Right now I have a dell 2001fp monitor found here http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_UltraSharp_2001FP/4507-3174_7-30588561.html With FH2 coming out sometime soon ( hopefully ) i was sondering what would be the main diifernce between a 4/3 and a 16/9 screen. Also, I saw some 32 inch lcd screen with refresh rate of 6 or 8 ms I think. Could that work to play ? If so must be amazing p.s. I did do a search and it told me i had to wait 3447 secs before my next search
I thought that the 4/3 would " compress " the image so that I wouldn't actually lose the ability to see things that i would otherwise see on a 16/9. So u are saying that I wouldn't see things on my 4/3 screen that i would see on a 16/9 ?????? Btw, check out this screen. Imagine game play on this baby !!!
Normally, having a widescreen (16:9) would give you that extra picture area and you'd be able to see more than someone using a 4:3 monitor; but BF2 doesn't actually support widescreen.
What you have to do is force the game into the resolution you want, then instead of giving you extra picture area on the sides, it cuts off the top and bottom. The reason for this is that the developers didn't want to give players who have widescreen monitors an advantage over those who have normal 4:3 monitors.
So if you force it into widescreen the game will look great, you will just lose a little bit of your view area that you would normally have, but I doubt you'd notice.
Also, the game moves the HUD so that it will fit on the screen. It won't like cut your minimap off or anything.
Hope this helps! :D
Thanks, that's one thing i hate about these games is that u r very limited in your view range which lets the enemy sneak up on u all the time. If the view would be wider there would be less rambo style players cause they would be spotted much quicker. Can't wait for the wide view experience
CRT's and 0 motion blur FTW!
Recently I bought 19" 4:3 LCD with 8 ms response time, and I have to admit that the delay is already hardly visible. The main problem in case of LCDs is the limited color recreation capabilities, in comparison to CRTs, and that realy is visible if you had a good CRT before. Also the panels are not illuminated equally on their entire width and height. Recently new LCD technology has been developped, which uses LEDs instead of lamps to illuminate the panel, which both lowers the irregular illumination and gives even better color recreation capabilities than TV screens. I think I'll hang on with buying new monitor untill there will be some good widescreens developped with use of that technology. I have to admit that perspective of playing Half-Life games on such monitor is very tempting...
I was so bummed out when I realized that BF2/Fh2 doesn't have widescreen support for my LG (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=20979&vpn=L204WTX&manufacture=LG%20Electronics&promoid=1021) I was not even considering a 1600X1200(20 inches plus) since they are about 500$CAN and my1680X1050 was 320$CAN. I am not going to pay around 46% more for an 8% difference in pixel quantities with not even half as good contrast ratio. I've come to not mind at all the fact that my screen is being stretched to 1280X1024. Sure the players are a little squat and my scopes are a bit oval but I don't mind and it's a good monitor for sniping amongst other things.
Nice, how does it look in other games, which support 16:9 ratio? Is there actually a big, visible and good estetical/visual difference? Or do you stop noticing any after one day?
I bet you do. Same for all surround and all those neat features unfortunately.
However whenever you switch back you'll notice the difference again. (The first few moments that is.)