|
Hi.
I don't know if it's just me or what but...
Whenever I am watching stream, the players screens are so much smaller than my screen. By that I mean, they can fit a lot more gameplay into their screen while playing the game than mine.
It's almost like my screen is too close ? I have some pictures to further explain:
Here is what it SHOULD look like (all the streams look this way):
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/2nt907c.jpg)
Here is what I play with :
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/33tt500.jpg)
The 2nd picture is actually what I see when I play. That is how big my units are, and how close everything is. You can see from the red circles that my edge of the screen cuts off way before normal. Also, my CC is giant same with my units.
*note the 2nd pic isn't the full picture, bad upload or something, but you get the point regardless*
So , am I just nuts or what? Have I actually been playing sc2 for almost 2 years with a massive disadvantage ? (not being able to see a good part of the screen)
I've played around in the resolution settings, and nothing changes too much. So that is why I ask, what the fuck is going on??
|
|
|
Time to buy a bigger monitor.
|
Thanks for the fast reply.
How exactly do I change my aspect ratio to 16: 9? Or do I need to get a different monitor?
I don't know much about this stuff, sorry. But I assume, I'm on 4:3 ?
|
Basically just need a new monitor.
There's most likely a way using your graphics cards options to force 16: 9 on your screen, but it would just make things worse by making the game microscopically small overall.
|
On April 26 2012 12:57 DannyJ wrote:
Basically just need a new monitor.
There's most likely a way using your graphics cards options to force 16: 9 on your screen, but it would just make things worse by making the game microscopically small overall.
Dang... alright thanks man
|
On April 26 2012 12:57 DannyJ wrote:
Basically just need a new monitor.
There's most likely a way using your graphics cards options to force 16: 9 on your screen, but it would just make things worse by making the game microscopically small overall.
Just to let everyone know... I switched monitors to my 42" TV and I have the same problem..
Is everyone sure it's just a new monitor I need? A bigger one?
|
This illustrates the difference between the various aspect ratios:
![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif)
Did you set in-game resolution to 1920x1080, assuming your 42" is 1080p... or 1280x720 if it's an older / shittier model?
|
yes unless youre using a rare/older monitor its probaly just an in game setting that wrong, not the monitor. Go check it out in the video options of starcraft and see what resolution your running, try to make sure its as high as you can get with your monitor.
skyR posted an awesome example of the differences!
|
On April 26 2012 13:39 skyR wrote:This illustrates the difference between the various aspect ratios: + Show Spoiler +Did you set in-game resolution to 1920x1080, assuming your 42" is 1080p... or 1280x720 if it's an older / shittier model?
This seems odd to me, as my 16x10 monitor is 1920x1200, while a 16x9 monitor is 1920x1080. Wouldn't it instead give you more vertical view? Or does blizzard rely purely on aspect ratio?
Alex
|
On April 26 2012 14:04 EvolPenguin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 13:39 skyR wrote:This illustrates the difference between the various aspect ratios: + Show Spoiler +Did you set in-game resolution to 1920x1080, assuming your 42" is 1080p... or 1280x720 if it's an older / shittier model? This seems odd to me, as my 16x10 monitor is 1920x1200, while a 16x9 monitor is 1920x1080. Wouldn't it instead give you more vertical view? Or does blizzard rely purely on aspect ratio? Alex
Aspect ratio. Otherwise imagine the chaos with eyefinity.
|
On April 26 2012 13:39 skyR wrote:This illustrates the difference between the various aspect ratios: Did you set in-game resolution to 1920x1080, assuming your 42" is 1080p... or 1280x720 if it's an older / shittier model?
Hey thanks for your help Jingle.
So you were right. Now I must purchase a new monitor or else my sc game suffers...
Is there anything specific I need to buy ? Or are any $100 monitors good enough these days?
Thanks so mcuh!!@#$
|
5930 Posts
No, all $100 monitors are varying ranges of terrible. Set a budget of $200 and you'll start cooking with some gas.
|
Honestly I don't think 16 : 9 is that significant of an advantage over the other aspect ratios. There are several pros that play at 16 : 10 (Stephano did for a long time), and Axslav even uses 4:3. Your eyes have to travel a lot less distance between the minimap and supply, which you should be doing the majority of the time anyway.
|
On April 26 2012 15:39 FredDan wrote:
Honestly I don't think 16 : 9 is that significant of an advantage over the other aspect ratios. There are several pros that play at 16 : 10 (Stephano did for a long time), and Axslav even uses 4:3. Your eyes have to travel a lot less distance between the minimap and supply, which you should be doing the majority of the time anyway.
This is vaguely ridiculous, since aspect ratio and diagonal size are only casually related. While it may be a small difference, using something as arbitrary as that in support of not changing (when he seems to want to) is slightly bizarre. I mean, I don't bother playing on "ideal" graphics settings to make it easier to spot cloaked units, but the fact that I like shiny graphics doesn't mean it wouldn't help.
|
On April 26 2012 15:29 Womwomwom wrote:
No, all $100 monitors are varying ranges of terrible. Set a budget of $200 and you'll start cooking with some gas.
I couldn't disagree more. Even bargain brand LCD monitors are of decent quality these days, and you certainly don't need to spend $200.
Here's a good deal on an Acer 21.5" monitor for $110.
Here's a high quality Asus LED monitor for $130 after coupon code.
Sure, some people might prefer to pay a little more (150-200 range) for a larger monitor in the 23 to 25 inch range but it's certainly not necessary.
|
|
|
I'm going to pick up a used Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW 20" for $80
Should work. Thanks guys.
|
5930 Posts
On April 26 2012 23:26 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 15:29 Womwomwom wrote:
No, all $100 monitors are varying ranges of terrible. Set a budget of $200 and you'll start cooking with some gas. I couldn't disagree more. Even bargain brand LCD monitors are of decent quality these days, and you certainly don't need to spend $200. Here's a good deal on an Acer 21.5" monitor for $110. Here's a high quality Asus LED monitor for $130 after coupon code. Sure, some people might prefer to pay a little more (150-200 range) for a larger monitor in the 23 to 25 inch range but it's certainly not necessary.
The first one is a really, really old TN CCFL monitor (no low end monitor uses CCFL anymore, I can guess the age of that Acer) which suggests that it'll have:
- banding
- a backlight that will dim noticeably over time
- truly awful viewing angles
- 500:1 true contrast ratio, if not lower.
That is the definition of terrible. It doesn't help that Acer hasn't made a good monitor in god knows how many years.
The second monitor you listed is probably decent, though.
Most people don't pay more for a larger monitor. Most pay more to get something that is better. No its not necessary but why blow $100 on something that is shit when you can pay double to get an item that is better in every way. Its not like a monitor becomes obsolete as quickly as an ultra expensive GPU; it also happens to be your desktop's main method of information output.
|
If I could suggest a good monitor for 140$ it would be the aoc e2343fk I got it at microcenter and is way better than my dell 4:3 monitor
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
right now if you want to try it out.
