EPTMonitor Size - Is smaller better for SC2? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Anomandaris
Afghanistan440 Posts
| ||
|
AeonStrife
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
Ashera
Canada202 Posts
On March 22 2011 10:07 Westy wrote: This causes all sorts of problems with the mouse coming out of the screen. For me at least. Does anyone use windowed mode? You can just windowed mode but put it into fullscreen. Or am i just addressing a totally different problem. | ||
|
bwally
United States670 Posts
On March 22 2011 10:07 Westy wrote: This causes all sorts of problems with the mouse coming out of the screen. For me at least. Does anyone use windowed mode? You need to set Windowed (Fullscreen) and Confine Mouse Cursor->On. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
| ||
|
LesPhoques
Canada782 Posts
| ||
|
Wihl
Sweden472 Posts
| ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
ribboo
Sweden1842 Posts
On April 27 2011 04:24 LesPhoques wrote: Stop looking at tiny details and focus on your play. Minimap awareness will not give you wins or even lose games. Focus on other mistakes, srsly r u kidding? i'd say a big amount of my losses, are due to unspotted drops. they do soooo much damage, when not spotted in time. minimap awareness is huge. | ||
|
Rohan
United Kingdom83 Posts
 | ||
|
ZeraToss
Germany1094 Posts
On March 22 2011 10:07 Westy wrote: This causes all sorts of problems with the mouse coming out of the screen. For me at least. Does anyone use windowed mode? anyone i know uses windowed mode -->easier to tab out | ||
|
MattyClutch
United States711 Posts
On April 26 2011 17:51 Shinobi1982 wrote: Just make sure you have max field of view (1080p / 16;9). Anything less and you will lose visibility ingame. ![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif) I'm not sure but I think 21" widescreen is the smallest possible monitor size that supports 1080p. So you have the best possible combination that matches your preference the most. I have heard this before so I will assume you are correct, but I don't see how that gif can be accurate at displaying the loss. 1920x1200 (16:10) has more pixels than a 1080 display, not a lot more, but more. Why would you artificially lose pixels horizontally because you gained possible vertical pixels? EDIT: To clarify I am not disagreeing I just don't see why black bars are added to the 16:10 when say a 1920x1200 display has the same horizontal pixels as a 1920x1080. Did Blizzard just fail horribly at the FOV? | ||
|
artanis2
United States732 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
On April 27 2011 05:42 MattyClutch wrote: I have heard this before so I will assume you are correct, but I don't see how that gif can be accurate at displaying the loss. 1920x1200 (16:10) has more pixels than a 1080 display, not a lot more, but more. Why would you artificially lose pixels horizontally because you gained possible vertical pixels? EDIT: To clarify I am not disagreeing I just don't see why black bars are added to the 16:10 when say a 1920x1200 display has the same horizontal pixels as a 1920x1080. Did Blizzard just fail horribly at the FOV? focus on the aspect ratio and not the resolution numbers a 16: 9 aspect ratio is wider than a 16:10 aspect ratio | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
| ||
|
artanis2
United States732 Posts
On April 27 2011 05:42 MattyClutch wrote: I have heard this before so I will assume you are correct, but I don't see how that gif can be accurate at displaying the loss. 1920x1200 (16:10) has more pixels than a 1080 display, not a lot more, but more. Why would you artificially lose pixels horizontally because you gained possible vertical pixels? EDIT: To clarify I am not disagreeing I just don't see why black bars are added to the 16:10 when say a 1920x1200 display has the same horizontal pixels as a 1920x1080. Did Blizzard just fail horribly at the FOV? Imagine the height of the 4:3 16: 9 and 16:10 monitors are the same. The widest one is 16: 9, followed by 16:10 then 4:3. | ||
|
MagnusHyperion
United States288 Posts
The next step is confining all of that information in a compact space to make it all easily accessible within direct eye-sight. Thus, the smaller the monitor (assuming 1920x1080 resolution) the better. From these two points, you can conclude that the optimum monitor setup would be to have the smallest 1920x1080 screen possible which typically lies in the 20.5" to 21.5" range depending on current electronics trends. | ||
|
LovE-
United States1963 Posts
Before I had this monitor I was playing on a 17" inch laptop and noticed no difference. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
Whenever you see a tour of a house though, in Korea, Grubbys, RotterDams etc - they have 22" at most in 99% of cases. I think the first time I've seen a large monitor is Nesteas in Artosis's recent IM tour. I guess the trick is, to be observant and also have good eyes. I have terrible eyes - so if I moved my monitor further away so I could see the minimap better, I would miss other details  | ||
|
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
| ||
| ||
