Widescreen Gaming Forum

A couple of recent posts here made me think of something.
I remember the consensus on these boards years ago,slightly after Matrox released the digital TH2GO,that 3 x 4:3 offered a superior gaming experience to having 3 x widescreen,you got a more uniform display across,with less distortion/fisheye effect.
What has changed(other than 4:3 panels being phased out/replaced by widescreen ones)in the general consensus among surround screen users to make us change the mindset regarding this.?
Is the extra real estate (horizontally) that necessary? Is it the because the center monitor is really the main focus? game developers only(if at all)supporting 3 x widescreen resolutions?

Just random musing,I'd like to know what people think regarding this.

Look at the thread below this one. You do not get the fisheye look or stretch on the outside minitors. I would do the 4x3 layout if I did not already have 3x1680x1050 monitors.

A couple of recent posts here made me think of something.
I remember the consensus on these boards years ago,slightly after Matrox released the digital TH2GO,that 3 x 4:3 offered a superior gaming experience to having 3 x widescreen,you got a more uniform display across,with less distortion/fisheye effect.
What has changed(other than 4:3 panels being phased out/replaced by widescreen ones)in the general consensus among surround screen users to make us change the mindset regarding this.?
Is the extra real estate (horizontally) that necessary? Is it the because the center monitor is really the main focus? game developers only(if at all)supporting 3 x widescreen resolutions?

Just random musing,I'd like to know what people think regarding this.

Fisheye is overrated and doesn't bother me in the least. Once you see things moving you hardly notice it. Besides, with a triple 16:9 or 16:10 setup, you get even more gameworld in your view. Nothing like a 48:9 display of the game stabbing you in the eyes.

Well I've never had a 3x4:3 setup but, actually I went from 16:10 to 16:9 for an even wider setup. I think it's great, from my experience I hard even notice the side monitors now (FPS Games), they are merely peripheral. It's really nice because my focus really in on the middle monitor now, where before (I had 3 19"rs) I constantly look around and I would notice the distortion a lot more. I think it all comes down to preference. I don't miss the extra height I had with a 16:9 setup, but I kinda wished I went with 3x24" instead of 3x23".

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |

when I setup my first first triplehead rig..
I had 3x 20" dell 4:3 monitors. and my current rig for the past year is
3x24" 16:10 monitors.

in terms of the field of view and perreferial vision 3x4:3 and 3x16:10 is not really noticable.

I do notice it's a wider fov but not something that I would go "WOW" over.
in actual gameplay it doesn't really matter and there's no advantage to me of 16:10 over 4:3.

it's like playing a game at 75 fps vs 85fps. 85fps is better but at that point it really doesn't matter that much.

I personally perfer 3x4:3 over 3x16:10/16:9 for producitiy and work reasons.

one downside of 4:3 is that the HUD elements sometimes get cut off and go into the next monitor
here's an example (my old setup)


where with a 3x16:10 all the HUD elements fit in the center monitor. (my new setup)


that's the only disadvantage of a 4:3 setup but it have more to do with the individual games.

Well I personally don't think it is the only disadvantage:

1. On single screen games you really lose out.
2. The bezels are much closer in and more noticeable.
3. Movies don't display properly, you have to window them or have the bezels in.
4. WS screens are much cheaper than 5:4/4:3 pixel for pixel.

But I reckon the PLP 20-30-20 is pretty close to a perfect balance, I think 3x30 will take too much space. However I am very happy with my 3x24 :)

_________________
Dipping bags at Mach1.9

A couple of recent posts here made me think of something.
I remember the consensus on these boards years ago,slightly after Matrox released the digital TH2GO,that 3 x 4:3 offered a superior gaming experience to having 3 x widescreen,you got a more uniform display across,with less distortion/fisheye effect.
What has changed(other than 4:3 panels being phased out/replaced by widescreen ones)in the general consensus among surround screen users to make us change the mindset regarding this.?
Is the extra real estate (horizontally) that necessary? Is it the because the center monitor is really the main focus? game developers only(if at all)supporting 3 x widescreen resolutions?

Just random musing,I'd like to know what people think regarding this.

I think that's odd logic. The whole idea behind surround gaming is to get as wide a field of view as possible. That's why it's only logical to move away from old 4:3 displays to new 16:9. 3x 19:6 offers ~1/4th more viewing FOV than 3x 5:4 does. It's like getting an extra 4th 4:3 display viewing area for free.

_________________
Brad Hawthorne
Product Manager
Nthusim Pty. Ltd. | www.nthusim.com

For my setup I decided on the best of both worlds. I already had a Dell 2405 16:10 LCD, and for my left and right screens I decided to grab a couple of Dell 2007's 4:3 LCD's for a cheaper option then going all 24".

Works great! My 2405 gives me plenty of room to avoid any HUD issues, and the side screens are just right size to give me a large FOV without having to turn my head too much to see it all. Couldn't be more happier!

Also gives me the option of upgrading my 24" to a 30" later down the track for the PLP 20-30-20 option as mentioned above. :wink: I've seen one such setup and it looks sweet! Now if only Eyefinity would support it...