The problem as I see it is one of conflict between software and manufacture.
Manufacturers produce two monitors and call both "24-inch". Thus we naturally compare them, thinking they are the same "size". Manufacturers lock the horizontal res and vary the vertical res.
In reality these monitors are not the same size. If a 24" ws is size class n, the 24" 4:3 is one whole size class bigger (n+1). A 1600x1200 4:3 monitor should be compared to a ws monitor with a res of 2136:1200. You would always expect to pay more for the ws variant, not less.
This new approach would match perfectly software which locks vertical POV and varies horizontal.
At the moment, software is not in harmony with manufacture. We have fallen victim to marketing at the expense of common sense. Common sense says ws should be bigger and more expensive than the non-ws.
But no, instead we compare a smaller ws monitor with a larger 4:3 (or 16:10) monitor.
If we are to continue with current manufacturing trends, where horiz pixel count is locked and vert pixel count varies, and stick to the (silly) situation where the ws is cheaper than the 4:3, then software needs to stick to vert- fov changing.
Then people would be forced to realise that a 24" ws is smaller than a 24" 16:10, and if they really want a same-size (or bigger) ws, they need to move up to 2560:1440 screen. And pay more.
In reality, we should be comparing 1920:1080 24" monitor to 1680:1050 20"/22" as the same size class. And we should rightly say "if you want wide-screen you pay more for it".
Otherwise games should use the same horizontal FOV for 1920:1080 as for 1920:1200, using vert-. That is not to say the game should always lock horizontal FOV. Just that two monitors with the same horiztonal pixel count should have the same horizontal FOV.
A 2560:1440 monitor should have the option of a larger horizontal FOV (unless you just want to make the image bigger). But it should share that horizontal FOV with a 2560x1600 16:10 monitor, using vert-.
TL;DR:
Manufacturers and software industry have opposite approach: one locks vertical FOV (software), one locks horizontal pixel count (manufacturer).
RESULT = FAIL.
(and epic nonsense arguments on internet, where both sides fail at seeing the bigger picture.)
Manufacturers produce two monitors and call both "24-inch". Thus we naturally compare them, thinking they are the same "size". Manufacturers lock the horizontal res and vary the vertical res.
In reality these monitors are not the same size. If a 24" ws is size class n, the 24" 4:3 is one whole size class bigger (n+1). A 1600x1200 4:3 monitor should be compared to a ws monitor with a res of 2136:1200. You would always expect to pay more for the ws variant, not less.
This new approach would match perfectly software which locks vertical POV and varies horizontal.
At the moment, software is not in harmony with manufacture. We have fallen victim to marketing at the expense of common sense. Common sense says ws should be bigger and more expensive than the non-ws.
But no, instead we compare a smaller ws monitor with a larger 4:3 (or 16:10) monitor.
If we are to continue with current manufacturing trends, where horiz pixel count is locked and vert pixel count varies, and stick to the (silly) situation where the ws is cheaper than the 4:3, then software needs to stick to vert- fov changing.
Then people would be forced to realise that a 24" ws is smaller than a 24" 16:10, and if they really want a same-size (or bigger) ws, they need to move up to 2560:1440 screen. And pay more.
In reality, we should be comparing 1920:1080 24" monitor to 1680:1050 20"/22" as the same size class. And we should rightly say "if you want wide-screen you pay more for it".
Otherwise games should use the same horizontal FOV for 1920:1080 as for 1920:1200, using vert-. That is not to say the game should always lock horizontal FOV. Just that two monitors with the same horiztonal pixel count should have the same horizontal FOV.
A 2560:1440 monitor should have the option of a larger horizontal FOV (unless you just want to make the image bigger). But it should share that horizontal FOV with a 2560x1600 16:10 monitor, using vert-.
TL;DR:
Manufacturers and software industry have opposite approach: one locks vertical FOV (software), one locks horizontal pixel count (manufacturer).
RESULT = FAIL.
(and epic nonsense arguments on internet, where both sides fail at seeing the bigger picture.)
Last edited:
) Once the actual game starts, the screen is filled - but whether the aspect ratio is correct I don't know. Obviously those games were designed with console 720p in mind.
You are wrong. 
