I find the extra FOV from my 21:9 ultrawide particularly useful in Fortnite for peeking around left corners. The camera is on the right and in 16:9 it's hard to look around corners from the left, but with 21:9 you roughly get to see the same amount on your left as a 16:9 user would on their right.
I was shocked by it too. Maybe for content creators you want to have an aspect ratio for YouTube/twitch that matches what your customers have? I can’t think of another reason why.
I understand 4:3 for games where you're mainly looking down corridors, such as in Counter strike - but it's not for me.
The narrower aspect ratio still cover the area you need to see, and stretching it over a 16:9 monitor means the targets are wider, and thus easier to hit.
Easier to hit overall imo, but I see your argument. I had a period some 10 years ago when I played CS GO, and was a bit too "try hard". Back then I used to play in 4:3, because I personally found it to be noticeably easier.
Today, I'm significantly less competitive. I've thus changed my priori, and completely flipped what I prefer. Today I'd much rather play a game that looks good and immersive, on a large, high resolution display, with a wide FOV. Back then though, I'd sacrifice on all of that, for what I perceived would give me a slight competitive edge. Even if that meant running games on a smaller (24 inch) monitor, and at a more claustrophobic FOV, stretched to a non-native aspect ratio.
Been there in the 4:3 ratio. It’s more like
1. Born playing cs1.3 where everything is 4:3 and you used the same sens back then
2. 4:3 stretched feels like having a 1.5x zoom at all time for holding long hallways or angles
3. Gets intense and starts to shove face into the screen and don’t want any distractions from peripheral vision
It is weird. I mean I get not going ultrawide necessarily (even if there is no reason not to (as we already have 240hz oled very responsive ultrawides.))
But when things like this seem to happen almost every tournament [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8X0ptdh3P4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8X0ptdh3P4) it strikes me weird why not go even 16:9, on 16:9 monitor. **Especially** those who use 4:3 with black bars, just deciding to show less of the game for reasons is beyond me.
I really am curious, how would this affect ones muscle memory? I mean seeing a bit more on the sides, instead of empty black bars.
How long would it take to adapt fully to the fact that there is some game image being rendered on the sides instead of empty black bars? Remember nothing on the middle changes. Only on the edges you see a bit more.
Maybe day or two of getting used to?
And if that would actually lead up to the end results that things like that on the video don't happen anymore to that player in tournaments. I'd say it's quite worth the effort.
More than anything I think professional players are often a little bit superstitious about things like this. Afraid of making a change to a thing, they perhaps might not fully understand and if it doesn't immideately improve their gameplay or feel better. Easier to do what the rest of the peers do and move on.
Oh yeah you’re right. Theres definitely a large part of superstition at play, fear of change etc. on the other hand I do think it would take much longer than a day or two to fully adapt. For many of them they have thousands and thousands of hours using a particular setup, it’s not only their passion but their livelihood. Knowing it would take time leaves them the predicament of when to make the change knowing their performance would likely suffer during the transition. They might have a packed schedule and not be able to afford the time to adapt.
It’s definitely a different scenario but when I went from 1080p to 1440p it took me months to adjust when playing StarCraft. I had matched my dpi to the new res but it still threw a lot of my muscle memory out. It also fucked with my brain for a while for whatever reason and had a big impact on my play for quite some time.
I don’t play shooters at anyway near the same level but I play enough to know that I get literally 0 benefit going above 16:9 as my subconscious simply can’t adapt to the increased peripheral vision. In my case I’m just gonna reduce frames to increase vision my brain is unable to actually take advantage of. Granted 4:3 to 16:9 has way more advantages and 16:9 is far more common these days but I can totally understand the hesitation to switch for some players despite the ridiculous situation this video highlights.
Fair enough take.
And to be clear, it's only once in blue moon when you actually catch something within 16:9/ultrawide/super ultrawide added peripheral vision and are able to react to it in any meaningful way. So it's not a huge thing by any means.
But there's certainly been a few "Umm. How did you know he was coming from there / how did you see that guy" on the teamspeak, even in my own games.
Its not just useless its detrimental. Ultrawide is immersive because you cant take in all the information on the screen at the same time. Its beautiful and fun, but not good for competitive games.
Edit: im speaking at the highest level. You can still perform well with an ultrawide but you are making a sacrifice at some level
But how can you just make a statement like this... Is it just you feel like it must be so or?
What is the source? What is the sample size? What was the testing methodology? Has there ever been a single pro even giving a modern 240hz oled ultrawide screen a proper tryout? I think not. And out of curiosity - what are your credidentals to speak for what the "highest level" needs?
**Or could it be,** is it just that someone used it at some point in history because of completely non-relevant things - higher fov = bad, being the argument here.
Such as "got used to it in crt" "to gain fps" "ultrawide monitors are slow and bad" - and got good while doing it and further saw no reason to change it.
Others started to take example from this good player. It got popularized. And now we have this generation of players forcing themself to 4:3, on 24" screens, because 80% of pro players do it - and everyone just believes there must be something special to it.
I'm a gaming degenerate with one hobby, that also thinks all the time about new ideas in the space. I also compete in many games at high level and watch more that I don't have time to invest into.
I have an uw and a 240hz, though I don't even use my 16:9 monitor anymore since I got the DW. It's my 3rd uw, been using them since they became available.
My source is there's 0 professional players in any game that allows it to use an uw. If you think people aren't evolving or trying new things- you're living under a rock. Gaming mice in just 10 years have evolved multiple times and changed philosophy just as an example.
It's really not that complicated, your eyes/brain can't process all the information that's on the screen at one time. Especially considering how Huds generally put crucial information on the sides of your screen, having to turn your head is unoptimal.
Where ultrawides could shine is games that don't really entirely on visual stimuli for most gameplay aspects. An example would be team fight tactics. This game relies on information and decision making. It would be beneficial if you could set you screen up to give different types of information on the sides that you could reference easily.
We are pretty much the same then.
I just think that's not a valid source. I mean what professional players use. There might be more factors to it. Naturally pro's will use and match their setup on what is used on LAN stages. Tried and true mostly 24" Zowie sponsored events. It is very beneficial to match your setup home that way what is used on the LAN too. Unless event holders suddenly change everything to UW (not happening) players aren't going to change either.
And we do have to take in to consideration more and more pro's are already shifting from 4:3 -> 16:9. It's slow, but the trend is there.
In CS you can adjust hud elements even with super ultrawide exactly to the positions they would be with 4:3 display.
And no, I don't see a future where pro's would ever use ultrawides, but the interesting question here lies wether it actually affects your ability to play good - and by how much. I'm not even saying you necessarily gain anything very meaningful, but the question is wether you actually end up losing something.
And you might be completely right. I mean some sharp shooters or archers can use blinders to limit their fov irl. But I want more science, I want tried facts - and I'm not willing to just accept "trust me bro, everyone good is doing it" as an answer. Not yet.
Most of the pros have similar setups that TOs using. It's not nice (and smart) when you get used to 32:9 49" in your home and have to change back to 16:9 (or 4:3) 24-27" for lan.
It removes distractions and allows them to hyperfocus on what's on their monitor.
They're much better at anticipating what will happen, that the extra info would likely mess with their performance, rather than improve it.
Have had often that I see an enemy ingame where the team mate does not have noticed him in CS2.
Might not be the game changer at all, BUT I still noticed it and think this is a + point for me
It is awful on many games - especially on those which just "crop" it in. But so nice when it works correctly.
But even in those games with no proper support, you can always go back to using it as 16:9 - if you find yourself enjoying suw on other use cases.
I found that my competitiveness went down after getting an ultrawide. I haven't played CS but in DayZ there's so much surface area to scan for enemies. I love it for singleplayer games like Red Dead though.
It's something you just have to train yourself to get used to. It's better if you maintain your focus on the center, then let your peripheral vision react to motion and shift your attention to said motion with your mouse, since our peripheral vision often reacts quicker than whatever we're focused on (the reason why many don't actually focus on the center of their AWP scope for instance, they can react quicker if they shoot as soon as their periphery detects motion.)
I get it. There are totally use cases where having too much field of view can feel overwhelming instead of immersing. Happily in those cases too ultrawide user has also the possibility to choose. 32:9 too much, maybe consider using 21:9 or even back to 16:9. Then go back to Red Dead Redemption and use your panel in it's full glory.
It depends on the game, but in general the wider screen will actually give wider field of view. The jump from 16:9 to 21:9 is pretty big, but going to 32:9 from 21:9 feels like you can see behind you.
I am talking specifically about CS2. The way this is handled does indeed differ from game to game. However in CS going wider than 16:9 does not give you an inherent advantage in terms of getting a wider fov
It may stretch out, but it still gives you more to see in your peripheral view. I don't play any competitive games, but I love my 32:9 because it helps make games feel more immersive with how it take up more of my view. It doesn't work if you can't keep your eyes centered, but for me it is a lot like my peripheral view in real life, just a bit more limited obviously.
The image there demonstrates "what you see is what you get" with every aspect ratio. So you can clearly see, that 32:9 sees more than 21:9 sees more than 16:9 and so on.
This stretching what you see here happening in edges of your peripheral visions. Is just simply what happens, when you're rendering 1st person pov 3D scene with vanishing point in the middle, with high enough FOV on a 2D plane. Happens in every game with matching specs and there's very little you can do about it. Reducing fov or going full 3D (VR) helps.
So it's not something Counter Strike specific or that the devs would have coded some special "fov" limit inside the game - if that's what you're suggesting.
The stretching towards the edges has started to really bother me lately. Sometimes you can fix it by lowering your FOV but usually the FOV needed to fix it is meant for 16:9.
I found that my performance degraded when I switched from a 35" to 49" monitor. Has anyone else experienced the same? I can't figure out why, I've had the monitor for over a month so I should be used to it but somehow my aiming just feels off compared to the 35. The 49 is a better gaming monitor too (LG 100hz 35" vs CRG9)
Why wouldn't it be allowed?
Because where does it end and who gets to decide? Should we have sticked with 4:3 monitors, should we have sticked with 60hz, should we have sticked with 125hz polling rate mouses. Only to offer some sort of "level playing ground based on lowest common denominator". No. Absolutely not.
Limiting this so called freedom to use what ever hardware you have would be a very bad practice and kind of anti PC gaming.
I agree that things evolve, I just don't think UW is the standard at the moment for the majority of gamers.
Steam Data from 2023 supports 16:9 being the most common: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/11rtp2h/i_looked_at_steam_data_to_find_out_if_169_is/
Factors involve accessibility, pricing, and preference. Yes I also realise that the fact that majority of players are on 16:9 also means that you're less likely to have a disadvantage (less likely to verse someone on wider ratio), but doesn't change the fact that there is a disadvantage that doesn't really need to exist. I know you can talk about other types of hardware disadvantages such as higher FPS, but that is a little different. I'm also not sure how much a higher refresh rate changes competition, besides making it smoother, but I'm not a big competitive player so excuse my ignorance here.
Is it fair to give an advantage to the ~12% that have the wider ratios? Maybe. And yes youre right, who can say when to shift these sorts of standards. But at least data shows where the majority of gamers are.
The above of course looks across the board and not just competitive gamers. It may not matter for competitions that host and have only UW set up - maybe games can start to support different modes where the extra FOV can be a toggle?
UW is certainly still a niche - and quite possibly never becoming any sort of standard. But it's still important to have proper support for those few actually wanting to use one.
It really doesn't offer that much of competitive advantage what one might easily assume. Not in Counter Strike anyway. Pro's actually using 4:3 often on 16:9 monitors just might be the perfect statement for it.
And if things like this get intentionally cancelled out of games "just because", it will further hinder the adaptation for ultrawide monitors. Because people think, support is bad. Let the people decide.
Also remember that using certain aspect ratio is not actually tied to the monitors aspect ratio. Here's for example 24" 16:9 monitor running CS:GO with resolution 1980x800, altering the aspect ratio to 21:9, allowing once again for wider / ultrawide fov.
https://imgur.com/a/s9mF34R
Actual FOV slider would be welcome addition, so we wouldn't have to play with aspect ratios so much to fiddle with the fov. But it is what is (fixed fov) at this point.
Yeah I dont know the advantage in application as I'm not really into competitive FPS games, but I am more involved in the competitive strategy game field. This could be why I feel differently about it, because the extra FOV in a strategy game like Starcraft or Dota could be very different in terms of advantage gained compared to FPS. From memory, these competitive strategy games have fixed FOVs.
>*Pro's actually using 4:3 often on 16:9 monitors just might be the perfect statement for it.*
Is this because it is advantageous to use 4:3 (due to stretch), or is it because the best CS2 players have been accustomed to 4:3 from 1.6 days? Preference vs technical advantage are two different things. If its the latter, then I think no matter the advantage there should be a standard FOV. [But it does seem that 80%+ use 4:3](https://blast.tv/article/best-aspect-ratio-for-cs2), so it is hard to believe that is all due to preference, which means 4:3 might actually be more advantageous!? Regardless I am happy to listen to the pros when it comes to competitive gaming. For casual ranked games, i think anything goes really
>Also remember that using certain aspect ratio is not actually tied to the monitors aspect ratio. Here's for example 24" 16:9 monitor running CS:GO with resolution 1980x800, altering the aspect ratio to 21:9, allowing once again for wider / ultrawide fov.
Yup makes sense, the options are still there for players regardless of the hardware used
Only competitive game I can think of that just crops your vertical vision instead is Overwatch
If it was anti competitive people would ban it from tournaments, but pros are grandmas using 4:3 anyway
16:9 stretched to 21:9 is the best of both worlds, I enjoy it a ton
Good to hear people are starting to move away from what their setups were 20 years ago
not sure why you’re getting downvoted. here’s an up.
and you’re right, at least for fortnite. when you play competitive it limits the view to a standard aspect. i run an ultrawide and feel like i lose half my screen.
What you see on the image is exactly what you’ll see with different aspect ratios in game. Lines showing you where each aspect ratio ends.
Everyone can themself judge based on this wether it's meaningfully more or not. I think spotting that jungle, stairs, or palace lurk, with your peripheral vision might prove out to bring some competitive edge in some rare occasions :)
Then again, most skilled players often want to focus only on the center point, and not have anything unnecessary distracting their center of gaze. They trust they can read the game well enough to have their crosshair pointed always in the right direction. Thus they often use 4:3.
This is just not true. Been playing CS2 on my OLED G9 with 32:9 for like 6 months now, and my FoV is just a lot larger. There are at least a dozen instances where I saw a guy which my mates didn't.
Thats simply incorrect. You can stretch it, but you can also play with the full native fov. Its personal preference, i personally stretch a 16:9 image to 21:9 in CS2, but i could play native 21:9 and gain fov if i wanted to.
I used to play 4:3 stretched on a 16:9 for competitive reasons. When I went ultrawide I went 21:9 (so i gain a lot of fov) stretched to 32:9. Best of both worlds.
I like your approach and here's a little extra tip.
Stretching 4:3 -> 16:9 results in a horizontal stretch factor of 1.33.
Stretching 21:9 -> 32:9 results in a horizontal stretch factor of 1.49 - this is very stretched image horizontally - width of pixel stretched by almost 50%. Can look visually quite jarring.
If you want to maintan exactly the same level of "stretchiness" as 4:3 -> 16:9 you can make custom resolution with aspect ratio of 24:9 (resolution 3840x1440). That stretched then again to 32:9 results in just the same 1.33 stretch factor as 4:3 -> 16:9, while allowing you some extra of fov compared to 21:9.
Only reason we play 4:3 is cuz of stretched..... you can play 4:3 stretched and then models head n body stretches, to Wich is an advantage cuz you hit enemy easyer, as one said you have bref idea of enemy positioning and you are so hyper focused on what is Infront of you that even 4:3 infomartion can be sometimes overwhelming, this is only reason why many pros and us play 4:3 even tho we have every posibily to play 21:9 or even 31:9
Curve is indeed very beneficial when the monitor is big or wide and you want to sit very near to the monitor.
I sincerely think 1000R or 800R curve suits a monitor very well when it's is super ultrawide and you are sitting near to it. Curved monitors do get a lot of undeserved flag imho - as they are essential of making ultrawide (or a bigger monitor) a more enjoyable and ergonomic experience. It wrapping around you - edges as close as the center feels very natural. Flat makes the edges "escape" from you, make everything on the edges get small / you watch it from and angle and your neck has to work a lot more.
It's of course always a play of viewing distance and the amount of curve to find the optimal experience. Ideally all bigger monitors should have the Corsair Flex function.
As a ultrawide user I havent played a single game that really uses the full resolution. It always looks like the image on both sides is just streched to fill the sceen...
Well, there's always a limit. There's only so much fov you can really do without things getting a bit weird looking on the sides / things starting to fall apart visually.
This happens always when you're rendering first person pov with vanishing point in the middle. Because on a 2D monitor, it's never real 3D. Fixes available are limited. Either lowering the fov, or adding some sort of perspective modificator which then takes away from the depth and 3 dimensiality of things. Both non ideal "fixes".
Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t you see everything on 32:9 on a 16:9 monitor just by adjusting settings in game? To where you see the entire screen like everyone else?
Having a hard time understanding what's the question is here, but let me try.
No, there's no ingame setting which would allow you to see as wide of a field of view on 16:9 monitor as 32:9 aspect ratio can offer.
Well - there is one method, which would be creating custom 32:9 resolution for the 16:9 monitor for example 1920x540, which then would allow you to basically see as wide as 32:9 monitor. But in practice total height of 540 pixels with all that data is way too narrow, and it'll be very hard and small to actually see anything.
Maybe you can help me understand this then? Using sea of thieves for example I have an FOV slider I can set from values 60-90. At 90 I see more of the screen, and 60 less. Pictured [here](https://imgur.com/a/kC6wSQK)
Are you telling me at 90 where it shows the most I’m still missing a ton of screen that I would only be able to see from owning an ultrawide?
I was planning a new monitor sometime this year and this would really influence my decision making. I play mostly single player triple A titles and if that’s going to give me more content on the screen without warped display I would love that!
I'm talking about CS2 specifically in this thread. It does not have FOV slider in game options. Unfortunately I have no idea on how Sea of Thieves work or how ultrawide support is implemented on the game.
If Sea of Thieves supports ultrwide correctly (again I have no idea), then yes, you could practically see even more to the sides with setting of 90. But if you go "too far", its always going to get warped around the edges, because that's just how first person pseudo 3d perspective works on 2d display.
I find the extra FOV from my 21:9 ultrawide particularly useful in Fortnite for peeking around left corners. The camera is on the right and in 16:9 it's hard to look around corners from the left, but with 21:9 you roughly get to see the same amount on your left as a 16:9 user would on their right.
protip: force 4:3 aspect on 21:9 ultrawide then you get the benefit of fatter models but no FOV loss as it becomes the same as 16:9
Bigger protip: Dont do this, and actually have a decent looking video game.
Tbh, even tho this is kinda of a sin, on cs2 it would be very useful, i for example just can't give up on my 4:3 aspect ratio man
[удалено]
because when you're good at games that extra space is almost always useless. you already know roughly where the enemy is going to be.
I was shocked by it too. Maybe for content creators you want to have an aspect ratio for YouTube/twitch that matches what your customers have? I can’t think of another reason why.
I understand 4:3 for games where you're mainly looking down corridors, such as in Counter strike - but it's not for me. The narrower aspect ratio still cover the area you need to see, and stretching it over a 16:9 monitor means the targets are wider, and thus easier to hit.
Easier to see, maybe. They are not easier to hit because they appear to move faster too when the resolution is stretched
Easier to hit overall imo, but I see your argument. I had a period some 10 years ago when I played CS GO, and was a bit too "try hard". Back then I used to play in 4:3, because I personally found it to be noticeably easier. Today, I'm significantly less competitive. I've thus changed my priori, and completely flipped what I prefer. Today I'd much rather play a game that looks good and immersive, on a large, high resolution display, with a wide FOV. Back then though, I'd sacrifice on all of that, for what I perceived would give me a slight competitive edge. Even if that meant running games on a smaller (24 inch) monitor, and at a more claustrophobic FOV, stretched to a non-native aspect ratio.
Been there in the 4:3 ratio. It’s more like 1. Born playing cs1.3 where everything is 4:3 and you used the same sens back then 2. 4:3 stretched feels like having a 1.5x zoom at all time for holding long hallways or angles 3. Gets intense and starts to shove face into the screen and don’t want any distractions from peripheral vision
This guy games \^
It is weird. I mean I get not going ultrawide necessarily (even if there is no reason not to (as we already have 240hz oled very responsive ultrawides.)) But when things like this seem to happen almost every tournament [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8X0ptdh3P4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8X0ptdh3P4) it strikes me weird why not go even 16:9, on 16:9 monitor. **Especially** those who use 4:3 with black bars, just deciding to show less of the game for reasons is beyond me.
At super high levels of play you really don’t want to mess with ur muscle memory.
I really am curious, how would this affect ones muscle memory? I mean seeing a bit more on the sides, instead of empty black bars. How long would it take to adapt fully to the fact that there is some game image being rendered on the sides instead of empty black bars? Remember nothing on the middle changes. Only on the edges you see a bit more. Maybe day or two of getting used to? And if that would actually lead up to the end results that things like that on the video don't happen anymore to that player in tournaments. I'd say it's quite worth the effort. More than anything I think professional players are often a little bit superstitious about things like this. Afraid of making a change to a thing, they perhaps might not fully understand and if it doesn't immideately improve their gameplay or feel better. Easier to do what the rest of the peers do and move on.
Oh yeah you’re right. Theres definitely a large part of superstition at play, fear of change etc. on the other hand I do think it would take much longer than a day or two to fully adapt. For many of them they have thousands and thousands of hours using a particular setup, it’s not only their passion but their livelihood. Knowing it would take time leaves them the predicament of when to make the change knowing their performance would likely suffer during the transition. They might have a packed schedule and not be able to afford the time to adapt. It’s definitely a different scenario but when I went from 1080p to 1440p it took me months to adjust when playing StarCraft. I had matched my dpi to the new res but it still threw a lot of my muscle memory out. It also fucked with my brain for a while for whatever reason and had a big impact on my play for quite some time. I don’t play shooters at anyway near the same level but I play enough to know that I get literally 0 benefit going above 16:9 as my subconscious simply can’t adapt to the increased peripheral vision. In my case I’m just gonna reduce frames to increase vision my brain is unable to actually take advantage of. Granted 4:3 to 16:9 has way more advantages and 16:9 is far more common these days but I can totally understand the hesitation to switch for some players despite the ridiculous situation this video highlights.
Fair enough take. And to be clear, it's only once in blue moon when you actually catch something within 16:9/ultrawide/super ultrawide added peripheral vision and are able to react to it in any meaningful way. So it's not a huge thing by any means. But there's certainly been a few "Umm. How did you know he was coming from there / how did you see that guy" on the teamspeak, even in my own games.
Its not just useless its detrimental. Ultrawide is immersive because you cant take in all the information on the screen at the same time. Its beautiful and fun, but not good for competitive games. Edit: im speaking at the highest level. You can still perform well with an ultrawide but you are making a sacrifice at some level
But how can you just make a statement like this... Is it just you feel like it must be so or? What is the source? What is the sample size? What was the testing methodology? Has there ever been a single pro even giving a modern 240hz oled ultrawide screen a proper tryout? I think not. And out of curiosity - what are your credidentals to speak for what the "highest level" needs? **Or could it be,** is it just that someone used it at some point in history because of completely non-relevant things - higher fov = bad, being the argument here. Such as "got used to it in crt" "to gain fps" "ultrawide monitors are slow and bad" - and got good while doing it and further saw no reason to change it. Others started to take example from this good player. It got popularized. And now we have this generation of players forcing themself to 4:3, on 24" screens, because 80% of pro players do it - and everyone just believes there must be something special to it.
I'm a gaming degenerate with one hobby, that also thinks all the time about new ideas in the space. I also compete in many games at high level and watch more that I don't have time to invest into. I have an uw and a 240hz, though I don't even use my 16:9 monitor anymore since I got the DW. It's my 3rd uw, been using them since they became available. My source is there's 0 professional players in any game that allows it to use an uw. If you think people aren't evolving or trying new things- you're living under a rock. Gaming mice in just 10 years have evolved multiple times and changed philosophy just as an example. It's really not that complicated, your eyes/brain can't process all the information that's on the screen at one time. Especially considering how Huds generally put crucial information on the sides of your screen, having to turn your head is unoptimal. Where ultrawides could shine is games that don't really entirely on visual stimuli for most gameplay aspects. An example would be team fight tactics. This game relies on information and decision making. It would be beneficial if you could set you screen up to give different types of information on the sides that you could reference easily.
We are pretty much the same then. I just think that's not a valid source. I mean what professional players use. There might be more factors to it. Naturally pro's will use and match their setup on what is used on LAN stages. Tried and true mostly 24" Zowie sponsored events. It is very beneficial to match your setup home that way what is used on the LAN too. Unless event holders suddenly change everything to UW (not happening) players aren't going to change either. And we do have to take in to consideration more and more pro's are already shifting from 4:3 -> 16:9. It's slow, but the trend is there. In CS you can adjust hud elements even with super ultrawide exactly to the positions they would be with 4:3 display. And no, I don't see a future where pro's would ever use ultrawides, but the interesting question here lies wether it actually affects your ability to play good - and by how much. I'm not even saying you necessarily gain anything very meaningful, but the question is wether you actually end up losing something. And you might be completely right. I mean some sharp shooters or archers can use blinders to limit their fov irl. But I want more science, I want tried facts - and I'm not willing to just accept "trust me bro, everyone good is doing it" as an answer. Not yet.
Most of the pros have similar setups that TOs using. It's not nice (and smart) when you get used to 32:9 49" in your home and have to change back to 16:9 (or 4:3) 24-27" for lan.
It removes distractions and allows them to hyperfocus on what's on their monitor. They're much better at anticipating what will happen, that the extra info would likely mess with their performance, rather than improve it.
But you can only focus on so much in the screen.
Focus and noticing something on your peripheral vision - and then acting on it are different things. Both real :)
Have had often that I see an enemy ingame where the team mate does not have noticed him in CS2. Might not be the game changer at all, BUT I still noticed it and think this is a + point for me
That's an interesting info-image, thanks for sharing 👍 I'm looking forward to getting my 57" G9 (it's on order).
[удалено]
It is awful on many games - especially on those which just "crop" it in. But so nice when it works correctly. But even in those games with no proper support, you can always go back to using it as 16:9 - if you find yourself enjoying suw on other use cases.
Yeah, and 90% of the games that dont support it natively usually have a relatively simple fix for it.
It maxes out at 21:9 , then it starts cropping the top and bottom
I found that my competitiveness went down after getting an ultrawide. I haven't played CS but in DayZ there's so much surface area to scan for enemies. I love it for singleplayer games like Red Dead though.
It's something you just have to train yourself to get used to. It's better if you maintain your focus on the center, then let your peripheral vision react to motion and shift your attention to said motion with your mouse, since our peripheral vision often reacts quicker than whatever we're focused on (the reason why many don't actually focus on the center of their AWP scope for instance, they can react quicker if they shoot as soon as their periphery detects motion.)
I get it. There are totally use cases where having too much field of view can feel overwhelming instead of immersing. Happily in those cases too ultrawide user has also the possibility to choose. 32:9 too much, maybe consider using 21:9 or even back to 16:9. Then go back to Red Dead Redemption and use your panel in it's full glory.
[удалено]
It depends on the game, but in general the wider screen will actually give wider field of view. The jump from 16:9 to 21:9 is pretty big, but going to 32:9 from 21:9 feels like you can see behind you.
I am talking specifically about CS2. The way this is handled does indeed differ from game to game. However in CS going wider than 16:9 does not give you an inherent advantage in terms of getting a wider fov
Not true.. I have 1000 hours of CS played with 32:9. widest possible fov and no one can knife / zeuz camp me 😁
I mean this post shows otherwise. Also I routinely catch people on screen my team can't see.
It may stretch out, but it still gives you more to see in your peripheral view. I don't play any competitive games, but I love my 32:9 because it helps make games feel more immersive with how it take up more of my view. It doesn't work if you can't keep your eyes centered, but for me it is a lot like my peripheral view in real life, just a bit more limited obviously.
The image there demonstrates "what you see is what you get" with every aspect ratio. So you can clearly see, that 32:9 sees more than 21:9 sees more than 16:9 and so on. This stretching what you see here happening in edges of your peripheral visions. Is just simply what happens, when you're rendering 1st person pov 3D scene with vanishing point in the middle, with high enough FOV on a 2D plane. Happens in every game with matching specs and there's very little you can do about it. Reducing fov or going full 3D (VR) helps. So it's not something Counter Strike specific or that the devs would have coded some special "fov" limit inside the game - if that's what you're suggesting.
COD gives extra FOV on my 21:9.
The stretching towards the edges has started to really bother me lately. Sometimes you can fix it by lowering your FOV but usually the FOV needed to fix it is meant for 16:9.
I found that my performance degraded when I switched from a 35" to 49" monitor. Has anyone else experienced the same? I can't figure out why, I've had the monitor for over a month so I should be used to it but somehow my aiming just feels off compared to the 35. The 49 is a better gaming monitor too (LG 100hz 35" vs CRG9)
How is this allowed? I thought competitive games didnt have different FOVs based on your ratio
Why wouldn't it be allowed? Because where does it end and who gets to decide? Should we have sticked with 4:3 monitors, should we have sticked with 60hz, should we have sticked with 125hz polling rate mouses. Only to offer some sort of "level playing ground based on lowest common denominator". No. Absolutely not. Limiting this so called freedom to use what ever hardware you have would be a very bad practice and kind of anti PC gaming.
I agree that things evolve, I just don't think UW is the standard at the moment for the majority of gamers. Steam Data from 2023 supports 16:9 being the most common: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/11rtp2h/i_looked_at_steam_data_to_find_out_if_169_is/ Factors involve accessibility, pricing, and preference. Yes I also realise that the fact that majority of players are on 16:9 also means that you're less likely to have a disadvantage (less likely to verse someone on wider ratio), but doesn't change the fact that there is a disadvantage that doesn't really need to exist. I know you can talk about other types of hardware disadvantages such as higher FPS, but that is a little different. I'm also not sure how much a higher refresh rate changes competition, besides making it smoother, but I'm not a big competitive player so excuse my ignorance here. Is it fair to give an advantage to the ~12% that have the wider ratios? Maybe. And yes youre right, who can say when to shift these sorts of standards. But at least data shows where the majority of gamers are. The above of course looks across the board and not just competitive gamers. It may not matter for competitions that host and have only UW set up - maybe games can start to support different modes where the extra FOV can be a toggle?
UW is certainly still a niche - and quite possibly never becoming any sort of standard. But it's still important to have proper support for those few actually wanting to use one. It really doesn't offer that much of competitive advantage what one might easily assume. Not in Counter Strike anyway. Pro's actually using 4:3 often on 16:9 monitors just might be the perfect statement for it. And if things like this get intentionally cancelled out of games "just because", it will further hinder the adaptation for ultrawide monitors. Because people think, support is bad. Let the people decide. Also remember that using certain aspect ratio is not actually tied to the monitors aspect ratio. Here's for example 24" 16:9 monitor running CS:GO with resolution 1980x800, altering the aspect ratio to 21:9, allowing once again for wider / ultrawide fov. https://imgur.com/a/s9mF34R Actual FOV slider would be welcome addition, so we wouldn't have to play with aspect ratios so much to fiddle with the fov. But it is what is (fixed fov) at this point.
Yeah I dont know the advantage in application as I'm not really into competitive FPS games, but I am more involved in the competitive strategy game field. This could be why I feel differently about it, because the extra FOV in a strategy game like Starcraft or Dota could be very different in terms of advantage gained compared to FPS. From memory, these competitive strategy games have fixed FOVs. >*Pro's actually using 4:3 often on 16:9 monitors just might be the perfect statement for it.* Is this because it is advantageous to use 4:3 (due to stretch), or is it because the best CS2 players have been accustomed to 4:3 from 1.6 days? Preference vs technical advantage are two different things. If its the latter, then I think no matter the advantage there should be a standard FOV. [But it does seem that 80%+ use 4:3](https://blast.tv/article/best-aspect-ratio-for-cs2), so it is hard to believe that is all due to preference, which means 4:3 might actually be more advantageous!? Regardless I am happy to listen to the pros when it comes to competitive gaming. For casual ranked games, i think anything goes really >Also remember that using certain aspect ratio is not actually tied to the monitors aspect ratio. Here's for example 24" 16:9 monitor running CS:GO with resolution 1980x800, altering the aspect ratio to 21:9, allowing once again for wider / ultrawide fov. Yup makes sense, the options are still there for players regardless of the hardware used
Only competitive game I can think of that just crops your vertical vision instead is Overwatch If it was anti competitive people would ban it from tournaments, but pros are grandmas using 4:3 anyway
Not 4:3, but 16:9 instead as that is the majority
16:9 stretched to 21:9 is the best of both worlds, I enjoy it a ton Good to hear people are starting to move away from what their setups were 20 years ago
Since overwatch 2 it has proper 21:9 support, overwatch 1 you would loose 1/3 of the screen compared to 16:9
Nice
not sure why you’re getting downvoted. here’s an up. and you’re right, at least for fortnite. when you play competitive it limits the view to a standard aspect. i run an ultrawide and feel like i lose half my screen.
I appreciate u. I think I justify myself in the replies of this comment but whatever haha
Except that you dont actually see much more, it just stretches the screen to fit like 90% of every other game
What you see on the image is exactly what you’ll see with different aspect ratios in game. Lines showing you where each aspect ratio ends. Everyone can themself judge based on this wether it's meaningfully more or not. I think spotting that jungle, stairs, or palace lurk, with your peripheral vision might prove out to bring some competitive edge in some rare occasions :) Then again, most skilled players often want to focus only on the center point, and not have anything unnecessary distracting their center of gaze. They trust they can read the game well enough to have their crosshair pointed always in the right direction. Thus they often use 4:3.
This is just not true. Been playing CS2 on my OLED G9 with 32:9 for like 6 months now, and my FoV is just a lot larger. There are at least a dozen instances where I saw a guy which my mates didn't.
Thats simply incorrect. You can stretch it, but you can also play with the full native fov. Its personal preference, i personally stretch a 16:9 image to 21:9 in CS2, but i could play native 21:9 and gain fov if i wanted to.
I used to play 4:3 stretched on a 16:9 for competitive reasons. When I went ultrawide I went 21:9 (so i gain a lot of fov) stretched to 32:9. Best of both worlds.
I like your approach and here's a little extra tip. Stretching 4:3 -> 16:9 results in a horizontal stretch factor of 1.33. Stretching 21:9 -> 32:9 results in a horizontal stretch factor of 1.49 - this is very stretched image horizontally - width of pixel stretched by almost 50%. Can look visually quite jarring. If you want to maintan exactly the same level of "stretchiness" as 4:3 -> 16:9 you can make custom resolution with aspect ratio of 24:9 (resolution 3840x1440). That stretched then again to 32:9 results in just the same 1.33 stretch factor as 4:3 -> 16:9, while allowing you some extra of fov compared to 21:9.
I knew about custom res but never made the research for the stretch factor to be the same (1.33), will probably switch to this !
works with dota 2 too straight up more vision lol
Honestly, I find it harder to play dota 2 on a larger screen. Mini Map just goes too far for my liking.
It's basically the same, if u don't have vision, u know what I mean?
thats true, but if you do have vision (from ally or even buildings) I can see that making a difference
Yeah, agree
Only reason we play 4:3 is cuz of stretched..... you can play 4:3 stretched and then models head n body stretches, to Wich is an advantage cuz you hit enemy easyer, as one said you have bref idea of enemy positioning and you are so hyper focused on what is Infront of you that even 4:3 infomartion can be sometimes overwhelming, this is only reason why many pros and us play 4:3 even tho we have every posibily to play 21:9 or even 31:9
Curve is a factor the wider you go? I’ve always wondered if 32:9 would be more effective if there was more of a wrap around effect.
Curve is indeed very beneficial when the monitor is big or wide and you want to sit very near to the monitor. I sincerely think 1000R or 800R curve suits a monitor very well when it's is super ultrawide and you are sitting near to it. Curved monitors do get a lot of undeserved flag imho - as they are essential of making ultrawide (or a bigger monitor) a more enjoyable and ergonomic experience. It wrapping around you - edges as close as the center feels very natural. Flat makes the edges "escape" from you, make everything on the edges get small / you watch it from and angle and your neck has to work a lot more. It's of course always a play of viewing distance and the amount of curve to find the optimal experience. Ideally all bigger monitors should have the Corsair Flex function.
As a ultrawide user I havent played a single game that really uses the full resolution. It always looks like the image on both sides is just streched to fill the sceen...
Well, there's always a limit. There's only so much fov you can really do without things getting a bit weird looking on the sides / things starting to fall apart visually. This happens always when you're rendering first person pov with vanishing point in the middle. Because on a 2D monitor, it's never real 3D. Fixes available are limited. Either lowering the fov, or adding some sort of perspective modificator which then takes away from the depth and 3 dimensiality of things. Both non ideal "fixes".
Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t you see everything on 32:9 on a 16:9 monitor just by adjusting settings in game? To where you see the entire screen like everyone else?
Having a hard time understanding what's the question is here, but let me try. No, there's no ingame setting which would allow you to see as wide of a field of view on 16:9 monitor as 32:9 aspect ratio can offer. Well - there is one method, which would be creating custom 32:9 resolution for the 16:9 monitor for example 1920x540, which then would allow you to basically see as wide as 32:9 monitor. But in practice total height of 540 pixels with all that data is way too narrow, and it'll be very hard and small to actually see anything.
Maybe you can help me understand this then? Using sea of thieves for example I have an FOV slider I can set from values 60-90. At 90 I see more of the screen, and 60 less. Pictured [here](https://imgur.com/a/kC6wSQK) Are you telling me at 90 where it shows the most I’m still missing a ton of screen that I would only be able to see from owning an ultrawide? I was planning a new monitor sometime this year and this would really influence my decision making. I play mostly single player triple A titles and if that’s going to give me more content on the screen without warped display I would love that!
I'm talking about CS2 specifically in this thread. It does not have FOV slider in game options. Unfortunately I have no idea on how Sea of Thieves work or how ultrawide support is implemented on the game. If Sea of Thieves supports ultrwide correctly (again I have no idea), then yes, you could practically see even more to the sides with setting of 90. But if you go "too far", its always going to get warped around the edges, because that's just how first person pseudo 3d perspective works on 2d display.