PDA

View Full Version : Wide screen support?



Mr. Perfect
6th Nov 2008, 04:31
Just a quick question here. Will DX3 support widescreen monitors?

For some reason widescreen support has been kind of hit-or-miss in games, which is weird considering how common they are becoming. :scratch:

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 04:45
I haven't noticed any recent games not supporting widescreen...:scratch:

Obviously DX3 will support it dude, cause its also being developed for 360, which is all about HD gaming and 1080p resolution.

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 04:53
I think what he's asking is will DX 3 support True widescreen where the horizontal FoV is expanded, instead of the picture being stretched or cropped.

It would make sense for the game to do true widescreen. :)

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 04:56
Well I sure hope so! Cause I'm sitting here with my epic 28" 1920x1200 ViewSonic monitor here.

I love this thing... :D

DXeXodus
6th Nov 2008, 04:56
I haven't noticed any recent games not supporting widescreen...:scratch:

Far Cry 2

spm1138
6th Nov 2008, 05:01
According to this problems with 1900*1200 would affect a whopping 2.3% of gamers :

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

The two most common resolutions are listed are 4:3.

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 05:14
Farcry 2 doesn't support widescreen? That's surprising.

I haven't played Farcry 2 though.

In all likelihood I won't be playing Deus Ex 3 on my native resolution. My computer is already about 16 months old (they grow up so fast...) and I wasn't able to play Fallout 3 on max settings (all I really turned off was vertical sync and lowered the resolution to 1440 x 900. Everything else is still on max. I always turn off v-sync tho cause I really don't think I need it if I have SLi).

And that valve survey is a year old btw... It says that is was last updated yesterday, but those drivers are still the old ones.

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 05:33
Heh. No matter what other graphics settings I use, I always play at 1280x800 or 1440x900 (my native res). True Widescreen helps immensely.

Interesting that Far Cry 2 doesn't support it. It's not a difficult thing to implement.

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 05:39
I don't remember where I saw it, probably a Newegg customer review or Tom's Hardware, but someone had an interesting idea of buying a really high resolution monitor, 2560 x 1600 I think it was. And then he would play all his games at 1280 x 800 because that's exactly half of the native resolution, and that would do something cool. Don't really remember exactly what he said, something about for every one pixel in the game, the monitor would display 4 on the screen, and that would be good in some way I guess...

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 05:42
^^ Can't imagine why he would do that, other than to improve performance. :scratch:

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 05:47
I think what he meant was that if you were a little bit low on money and your looking at either buying a new graphics card (which would become outdated within 2 years) or buying a new monitor (which would last you for much much longer than that), then the monitor would be a good choice. Because if your computer is a little dated, then you could play your games at 1280 x 800, and that wouldn't put very much strain on your hardware, but the monitor would still make it look good.

I decided to invest in an awesome monitor because I wanted something I could play my 360 on as well, and TV's are so overpriced everywhere you look. And most TV's don't even have very good resoultion, so I went with the monitor for that. I found it on Newegg, there was a great back to school sale and I was able to save a bunch. Great site.

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 05:51
I guess that if the monitor is meant to last through a couple hardware upgrades/replacements, then it makes sense. Using a hi-res monitor for a 360 is a great idea; considering the ridiculous costs of Full HD TVs (where you're only paying for bigger size and lower PPI :rolleyes: ) you can save a lot of cash. :)

K^2
6th Nov 2008, 05:54
Personally, I'm using 1080p HD TV as a monitor for my PC. So yeah, fingers crossed for good wide support.

Romeo
6th Nov 2008, 06:45
I haven't noticed any recent games not supporting widescreen...:scratch:

Obviously DX3 will support it dude, cause its also being developed for 360, which is all about HD gaming and 1080p resolution.
Yes, I know virtually every game released these days support widescreen, out of necessity if nothing else. Any game released for PS3 or Xbox 360 must have widescreen, or they arn't allowed to be released on the consoles.

foxberg
6th Nov 2008, 13:42
According to this problems with 1900*1200 would affect a whopping 2.3% of gamers :

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

The two most common resolutions are listed are 4:3.

This is probably because they sampled monitors at business locations. I can't see this being a preferable ratio for gaming systems.

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 00:16
That makes sense because monitors can last for years and years. Some of the Widescreen monitors on Newegg however are more expensive than the standard ones so I'm sure more and more people are going to go widescreen when they upgrade to a new monitor.

Mr. Perfect
7th Nov 2008, 00:43
I think what he's asking is will DX 3 support True widescreen where the horizontal FoV is expanded, instead of the picture being stretched or cropped.

It would make sense for the game to do true widescreen. :)

Yes, that's what I was asking about. Real widescreen support, without stretched, cropped, or *shudder* justified pictures. Something that is 4:3 plus more on the sides.

Some companies intentionally left it out of their games *cough* Battlefield *cough*, claiming that people with a widescreen monitor would have an unfair advantage over people with a 4:3 one. Of course that only applies in multiplayer, and DX3 sounds like it will mostly be SP.

Oh, and what's up with sigs? I noticed it actually appeared on my first post(which is rare), but isn't on this one.

Laokin
7th Nov 2008, 03:54
I haven't noticed any recent games not supporting widescreen...:scratch:

Obviously DX3 will support it dude, cause its also being developed for 360, which is all about HD gaming and 1080p resolution.

Farcry 2
Bioshock (retail non patched)
World of Goo
Jon Woo's Stranglehold
Bully (pc just released)
Assasin's Creed only has proper 16:10 support in DX10 mode.

The list goes on... They all have the same problem bioshock did. They are cropped to give the illusion you see full screen. Head over to widescreengaming.com to see the epidemic unfold.

It's unacceptable, the TRU demo fully supported Widscreen so I think we're actually in the clear for once.

It's a very common place problem that the Aspect Ratio's are kept 4:3 and the image is zoomed into a "cropped" widescreen. Meaning anybody who has a widescreen monitor running in a widecreen resolution actually gets less viewing space than the default 4:3 and 5:4 square tv's and monitors.

Fun fact, widescreens have been adopted by roughly 33% of all American's. 33% and growing fast.... dev's really need to get on their job or people will start to think that this is the way games are "supposed" to look.


**In defense for World of Goo, it's an indie game. Plus it actually doesn't crop, it just places certain buttons out of alignment.

P.S.
The 360 versions of the games on the list all suffer the same problem. The only one that has been fixed was Bioshock.

DXeXodus
7th Nov 2008, 04:06
Oh, and what's up with sigs? I noticed it actually appeared on my first post(which is rare), but isn't on this one.

Sigs only appear on your first post if YOU start a new thread. Otherwise you can manually select the check box titled "Show your signature" in the "Miscellaneous Options" category when you are making any other post.

Pete278
7th Nov 2008, 08:30
This is probably because they sampled monitors at business locations. I can't see this being a preferable ratio for gaming systems.
Why would a gaming program survey business locations? :scratch:

Jerion
7th Nov 2008, 08:33
Why would a gaming program survey business locations? :scratch:

Maybe because since the average age of the gamer is 30-something, and most 30-somethings are employed, they took the survey at work? Dunno. :scratch:

Romeo
7th Nov 2008, 16:38
Farcry 2
Bioshock (retail non patched)
World of Goo
Jon Woo's Stranglehold
Bully (pc just released)
Assasin's Creed only has proper 16:10 support in DX10 mode.

The list goes on... They all have the same problem bioshock did. They are cropped to give the illusion you see full screen. Head over to widescreengaming.com to see the epidemic unfold.

It's unacceptable, the TRU demo fully supported Widscreen so I think we're actually in the clear for once.

It's a very common place problem that the Aspect Ratio's are kept 4:3 and the image is zoomed into a "cropped" widescreen. Meaning anybody who has a widescreen monitor running in a widecreen resolution actually gets less viewing space than the default 4:3 and 5:4 square tv's and monitors.

Fun fact, widescreens have been adopted by roughly 33% of all American's. 33% and growing fast.... dev's really need to get on their job or people will start to think that this is the way games are "supposed" to look.


**In defense for World of Goo, it's an indie game. Plus it actually doesn't crop, it just places certain buttons out of alignment.

P.S.
The 360 versions of the games on the list all suffer the same problem. The only one that has been fixed was Bioshock.
Wow, that's odd, because on the console, FarCry 2, BioShock, Stranglehold, Bully and Assassin's Creed are all widescreen, so I can't possibly imagine why the companies would work to lessen their games intentionally...

Laokin
7th Nov 2008, 23:06
Wow, that's odd, because on the console, FarCry 2, BioShock, Stranglehold, Bully and Assassin's Creed are all widescreen, so I can't possibly imagine why the companies would work to lessen their games intentionally...


Bully is the only one that is true widescreen on the console. Bioshock was patched via Xbox live.. and shipped almost a year later with PS3 so the issue isn't in the PS3 version. Stranglehold is not widescreen on the 360... it's cropped so it gives you the illusion it's widescreen. In other words... if you hook up a 360 to a 4:3 tv.... or just played at 480i, you can see Tequila's feet. If you play in widescreen you can't see his feet. It zooms the image in and cuts out the stuff that over flows from the widescreen picture.

Assassin's Creed is only 16:9 widescreen. If you have a 16:10 tv... like I do, you get a black bar that cuts off the anamorphic resolutions. You don't lose much since there isn't too much difference between 19:9 and 16:10... but you do loose some top and bottom.

Farcry 2 is still busted on 360, your just not noticing it. Head over to widescreengaming.com and go into their forums and click on the Farcry 2 thread. You will then see an array of screenshots from all the different versions and you will notice that 4:3 on every platform has more visibility. The problem is... most people don't realize what they are looking at is cropped. A small % of people feel claustrophobic in games that are zoomed in. This is why I could never play Stranglehold.... I refuse to play it with black bars on the side so I don't get sick.

4:3
http://www.widescreengaming.net/images/d/da/Stranglehold-1024.jpg
16:9
http://www.widescreengaming.net/images/f/fc/Stranglehold-1440.jpg

This is a major issue as you loose more on the top of the screen, so levels where enemies are above you it's rather difficult to see them.

Also... if you note the watermelon. Its in the same place in both images... in other words... the Image isn't "Wide." Its the same image just zoomed in, so we loose some. Wide screen's are supposed to see more left and right than a 4:3. The argument that that gives you an advantage is stupid... because you give 4:3 an advantage by zooming us in. We spend more money on our TV's and monitors to have them in widescreen and you actually see LESS on the screen, because it's advantageous? No, your supposed to add more left and right, and if it's an advantage it's just more of a reason to perpetuate people to upgrade technology. It's good for the business, it's great for the artists... it's just lazy because most people don't know the difference.

P.S. Notice the lights in the first image are non existent in the second image. Those lights could be bad guys... and often they are.
Also notice how much bigger Tequila looks, well all the objects look. If they stayed the same size as image one... we would see more left and right, since they zoom the picture in, these objects actually get bigger. So not only do we see less top and bottom, but size proportions are off, so things always seem bigger than they are supposed to.... which make you feel claustrophobic when you look around diving shooting and ultimately anything fast in that game. And yes... they are also F'd up on the xbox version, if you own the game change to SD and you will see. If you don't own it and don't believe me... do a google search.

Also... the zooming really hurts a games UI. The resolution of the textures for UI are usually really small... so when you zoom in on them they become obviously more pixelated.

ZylonBane
7th Nov 2008, 23:54
Also... the zooming really hurts a games UI. The resolution of the textures for UI are usually really small... so when you zoom in on them they become obviously more pixelated.
This issue affects all games with resolution-independent HUDs, and has absolutely nothing specifically to do with aspect ratios.

Laokin
8th Nov 2008, 08:33
This issue affects all games with resolution-independent HUDs, and has absolutely nothing specifically to do with aspect ratios.

Resolution independent huds would mean there was a new hud designed to run in x resolution. That's not how any of the above games actually are.... Look at the screens I posted above. The life bar is bigger... so therefore it zoomed just like everything else. Taking an image and zooming it beyond original resolutions will always reduce image quality, this is just fact. Open a picture in windows picture viewer and zoom in... you will see pixels. This effect worsens when the item in mention is designed to be small.

Look at the pics I posted of stranglehold... you can clearly see it's evident. I wish more people took the time to do research before they convince themselves things are a certain way.:rolleyes:

Regardless.... you can't say I'm wrong about the whole image, so one wonders why you even made the comment you did.

A.) It's off topic
B.) The Images I posted prior to your post prove me right

*Sigh* :mad2:

Jerion
8th Nov 2008, 08:43
Older style huds always use bitmap graphics. RI makes use of vector graphics, which while good for some things is not always the way you want to go. I have yet to see a game that uses vector graphics for it's HUD over hi-res bitmaps scaled down to fit whatever the set resolution is.

K^2
8th Nov 2008, 09:59
I don't see why they don't vector HUD's, though. Fonts already are vectored for the same reason it would be a good idea to vector the graphics. Not to mention the savings on memory usage.

ZylonBane
8th Nov 2008, 17:48
Resolution independent huds would mean there was a new hud designed to run in x resolution.
No. A resolution-independent HUD means that the HUD is the same relative size on-screen no matter what resolution the game is running at.

What you mention above is one possible implementation of a res-independent HUD. Other implementations include scaling bitmap art, and just doing the entire HUD as vector graphics. Most games still do the scaling-bitmap thing, since vector outlines really limit the design, and there's no practical difference between a scaled texture map and a scaled 2D bitmap.

Jerion
8th Nov 2008, 20:50
I don't see why they don't vector HUD's, though. Fonts already are vectored for the same reason it would be a good idea to vector the graphics. Not to mention the savings on memory usage.

It's arguably easier to make HUD graphics as bitmaps when your maximum resolution is 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200 for 16:10 monitors). Using vector graphics for HUDs is ideal when you can't know the resolution that the game will be run at, but considering that Full HD and the hi-end res of most PC displays are very close (excluding the obnoxiously high resolutions of some 30" monitors), it's not overly beneficial.

K^2
8th Nov 2008, 21:50
since vector outlines really limit the design
Not at all. Very few people still do art pixel-by-pixel, and that's the only thing vector art doesn't let you do. Of course, if you are going to do any interesting transforms, you'll have to apply them at run-time. But since most transforms you would be interested in can be done either as 3D rendering or simple convolutions, it really isn't a problem.

It's arguably easier to make HUD graphics as bitmaps when your maximum resolution is 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200 for 16:10 monitors).
That is true only if you know for sure when you start that you'll know exactly how big you want every element to be. And if your plan is to start from an even higher resolution and scale it down to whatever size, you will only be using methods that are consistent with what you'd do with vectors anyways. I think, in the long run, switching your entire UI graphics team to vectors and 3D would be cost-beneficial.

Keep in mind, though, that I'm not an artist. My full extent of vector art experience is making vectored buttons in flash. I know exactly how much extra work it would take to make a good vectored HUD operational, and I think it is worth the trouble. I'd certainly code it that way if the art team was up to it. But as far as art of it goes, my opinion is formed purely by second-hand knowledge.

ZylonBane
8th Nov 2008, 23:45
Not at all. Very few people still do art pixel-by-pixel
Well... good to know I don't have to bother reading anything you have to say anymore.

Jerion
9th Nov 2008, 00:09
Well... good to know I don't have to bother reading anything you have to say anymore.

Hey, come on. That one statement was the only false part of the reply. everything else pretty accurate.

LeatherJacket
9th Nov 2008, 00:16
Are you guys saying significant amount pixel art is used in modern games?

K^2
9th Nov 2008, 00:44
Are you guys saying significant amount pixel art is used in modern games?
I personally know two excellent pixel artists who can't for the life of them find a job. So the answer is probably no. Some touch-ups are done on pixel-by-pixel level, but most of the art is vectored, filled with gradients, goes through a few transforms and only then slightly touched up. I'm sure I'm missing a couple of crucial steps, but except for the last few stages, it is still entirely scalable. Pixel art takes relatively long time to make, and it makes it non-cost-beneficial to use in video games, as far as I'm aware. Back when sprites needed to look good in 16x16 at 8-bit depth, that was the only way. Now, when a small button on a screen needs to be done in 128x128 it really makes no sense to do it that way.

ZylonBane
9th Nov 2008, 01:07
A "pixel artist" is not at all the same thing as a texture artist. Texture artists, obviously, work with pixels. Lots and lots of pixels. And while they may occasionally make use of vector objects in their work, the good ones make use of a biological technology called "the ability to draw".

To pick a recent example, look at Fallout 3's Pip-Boy. It's all hand-painted textures, applied to a 3D mesh. And the screen itself is filled with pre-drawn bitmaps. Even the individual letters are bitmaps.

LeatherJacket
9th Nov 2008, 05:46
So the answer is probably no.

I assumed what you meant by "do art pixel-by-pixel" was pixel art. So I was surprised to read Kieranator's and ZylonBane's reply and my question was aimed at them.

I think I know the difference between texture and pixel artists :D.

Anyways, I think even though most games' HUD can easily be vectorized (automatically by the editing program as K^2) suggests, the imlpementation burden for a game engine might outweight its benefits. It best belongs to either a standardized API that can work with Direct3D / GL or probably a middleware level API that layers on top of a graphics API. So I think unless that's there we are stuck with scaled down HUD.

@K^2 .kkreiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger) used a custom tools to record operations performed by the artists to create geometry and textures and exported just the operations. But they got converted to polygonal meshes and raster textures at load time. This was primarily to shrink the disk footptrint though.

Jerion
9th Nov 2008, 06:38
I'm all kinds of confuzzled right now. I was talking about one thing...Zylon was talking about another...I think I'm going to step out of this convo right now. :)

K^2
9th Nov 2008, 09:38
A "pixel artist" is not at all the same thing as a texture artist. Texture artists, obviously, work with pixels. Lots and lots of pixels. And while they may occasionally make use of vector objects in their work, the good ones make use of a biological technology called "the ability to draw".

To pick a recent example, look at Fallout 3's Pip-Boy. It's all hand-painted textures, applied to a 3D mesh. And the screen itself is filled with pre-drawn bitmaps. Even the individual letters are bitmaps.
Texture artists use pixel work to add appearance of texture to materials. That is rarely applicable to HUDs. Furthermore, in situations where it is, the effect can easily be achieved by texturing vector graphics or 3D. Your own example with Pip-Boy demonstrates it. Regardless of your screen's resolution, the Pip-Boy will be rendered to just the right size, because it is 3D, and as such, an example of vector graphics.

As for hand-drawing things, even that can be turned into vectors. The standard poor man's way of getting a hand-drawn image from paper to digital is to vector over a scan. Granted, most artists these days use stylus-based tools with much better success. However, you can easily write software that transforms strokes into vector form as the artist works. The results will be similar to vectoring over the scan, and these images are easily scalable.

ZylonBane
9th Nov 2008, 15:22
Your own example with Pip-Boy demonstrates it. Regardless of your screen's resolution, the Pip-Boy will be rendered to just the right size, because it is 3D, and as such, an example of vector graphics.
You're using the term "vector graphics" wrong. That term is almost exclusively used to describe art created with programs like Adobe Illustrator. Art that is defined entirely by vector outlines and solid fills (and gradients if they're feeling fancy). Stuff like this:

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/guilherme_marconi_girlingreen_small.jpg

A texture-mapped 3D object HUD, therefore, is NOT a "vector HUD".

K^2
10th Nov 2008, 03:23
3D graphics is vectored. The only difference between vector graphics done in 2D and 3D is the transforms applied to vector data in 3D to create a 2D projection. From there, 3D graphics is rendered exactly the same as 2D vector art. In other words, your graphics card uses 3D vector data to produce 2D vector art that is rendered to the screen.

Now, textures are rarely used with vector art, but they can be, quite easily. If you need to create appearance of certain materials on the HUD, you can texture the vector art. It is no different than texturing 3D surfaces, and the 3D hardware will handle it in exactly the same way.

So you see, when you render HUD from a 3D object, you are still doing vector art as a mid-way step. There is no way around it.

GmanPro
10th Nov 2008, 04:24
3D graphics is vectored. The only difference between vector graphics done in 2D and 3D is the transforms applied to vector data in 3D to create a 2D projection. From there, 3D graphics is rendered exactly the same as 2D vector art. In other words, your graphics card uses 3D vector data to produce 2D vector art that is rendered to the screen.

Now, textures are rarely used with vector art, but they can be, quite easily. If you need to create appearance of certain materials on the HUD, you can texture the vector art. It is no different than texturing 3D surfaces, and the 3D hardware will handle it in exactly the same way.

So you see, when you render HUD from a 3D object, you are still doing vector art as a mid-way step. There is no way around it.
:scratch: ...
I can never really follow what your saying when you start talking like this^^

Is this how you look when you post? :D

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo255/GmanPro/omgreally.jpg?t=1226294306

Jerion
10th Nov 2008, 04:31
^^

It's all right. I understand what he's talking about and I can only follow him half the time. :p

How did wide screen support get on to a discussion about HUD graphics again? http://www.kof.invisionzone.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/offtopic.gif

ZylonBane
10th Nov 2008, 04:35
It's all right. I understand what he's talking about and I can only follow him half the time. :p
It's the sort of gibberish that can only be generated by someone who genuinely believes he understands something that he really only sort of does.

Jets Connor
10th Nov 2008, 05:15
I hope it supports widescreen. Deus ex did. More importantly, will it support portrait monitor mode? Another thing Deud Ex did, if you don't count the weapon models.