Close
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Showing results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Member JohnGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle Washington, USA
    Posts
    2146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Padoolikay View Post
    I've been lurking on the forums for a while but finally joining in. Hi all!

    John - I'm intrigued on how you like the monitor when it is working. Happy with it? I've been getting more into multi-boxing and been making the same monitor decisions. I've gone with the Acer XR382CQK instead because it's a bit bigger (37.5 inches) and I'm a sucker for the larger screens, but I'm having second thoughts because the Dell/Alienware one has so many stellar reviews and I'd love to know from someone who is multi-boxing.

    I'm also interested what window layouts you all use when on an ultra wide to make best use of the extra space. Previously I've been 5-boxing on a 16:9 24 inch and been using the standard lead character up top, 4 below approach which means my main window is roughly 21:9. Weirdly, on a 21:9 monitor I'm assuming the most efficient use of space is making the main window 16:9 and then putting the other four on the right in the extra space?
    I use a basic windows layout, all 5 at 3440x1120 resolution. It makes use of the full immersion a curved monitor can offer.
    https://imgur.com/a/bwtNX11

    As for the monitor itself, I love it for gaming. Its kindof weird for surfing the internet and whatnot but I am used to that now. No dead pixels, no flicker, great accent lighting, easily adjustable, tripod legs keep it from taking up much desk space. If the cable thing works out I wouldn't find much fault with this.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Padoolikay View Post
    I've been lurking on the forums for a while but finally joining in. Hi all!

    ...

    I'm also interested what window layouts you all use when on an ultra wide to make best use of the extra space. Previously I've been 5-boxing on a 16:9 24 inch and been using the standard lead character up top, 4 below approach which means my main window is roughly 21:9. Weirdly, on a 21:9 monitor I'm assuming the most efficient use of space is making the main window 16:9 and then putting the other four on the right in the extra space?
    Welcome!

    There's a reason the "standard" main on the top (or bottom), others smaller on a row at bottom (or top) is used so often. Mostly, it's because it's simple and it works well. Also, it creates an artificial wider screen with a bigger field of view. WoW is a Hor+ game (top to bottom, same amount depicted, horizontal size widens or narrows as needed to fill the screen). See http://www.wsgf.org/article/screen-change for more information on that, compare the two images in the Hor+ section, imagine the first one is 16:9 and the second what you see in the "standard" multiboxing layout (or in a 21:9 layout). A standard multiboxing layout on a 21:9 monitor is even wider still.

    JohnGabriel is running at 43:14 (or about 27.6:9). Using only a side for the main screen and a vertical row for the others would reduce his FoV. Refer back to the two Hor+ pictures again, imagine an enemy standing in the space that is hidden on the first image, but shown on the second. Which would you rather play on?

    Note that if a game is Vert-, then wider is not a better FOV, it's worse as instead of seeing more, you see less.

    PS- The pixel math also doesn't work with making the main a side 16:9 (2560:1440) region of a 21:9 monitor. 16:9 smaller windows that are the width of the remaining 880 pixels of width would have a height of 495. You can fit roughly 2.9 of those on the side before they start overlapping. The standard window layout allocates 1 / (n + 1) * resolution pixels to the height of the row of smaller windows. This leaves n / (n + 1) * resolution pixels for the main screen and guarantees that when shrunk into the smaller row, it decreases in height by a factor of n. The width to keep proportionality also decreases by a factor of n, making exactly n windows fit across the screen.

    More complex simple layouts are easily possible. JohnGabriel allocates 40 pixels for his start menu for instance before doing the chopping, leaving 1400 and n = 4, so to get the small row height he divides by 1 / (4 + 1) = 280, and that leaves 1120 remaining for the main window. It'd be 288 and 1112 if he didn't leave those 40, and different values if he had 5 smaller windows, etc

  3. #23

    Default

    Thanks SServis. Really good link. I totally agree that the extra FOV is fantastic, and definitely preferable for regular combat etc. As you caught: I highly simplified the math, and my thought was more whether you end up with "wasted" space dependent on camera zoom etc, and also whether the alt windows become too small to be useful.

    However, I was definitely over-thinking the problem! My Acer arrived and it's 3840 x 1600, so doing the standard layout has given me a main window of 3840x1300 (~26.5:9) (ie fantastic FOV) and the alt windows are large enough to be meaningful too. Now it's just the fun challenge of rearranging all the UI components to be most useful.

    It'll be really hard to go back to a 16:9 monitor now. Gaming is a whole new world.

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •