Jump to content

Welcome to the upgraded PCGamingWiki forums and files page. The current Wiki and Forum bridge is not functioning at the moment, therefore your Forum account currently has no password set. Please reset your Forum password via email check to generate a new password. If you have any issues please message Andytizer on Discord.

Mirh

Resolutions specification

Recommended Posts

Ok, I don't really remember where I had discussed about this before, but surprise surprise the moment is come.

We have a 4:3 only game (not technically "only", but practically you have to), which can -be hacked to- run in 4K resolutions

 

Which, contrarily to actual tooltip, has nothing necessarily to do with 3840x2160, but just whether any ~4000 horizontal pixels resolution is supported.

And no, it's not only about WSGF own definition. Which yes, I'm sure is supposed to mean "support for at least [that] standard 16:9 resolution".

But there has to be a reason after all if we have two distinct cells for resolutions.

 

 

So to sum up, my proposal is to make every row imply a "concept".

  • Widescreen resolution: 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio, as opposed to good old 4:3
  • "Standard expectations" (aka widescreen resolution?): are all the "common resolutions" supported? (I concede the actual "property status" would have to just reflect actual -16:9- ones)
  • Multi-monitor: Odd aspect ratios, but even if that's not the case, I'd say even being "multi monitors aware" could count (like here)
  • 21:9: Surprisingly, this is not about AR (I mean, put aside stupid games that added hardcoded 32:9 resolutions, once you support multi screen normal 32:9 it should be easy). It's about crazy FoVs.
  • 4K: In one word: density. Which mean "finding a dimensions limit" the game won't exceed (either because it can't or it doesn't want)

All these definitions have been chosen to give a better "formalization" to criteria.

Albeit this further abstraction layer hasn't any direct results (put aside I guess the bother to read my thought), and for the most part it just traces the already existing ideas, I hope this will make possible to decouple the criteria from the current "state of technology", that's anything but absolute.

So, in the future we could avoid a rout like that for high framerate.

 

You may be wondering where does that weird first bullet point came from.

Tl;dr: even 16:9 expectation seems arbitrary. And at the same time I was realizing we even usually concedes to write there if games stopped to support 4:3 altogether.

So I tried to merge the two things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki currently has no requirement for the level of support a feature has, so even having just one resolution of that type counts as the feature being supported. This would tie into your earlier suggestion of introducing a partial value for cases where support exists but is minimal (I'm not opposed to such an addition).

 

The multi-monitor feature only refers to spanned resolutions. Support for multiple non-spanned displays should be noted but does not count as multi-monitor feature support.

 

4K Ultra HD specifically refers to a 3840x2160 resolution (other 4K resolutions exist but are not marketed as 4K Ultra HD).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The multi-monitor feature only refers to spanned resolutions.

4K Ultra HD specifically refers to a 3840x2160 resolution.

Agreed. And what makes this possible? AR and "infinite" resolution.

There's nothing special in 3840x2160. It's simply what you get when you take a 16:9 resolution, and you add density.

Together those very rows can highlight this thing, and much much more.

 

Mind you, I'm not asking for necessarily renaming rows or modifying already existing articles.

It's just about avoiding "semantic conflicts", overlaps, by separating "cause from effects".

I'd shiver, considering 21:9 monitors are just some hundreds of pixels far from being 4K too.

 

This would tie into your earlier suggestion of introducing a partial value for cases where support exists but is minimal (I'm not opposed to such an addition).

Lol, which I had even forgot.

 

The wiki currently has no requirement for the level of support a feature has, so even having just one resolution of that type counts as the feature being supported.

Mhh.........Currently I thought we had.

There are true/false/hackable properties for plain "boolean" questions like "do X has Y"..  and then WSGF ratings for quality, "is it good? better? worse?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. And what makes this possible? AR and "infinite" resolution.

There's nothing special in 3840x2160. It's simply what you get when you take a 16:9 resolution, and you add density.

Together those very rows can highlight this thing, and much much more.

True, but it seems like especially PCMR is going on about 4K specifically right now, so it does at this point make sense to just keep the value as 4K instead of arbitary resolutions. 

Also WSGF has it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] make sense to just keep the value as 4K instead of arbitary resolutions. 

That's the arbitrary resolution! Wtf?

 

Also WSGF has it that way.

Indeed. That's why I don't see the point in having duplicated stuff.

WSGF is actually really important, considering it can express quality (are there any issue? is there any sub-features of said "concept" not supported?), once the row is indeed supported. Which I believe 100% fits your idea.

This allows us to just describe "quantity" (what parts of the concept are present or missing). If the "key aspect" of that row has any particular limitation or information in the end.

 

WSGF is rating "intensively".

I'd say my points are focusing on "extensivity".

 

And I hope somebody can help me further dissecting down this explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To compound upon what Mirh said (3 years ago!), there are different use cases when I would want to know if 4K or 2160p are supported. Let's assume I have a 3840x2160 monitor (even though I don't).

  • Vertical Resolution - 2160p: Many older games are designed for a 4:3 resolution. Even if the HUD doesn't get stretched at widescreen resolutions, I still have to deal with altered FOVs and potential culling that would make an experience not go down as intended. For this reason, I would see if the game can run at 2880x2160. This isn't a truly "4K" resolution, but it has the same vertical resolution as my monitor, so I still have a nice crisp image.
  • Horizontal Resolution - "4K": Maybe there is a new game out that I can't quite play at native resolution with an acceptable frame rate on my 3840x2160 monitor. I might try to play it at 3840x1600 instead, as the reduction in vertical resolution means that I can reduce the load on the GPU. Despite this, I am still playing at "4K", and the horizontal resolution matches that of my monitor, so I don't need to deal with image scaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    962
    Total Topics
    6154
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 72 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×