power were less than what I wanted, but it had input and technology that was important for me) was more than twice the price of 1080 24" LED monitor I went with. Cheapest 24" 1200 monitor even without the inputs I needed was still plus half the price...

[brucewtb 249]

Also, if you want to use 3 displays for NVIDIA 2D surround gaming or Matrox Tripplehead2go.....their max resolution is 3x1920x1080.

(3x1920x1200 was not supported last time I checked and so I have three unused 1920x1200 24" monitors sitting around....

 

 

Didn't know that. So if you want a multimonitor display you are restricted to a vertical resolution of 1080?  Hardly seems worth it would make for a very narrow  elongated display.

 

Bruceb

[777simmer 117]

Well, it is not that bad.

I mean better than just having one display :-)

 

I think you can also turn the display up vertically (3x1080x1920 high) because it is the same pixel count.

No idea if that is usefull though.

 

But I bought a 46" TV and have a huge VC with outside window now.

Then I move all 2D panels to two other monitors (cost almost no performance) and I am having a blast :-)

 

Thinking about it.....the resolution is actually not what makes this tripplehead2go view seem narrow....imagine if you would use three 46" TV with 3x1920x1080 :-) :-)

I dont think that would look narrow, it would look huge haha

[gboz 157]

Didn't know that. So if you want a multimonitor display you are restricted to a vertical resolution of 1080?  Hardly seems worth it would make for a very narrow  elongated display.

 

Bruceb

 

 

This is true of the Matrox TH but nVidia 2D surround can go to 3X 2560x1600 screens i.e. 7680x1600.

 

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/technology

(See bottom of page for 2D specs)

 

gb.

[777simmer 117]

This is true of the Matrox TH but nVidia 2D surround can go to 3X 2560x1600 screens i.e. 7680x1600. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/technology(See bottom of page for 2D specs) gb.

Ok, that is new for me. Last time I tried (year ago) it would not work with 2x1920x1200 nor with 3x1920x1200.

I either did something wrong or the software has been updated (I have GTX680)

[Tabs 2,790]

Rob,

 

VC textures are completely aspect ratio independent - the VC view is just a "camera" placed in the 3D world and the resolution is only going to determine how much of that world you can display. The horizontal field of view changes depending on the aspect ratio - maybe that's what you're seeing. If you go too far with the zoom and stuff you'll start to get the "fisheye" effect, but that's a different concept than aspect ratio.

 

The only part of an FS addon where designing for a particular resolution comes into play is with 2D panels and popups. In our case since the MD-11 those are made and designed for 16:10, not 16:9 - we all have 16:10 monitors here and it's what we like. They actually will look slightly compressed/distorted on 16:9 displays, not the other way around.

[777simmer 117]

In our case since the MD-11 those are made and designed for 16:10, not 16:9 - we all have 16:10 monitors here and it's what we like. They actually will look slightly compressed/distorted on 16:9 displays, not the other way around.

Ok, I got it all backwards then. And this explains why in my pictures above the top view (1920x1080) looks horizontally streched (or vertically compressed). Thx for clearing that up. Ok so I take my advice against a 1920x1200 monitor back. Post number six I think seems to be spot on with his remark :"I prefer 16:10 myself but up to a point a big 16:9 will usually be a better visual experience than a smaller 16:10."

Because even though my 46" TV is less ideal at 1920x1080 I would not want to miss it anymore :-)

[777simmer 117]

I use a pair of 30" 2560x1600 Dell 16:10 IPS monitors. There may be larger 16:10 monitors out there, but I am not familiar with them.Cheers

Hi Bob, a quick question please.

If you compare your 2560x1600 monitor to my 1920x1200 monitor at the same FSX zoom level......Do you see more area of the VC or are things just bigger?

[Bob Scott 7,720]

Hi Bob, a quick question please.

If you compare your 2560x1600 monitor to my 1920x1200 monitor at the same FSX zoom level......Do you see more area of the VC or are things just bigger?

With the same aspect ratio and zoom, the view on the SHD monitor will be a larger, more finely-detailed look at the same view.

 

For a good detailed discussion, see this video...relevant section starts at around the 4 minute mark:

 

 

Cheers

[777simmer 117]

With the same aspect ratio and zoom, the view on the SHD monitor will be a larger, more finely-detailed look at the same view.For a good detailed discussion, see this video...relevant section starts at around the 4 minute mark:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbCFNSofpkCheers

Thx I actually watched that movie several times already. I am still not sure what a single display with more pixels does to my view.

 

If you use the tripplehead2go or Nvidia 2D surround gaming on 3x1920x1080 displays youbactually do see more of the VC.

Not bigger but more :-)

 

But what does a single SHD display.

I figure it will also display more VC than a 1920x1080 would.

 

If this is true....,

Soon we will have 4K displays (I am thinking 50" TV here) available....and then you could pretty much display the complete VC from left to right from top of the fwd windscreen to the bottom of the instrument panel on a single display :-) :-)

And I mean at zoom 1.0 (100%) here, so without distortion!

 

Or am I thinking wrong here?

[Bob Scott 7,720]

The devil is in the details.

 

With the same aspect ratio and zoom, the view on the SHD monitor will be a larger, more finely-detailed look at the same view.

 

A triple-monitor display at 3x1920x1080 is treated as a single 5760x1080 display, which has an aspect ratio of 48:9, clearly not at all the same AR as either a 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 display, which both have a 16:10 AR. So yes, with WideAspectRatio=1 set in FSX, the vertical field of view is fixed (at ~35 deg with zoom=1.0), and the horizontal field of view is sized in relation to the size of the horizontal width (in pixels) on the monitor(s). So the triple display with a much-wider aspect ratio will display a much-wider horizontal field-of-view than a single display.

 

However, a 2560x1600 and 1920x1200 monitor both have the same aspect ratio, and at the same zoom setting they will display the same vertical and horizontal field angle. For any given zoom level, a 30" SHD monitor at 2560x1600 will display the same picture as a 26" 1920x1200 monitor, just larger and with finer detail.

 

Regards

[777simmer 117]

So yes, with WideAspectRatio=1 set in FSX, the vertical field of view is fixed at ~35 deg, and the horizontal field of view is sized in relation to the size of the horizontal width (in pixels) on the monitor(s). ........A 30" SHD monitor at 2560x1600 will display the same picture as a 26" 1920x1200 monitor, just larger and with finer detail.Regards

Ok thx very much...I finally get it :-) Too bad cause that just crushed my 4K dream :-(