4:3 VS 16:9 - What FOV do the pros use?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- 🌎 Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➡️ nordvpn.com/kliks . It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ☝️
Field of view determines how much you can see. Pros favour less. I favour more. I make a whole video ranting about it and how unfair everything is. Enjoy!
0:00 - Intro
3:00 - Aspect ratios
4:09 - prosettings.net/cs-go-pro-set...
4:36 - Aspect ratios 2
5:52 - Resolutions
9:32 - Stretched VS black bars
10:36 - Framerate
11:48 - Black bars 2
12:21 - FOV!
13:25 - Refresh rates
15:36 - Conclusion - Ігри
When they add a FOV slider I will make sure to bind my second mouse key to change the fov so I can "scope in" with the AK lol
Deagle and nova would be new sniper meta
This is actually a pretty common bind in TF2, usually used with the Spy's Ambassador revolver (the only non-Sniper weapon that can headshot). However the difference between 90 FOV (widest) and 75 FOV (smallest) is not that much.
Also the game could just disable FOV changes while connected to a server.
@@kered13
Wdym "that can headshot"
@@g76agi Most weapons in TF2 do not get bonus damage from headshots. Only Sniper primaries and the Spy's Ambassador do.
Oh dear this is why we can't have nice things, remember when basic things like semi complex gameplay or moderate levels of immersion worth thing, next thing you know we can't even adjust the mip bias cuz apparently people have been negging that cuz they're pro gamers LOL.. custom binds custom aliases, not that pro gamers you know use too many buttons obviously because the pro gamer mice has less buttons and the pro gamer keyboard has less buttons cuz I don't know.. I guess what's the point of streaming pro gaming if you don't look like you're a 70s clerk balancing the books?
12:06 Lovely how the monitors are advertised as "21:9 You see more!" and all of the players use black bars.
Depends on their rules or games. Valorant for exemple forces me to have black bars on my 21:9 to be fair. They settled on a max of 16:9. In other games such as Post Scriptum for exemple, it gives me an enormous advantage. RTS games aswell are much more pleasant like that
For what it’s worth, I love my 21:9 monitor. It lets me play 16:9 stretched, best of both worlds 😈
@@mollyscullyscully80 But what depends? Are you replying to what you've read above? The whole point of the OP's post was to point out the ironic contrast of the add itself and the fact that the players seen in the shot use black bars.
Wow!, ua-cam.com/video/v8_KPqOIBIQ/v-deo.html half life 3 trailer!!
You know what kills me though.. Valve was on the forefront of widescreen gaming, they were absolutely one of the first people to both push it and implement it in like a semi-coherent comprehensive manner, and that was the draw you could see more on the edge of your screen in 16 by 9 or 16x10 LOL I come back to half life 2 wish I hadn't touched since The Orange box update, they had just added back in and fov of 100 and had hard locked it.. apparently it had been it had been gone for years lol... Like I ran games in 16x9 on a 4x3 monitor because of valves showcase on widescreen displays.. and, somehow despite actual panorama 235 aspect ratios being both readily available and reasonably adopted, certainly the 21x9s, and it's a genuine struggle just to get AAA game take your pick to even select that resolution, never mind any sort of formatting of 2D elements and absolutely not things like fov... Unreal engine 4 default locks both viewmodel and the camera, and usually they just call it a day after you know a month or two when they add support for the resolution number and then you just get a look at things in the tiniest of boxes LOL on your extra wide monitor.. cuz if you didn't notice before LOL a whole third of your view model being cut off that's going to let you know you're being fucked on the official level..
Let's not forget that in the 1.6 days using 16:9 was detrimental, as the wider your resolution was, the *lower* your FOV became.
Nah you lost vertical visibility for wider aspect ratios, that's why viewmodels are more cut off at the bottom in goldsrc games.
of course in Half-Life that isn't a problem just change your FOV to compensate, but in Counter-Strike 1.6 you can't do that.
most games do that
@@WednesdayMan What do you mean by "nah"? You lose vertical visibility because it lowers your FOV. Just like he said
@@Franshela it's called cropping. I don't think FOV is simply the best term to describe the issue with widescreen in the Goldsrc engine.
@@WednesdayMan M8, it limits you *FIELD OF VIEW* aka how much you can see. Call it cropping if you like, but that doesn't remove the fact that it limits your fov.
9:16 is a great competitive aspect ratio, any enemies coming from above or below will never catch you off guard
What do you mean? Vertical field of view is independent of aspect ratio.
Vertigo res
This would help me since I always get killed from below
Didnt watch the video did you?
@@juanvazquez5836 but you had the high ground
Chain together a bunch of curved monitors and make a full circle. 360° of peripheral vision, with no image distortion!
Also, Dead by Daylight is the only game I've ever played with a fixed horizontal FoV and a variable vertical FoV. Playing on a 21:9 monitor is miserable - it cuts off the top and bottom of the screen. Turning it sideways to be 9:21 makes you a gigachad who can see over walls.
Older versions of Fortnite also increased vertical fov when using square aspect ratios
i love that all of us have left random timestamps all over the comments lmao
sea of thieves too, it sux
god i hate stretch res dbd players
I think pubg does this too in order not to give ultrawide players an advantage
I guess that additionally the stretched effect for enemy sideways movement (appearing faster) also works for your own sight. So you can differ better between lower strafing speeds, which is helping with the "only shoot, when standing still" CS accuracy. But this probably especially works for beginners, when it's already muscle memory, there is no more need for this
Bro i got 7 k hour and My muscles do not remember yesterday. May iam def hahahaha.
if u played in 1 way ur entire life, werent ever shown any other resolution or fov or movement speed, then u changed from 4:3 to 16:9 u would adjust immediately w no downside
2 me that suggests that its entirely meaningless & arguing its like equipping a different accessory in an rpg is wishful thinking (if it can b considered thinking @ all)
resolution, fov, sensitivity, & EVEN monitor hz above 60 do not translate 2 anything substantial enough 2 improve performance in comparison 2 alternatives
if u cant do it in 4:3 60 hz w a 3 or 30 inch/360, it just means u cant do it
@@-inputoutput Like LinusTechTips summarized in his does fps make you a better gamer video: higher FPS, higher res, higher hz doesn't necessarily make you a better gamer, but It makes It easier to be a better gamer.
4:3 definitely helped me learn cs movement, and I feel like in general my strafing is much better on 4:3 than 16:9. When I swap to a 21:9 monitor I'll probably also play 16:9 to keep my eyes on movement
@@thebluegiraffe4796 looking @ ur monitor helped u learn cs movement, the aspect ratio did not
if u can learn it in 16:9, and if switching from 16:9 over 2 4:3 doesnt improve ur performance, then its not 4:3 thats doing anything
ur ascribing value 2 4:3, not the other way around
its as impactful as a lucky troll doll, which is 2 say it can b helpful, but purely psychologically
There's a technical reason that you can't have both a vertical and horizontal field of view at the same time while maintaining a given resolution. It's to do with how the 3D rendering math works and the projection Matrix. Horizontal FOV is a function of aspect ratio (resolution) and Vertical FOV.
I appreciate information like this
Like. This. Mans. Comment.
Rainbow 6 Siege allows you to pick a rendered aspect ratio separately from your resolution, meaning you can play on 4:3 stretched at native 1920x1080.
I like your fancy words, wizard man
...but you COULD decouple them, at the cost of further deformation, no?
Another thing you could have mentioned here is resolution scaling, i.e. rendering the game at a lower or higher resolution internally, while keeping the HUD and menu elements at native res. I think many CS players would appreciate the option.
Funnily enough modern Half-Life (and by extension goldsrc games) on OpenGL rendering has a weird sampling settings where they're all downsampled to the nearest power of 2, making the "default" modern look look like crap.
Wow! ua-cam.com/video/v8_KPqOIBIQ/v-deo.html Gaben is in a hospital :o
That could be very difficult to obtain because of how the rendering pipeline works. The engine is just not built for it.
More games are doing this nowadays but I feel like this should be a standard nowadays for video games. It makes life a lot easier for people with less powerful machines.
Their computers are pretty much all capable of running the game at much higher resolutions with high framerates anyway
1440x1080 gang represent. Played at native 16:10, then 16:9 res for years, but gave 4:3 stretched a try last year and my HS accuracy stat went up by a noticeable amount after I got used to the new res. Also I don't think wide filed of view is as important in CSGO as in some other fps games like e.g. Battlefield because angles are more predictable and good crosshair placement is crucial.
Looks like I am not the only one who plays on 1440x1080.
Ayyy. Another 1440x1080 4:3 stretched player
1440x1080 brothers… it’s nice to known I’m not alone!
everyone who plays on 1280x960 should switch to 1440x1080.
gamers :D
Is it to late to change my new year resolution?
Some info for new players if there even is such a thing: don't get stuck in researching pro player settings, such a thing as the best crosshair/viewmodel/fov/aspect ratio/resolution doesn't exist. I have >5k hours and climbed from Silver Elite Master to Global and in ~9 years of CS:GO I have tried every possible combination of settings and I still change my crosshair or go from 4:3 to 16:9 from time to time when I get too familiar with my settings and feel my gameplay is going stale. The only thing I never change are my graphical options as I landed on a good compromise betwwen performance and image quality.
Any tips for graphic for better visibility
@Sipd
These are the things that I use(in no particular order). For context, I have a gtx 1070, 32gb ram and ryzen 5600x with 240hz display. So these are the settings that give me the best image quality, player visibility and keep a high framerate for my monitor.
1)"Boost player contrast" enabled
2) Play on the highest resolution you can given your aspect ratio (so you still get high fps)
3) Enable multisampling (I keep mine on x8)
or at least FXAA (definitely watch philip's video on multisampling - ua-cam.com/video/nEbAJHd84ug/v-deo.html&ab_channel=3kliksphilip
and play with it yourself)
4) This one makes the biggest difference and I suggest everyone to use it: Nvidia in game overlay. I recommend watching Haix's video on it (ua-cam.com/video/VhsAtAl3nME/v-deo.html&ab_channel=HaiX)
With ingame overlay, play around with the filters and see which ones work for you (personally I don't turn up hdr all the way as I don't like the look of the game, but test it for yourself)
Also, the only graphics setting I keep on high is shadows so I don't get distracted when they suddenly start rendering
@@oancemr I can’t play with filters Csgo won’t let me use the filter I can’t go in any match with it sadly how do you fix that ?
@@Sipd1 they should work if you did exactly like in Haixs video. Check if your nvidia driver is up to date, if the in game overlay is enabled and if you have -allow_third_party_software in cs launch options. If all these requirements are met, you should be able to alt+z in game and see the overlay (for me, if i try to play, cs shows a popup message that i dont have trust factor enabled and i need to restart with it enabled, i click restart and then i have filters and i can play. I have to do this every time btw)
@@oancemr ok I’ll try ty
Man I love your videos, thank you for making them. Always fun and insightful to watch
Nice video! c:
Also respect for redoing some parts of the video instead of just leaving a comment/putting the correction in the description! That shows how much effort you put into your videos :D
Second time uploaded is the charm! Thanks for another video Philip!
This is a good re-do of one of your earlier videos. Interesting to see how much has stayed the same and what has changed
I may not be a pro, but I've tried 4:3 and 16:9 and I can tell you that the loss of FOV is a huge detriment. My friend uses an ultra wide and he sees things I don't, and it genuinely gives him an advantage. I've lost a few rounds because he didn't call something out that he thought I could see, when I couldn't.
Man just love your videos it's just simple things like fov but your sense of humour your music your voice just elevates the experience to another level please never stop making videos
when using stretched, it's just easier to spot bigger targets not necessarily hit them
fair point!
ive been using 4;3 stretched for 5 years. tried switching to 1920x1080 or even 1360x760 and it just felt so wierd
this vid got me to switch too 16-9 instead of 4-3 and im loving it alot more! thanks!!
4:3 is used by 3/4 of the player base such a coincidence :D 4:37
The thing is, aim sensitivity is "degrees your camera rotates in world space", it's not like desktop cursor sensitivity where more screen = more space to travel, so having thicc visuals is completely equivalent to lean ones. It really is just a matter of what your peripheral vision is filled with.
Black bars = no peripheral
Thicc = peripheral is what you would see at the middle anyways
Wide = peripheral is things you wouldn't have seen in the other options
So, from a purely game sense standpoint, wider screens are objectively better. How much better is not quantifiable, but it certainly is better to be able to see more information about the game.
but isnt your crosshair moving across pixels, making less pixels have less of a chance for you to miss
@@kylehagertybanana The game does not operate in pixels, it is just converted to pixels as a last step so it can go on the screen.
If you played the game at 1x1 (I mean resolution, not aspect ratio, so basically a RGB light bulb lol) you would have a pixel representing the whole scene, yes, but that doesn't mean that shooting would hit the entire scene.
Bullets are just ray casts (basically a virtual laser pointer that knows where it hits), they are infinitely thin and are sent in the direction you character is facing.
You can change the ratio of your vertical/horizontal sensitivity in game using m_yaw console command. This way you can have wide models and no difference in x/y sensitivity. I don't know any pros who use it, nor do I use it myself, but the option is there. For most people the placebo effect is more than enough to switch to 4:3, especially in such a mentally demanding game like cs
Apart from all that, lower FOV zooms you in a bit, so you can think of slimmer aspect ratios as being always a little scoped in, which helps more than it hinders
@@niar69 big brain time
In my experiment for my CSGO setting, the vertical resolution determent the clarity of the image. So if you want more performance while maintenance the clarity you can make 4:3 custom resolution like 1440x1080 if you have 1920x1080 monitor, you can get more performance from get 25% less resolution and 25% less image to render.
it is the best visual quality if you still want stretched :)
It's not always like that. I had a PC that would lower it's FPS when I do 4:3. Don't forget about stretching algorithms. You are still rendering a full screen image.
@@khodis2002 Yes, for another games like GoldSource Half-Life or CS 1.6 because this games rendering less image when play at 16:9 than when played at 4:3 but not for CSGO. And stretching the image at most case won't reduce performance it has something to do with how the image scale, most people set the image scaling by the monitor so it won't effect performance but there are cases that the monitor have weird scaling so people set the image scaling by the GPU and this can effect performance but not so much around 1 or 2 FPS.
yeah i use a custom 5:4 (1350:1080) resolution like that on my 1920:1080 monitor
@@sneakyman5626 1350x1080 god res
Nothing to say about the topic in question, but I just want to send some positive vibes your way dude.
I know last year was particularly hard for you with the amount of hate that got sent your way from the Covid series and the Lewis drama.
I just want to tell you that you seem like a genuinely nice guy. I love your content, it's so interesting and varied across all your channels and you're not afraid to try new things.
You really seem to treat UA-cam and an experiment and you bring us all along for the ride.
I know that it's easy to say stuff like 'ignore the hatred but I know it's not that simple.
Keep doing what you do.
I always look forward to your next video. Even if the more technical ones go straight over my head it's so enjoyable to listen to someone talking about what interests them.
saw this in my feed yesterday, glad to be able to finally watch it :)
I guess it's worth noting that as visible at 13:08, the fov console command in CSGO indicates the horizontal degrees of FOV when using a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is converted internally to a vertical FOV that is fixed for all other aspect ratios.
This is important because different games actually measure their FOV in different ways. Some specify the horizontal FOV at 16:9 and some specify the horizontal FOV of your display (this sucks!). If you want your FOV in other games to match CSGO, then having the right numerical measurement is important, and usually you'd want to make sure your vertical FOV is the same for all your games, if you play at different aspect ratios.
And 90° hor in 4:3 ratio is basically the classic default. That gives the 74° vert, but for the same vertical angle, going to widescreen would either give about 101° in 16:10 or 106° in 16:)
This is so fuckin ass. The standard should always be hor+, and the adjustment method should always be by changing the vertical fov and letting the engine automatically scale that to the aspect ratio. That way every fov is the same and each player only has to set it once and then pick their favorite A/R based on desired peripheral vision.
I have tried both and I'm sure it's just a preference. It also might matter to the sensitivity as well when you have black bars
Even though it should come down to preference, you always hear about so many casual players who copy pro settings (Sensitivity/DPI/Aspect Ratio/Graphics settings etc.) thinking that it'll magically make them as good as a pro player.
@@Iain12345 16:9 doesnt improve their skill as well so what your point?
it is entirely preference, however i think 4:3 has more downsides on paper.
love the video man you never fail to give me a smile keep it up
I play on a 3440x1440 monitor (21:9) with 1920x1200 (16:10) stretched. I used to play at 1280x960 stretched on a 1080p monitor before I even realized that's what a lot of pros use, it just felt good. My current res was the closest I could get to it, plus it gives me that little bit more clarity
I vary between 1280x960 and 1280x1024 usually, and I can say apart from me being used to it, I use it because the player models appear "thicker". You see them faster (mirage jungle to palace, harder to see on 16:9 = less time to react). It's easier to use one way smokes and other gaps in smokes (if someone's leg sticks out It's easier to make out). I believe It's also due to some placebo effect, the playermodels appear thicker on the screen, thus thicker to my eye, thus makes me feel like they are easier to hit.
Enemy goes from like 2 pixels to 4 pixels thus easy to hit
4:3 not working anymore for me on CS2 (linux), sad asf
@@1dog915works for me on cs2, hope you figure it out
4:45 there were actually lots of early LED monitors that were also 4:3 and even some 5:4, it wouldn't need to be a CRT... In fact, according to the wikipedia for Dell Monitors, it looks like there were 4:3 LCDs produced as late as around 2012-2013 ish, so if they got new-old-stock you could be talking about only a 6 or 7 year old monitor. Thank you for reading this completely unnecessary comment.
I think he is aware of that... ua-cam.com/video/YzsTWns1avw/v-deo.html
It was probably a joke
@@Halloweenharen Oh 100%. It could also be a dig at the Super Smash Brothers Melee community, those nefarious CRT users!!!!!!
For sure someone is running a CRT and someone is using a 4:3 monitor. I have a 2016 macbook plugged into a 4K for net, streaming and movies and a 2008 HD lcd 60hz tv for gaming and work( I haven't upgraded it cause Ive another laptop from 2007 that thats gone through 2 monitors, so I mirror the screen and it shits a brick if its plugged into anything more modern than 2012, that I still use regularly, still play 1.6 and games that arent on steam or need disks), connected to the net over wifi, my headset are technics I bought for djing in 2002(holy fuck I just realised that) so Ive no mic, I'll spare you the cooling set up xD and Im usually top frag on my team or in the top 3. Im not saying im good at all, I watch a few pros and listen to their tips and tricks, Ive only been playing GO for just over a year but so many people think you need the best stuff. Not all my electronics are old, its just all the stuff Ive used since 1.6 is all still functioning. I saved up €1800 to buy a new PC in 2020, waiting for the new Nvidia 30 series and ryzen 3 but 1800 wasn't enough to buy me a picture of a 30 series during that whole shit show xD. Also thanks to anyone who reads this bullshit
@@t3h51d3w1nd3r Hell yeah
yes this is true but early LED monitors and TVs had a huge amount of input lag, so while you are right I'm sure a pro would rather use a CRT or cut of their own toes than use an early LED display for competitive
thanking you for framing the question around aspect ratio, its really annoying when people act like have shitty resolution on a gaming pc on a game from 2013 thats cpu limited somehow gives you a competitive advantage and its not just the change in aspect ratio being more comfortable for them
Yes. The video we all waited for ! Great research !
I think there is something there with the stretched horizontal view. Gravity-bound FPS are very horizontal dominant with not a lot of vertical action. Enemy movement will be mostly horizontal, so emphasizing it might make it easier to track. You get more feedback on horizontal mouse movements too (though there is an option to adjust this independently).
The reasons for which players who used to play the original CS stayed at 4:3 for so long were varied: personal preference, familiarity with the 4:3 aspect ratio, bogus widescreen implementation in the 1.6 update, longtime widespread availability of 4:3 monitors, higher performance in lower 4:3 resolutions, and placebo accounts for it as well.
About the placebo part, players often feel that hitbox sizes get bigger at stretched 4:3 resolutions, but it's purely placebo, since everything else gets bigger as well, not just the hitboxes, and also aiming becomes more difficult, since it is faster in stretched resolutions, making any claims about this false. About the lower and higher FOVs, as long as the FOV isn't too low, it doesn't make any difference, since for a lower FOV, you see less in the sides, but your view is zoomed in. For higher FOVs, you see more in the sides, but your view is zoomed out, so they negate eachother as well.
About the way Valve implemented widescreen in the 1.6 update, they opted to lock the FOV at 90 no matter the resolution (for no reason at all, since higher or lower FOVs give you absolutely no advantage whatsoever), and this was done to prevent players from seeing more on the sides. But at the same time, let's face it, it defeated the whole fckin purpose of playing in widescreen in the first place, as players were starting to get widescreen monitors back then with the EXACT goal of being able to see more around the character, for a better immersion in both online and offline games. Instead of the FOV automatically adjusting to the aspect ratio based on the 4:3 FOV, they chose to lock it, which meant people kept using 4:3 just because it also gave them the widest vertical FOV, since the horizontal one was the same in all resolutions.
About the higher performance in 4:3 resolutions, it's pretty obvious, lower resolutions result in less computational demand, meaning your GPU can spit out way more frames each second, meaning less input lag and lower response times, and resulting in better performance for professionals, since every milisecond counts in a competitive nature. But if we talk about less pixels to render, then 720p is way better than those common 4:3 resolutions, since it's 16:9 and gives you a wider FOV with even higher framerates.
About the familiarity with the 4:3 aspect ratio, well it is exactly that, they wouldn't change if their current one works so well for them anyway. They often spend many hours each day playing the game, and any change to their settings or setup can be disruptive to their gameplay. This is why many players will stick with the same settings and aspect ratio for years (even decades in many cases), even if there may be better options available. Switching to a new aspect ratio can take time to adjust to, and may negatively impact their performance in the short term.
I remember my switch to 16:9 flatscreens. 1080p was a downgrade in resolution from my 2048x1536 CRT
@@HappyBeezerStudios Definitely, but the gained FOV makes it better imo.
I remember seeing this video in my feed a few days before now 👀
Was private when I tried to watch it but now it's here
i just moved from 1028x1024 monitor to 1080p one. the old monitor had only VGA plug and is not compatible with newer GPU. Since i am used to "looking through things" i rely on peripheral vision for reaction. so the performance improved by better FPS as well as the 1080p monitor, which allows me to see more and react to it. but i can definitely see the benefit of the focus that narrow FOV offers. especially if you are only holding an area with AWP.
5:28 is gold :D
quick tip for people wondering, U can also create custom resoluations, so u could still display a 4:3 or 5:4 1080p image ;)
He's probably using a 2560x1440 monitor. You can see that monitor makers already include 4:3 resolutions that match vertical pixel count - 1920x1440 in this case.
@@FakeMichau i had to manually add 1440x1080 for mine(
@@vadnegru Same, for some reason its only automatically available for higher res screens even tho 1080p screens can perfectly display it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@FakeMichau I've had to manually do 1920X1440 and 1440X1080 profiles for all my monitors over the years I've played CS for 4:3
When recording Quake III I'd recomand you increase the brightness of the video, game uses sone weird gama correction that's not noticeable while playing (depending on the moniter).
One benefit of stretched resolution to me is that it makes the gap looks much wider, therefore giving me more confidence. Think double doors or mirage mid looking though b short fro example.
Finally someone getting the question and answer thing from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy right :D
Agree with you. People should be using their native resolution more, it's just so much more clear.
Personally I use 3440x1440, so a 21:9 ratio. Gives me a clear image, and a wide field of view.
More like 21.5:9 :D
I think another reason to feel more comfortable using a lower resolution is that the pixels do get virtually bigger. It might feel crisper to play on lower resolutions because technically you have fewer and bigger pixels on your screen, which might make aiming with mouse feel better. If anyone can confirm this, please do share your comments.
Resolution is not the same as aspect ratio tho. So, why not just decrease the resolution keeping the aspect ratio?
thanks for still using the glock dragon tatooo. i picked one up a while ago because of you and now its worth heaps more :) stonks
I used to have the same opinion as you regarding stretched views, that it felt better because of the fps increase rather than the larger targets. But I recently upgraded to a 1440p ultrawide monitor from my old 1080p display. I tried out csgo at 2560 x 1440 stretched, and it felt just as good as 1024 x 768 ever did, only I was rendering about 3 million more pixels than before.
I've been sharing your opinion for years and debated with so many stubborn csgo players without success. The 2 main arguments are : 1) pro uses it 2) I aim better when I use stretched
Thanks for making an informative video about the subject.
I switched to 16:9 as soon as I got my first widescreen monitor. Never went back. I cannot stand stretched 4:3, but I guess it is possible to get used to it after some time. At the end of the day it is a personal preference.
i used an 800p latpop all through college, and i LOVED it. i think 1280x800 was pretty common for thinkpads. the extra bit of height was so nice for reading documents though. i always noticed when i used a 720p screen after reading on my 800p laptop for a while
i always watch your videos. love you dude.
Hey, I've seen this one! This is a classic!
I played a couple of CSGO games at 48:9 (3x1080p) back in the days and I'll say it doesn't really give you an advantage except I was a able to peek a few corners a bit better. It was too much of a hassle to set up so I only did it of times.
So when it comes to FOV sliders, just add them already Valve. If people want to add hotkeys to change between 160 fov and normal, let them.
how you play in 3x1080 bruh the game too small like wouldnt the ui be unselectable cuz it 3 pixels high/wide
@@aksGJOANUIFIFJiufjJU21 UI was the same size as standard 1080p, except that it was in all the corners instead of the middle screen. They actually added triple-monitor support later on. See the detting called «tripple-monitor mode».
dude the protractor and the 1080 p silky smooth while missing a chicken bith with ur mapping/map - making bit most of all were funny as hell...so true...i wont stop tho...hammer homies
I've been playing counter strike since 2007 and pretty much knew everything you said in this video but still watched it all as canny just beat a good Philip video!
I'm a person who plays high-fov in FPS games, while my brother is consistently a low-fov player
Neither of us are pros, though he is considerably better than me at most games (not monitor related)
However, one thing that I have noticed that is a tangible benefit to his style of play is that enemies in the far distance are more visible to him, which has gotten me killed many a time :o
I like almost exactly 88, not too high, not too low. On a Game-to-game basis 88 isn't actually always 88. (Like clothing sizes from different brands) but at that FOV I still see plenty of the sides, but the middle isn't shrunken enough to be problematic. I USED to only play at 95~ tho
changing fov without changing aspect ratio is basically zooming in and out, that's why you're brother sees better at distance.
I was always a fan of 16:9, yet i still made the decision to go 4:3 stretched after 6 years, cause my eyes were getting tired.I often had a hard time seeing whether my crosshair was perfectly placed, or was i shooting some pixels to left or right. On 4:3 this is much clearer and puts less strain in my eyes.
You may want to consider an eye test if you're feeling eye fatigue from something so close to your face. Ever notice things being blurry?
@@blunderingfool yes bro, ive been to doctors many times, my eyes are shit :D glasses help a bit, but they still get weaker over time
if you generally have issues with your eyesight i would recommend you play on black bars, if ur not already. When playing stretched your eyes are required to move across the screen in a way higher frequency which can lead to intense eye fatigue. Using black bars solves this issue since you have some space between the displayed image and your monitor frame. So basically you dont have to flick your eyes from corner to corner of your monitor all the time and have reduced traveling distance for your eyes to fully pick up everything going on on screen.
@@DonCato96 me as well. I really need to get a new prescription for my glasses. My vision is so bad
@@magusviridis i get your point, but its not entirely accurate in my case. I have always had issues with tracking, when i had to match my crosshair with moving enemies, cause in those situations i had to focus a lot more on a given point(which made my eyes hurt), and as my eyes worsened, so did my ability to track moving targets . Now that everything appears bigger, this has become easier on my eyes. So basically my issue is not moving my eye a lot, but rather focusing on a small area of the screen.
Amazing video man!
10:28 lmao, got one of the hardest flashbacks in my childhood, ty
3:53 - When I had an Ultra wide (21:9) monitor, playing at native resolution caused some horrific micro stutter in cs:go. FPS as shown by cs:go were high, but the stutter was real so I ended up playing 2560x1440 with black bars. And it didn't seem to be a problem with pc performance as 4k (16:9) runs just fine (5600X + RTX3090).
my 32:9 samsung monitor works fine with native res. max settings and it runs 300-400fps (r5 3600 + rtx2070super)
@@jaakko200987654321 Well 300-400 fps doesn’t say much - like I said, I also had high fps shown by steam overlay and cs:go’s fps counter. But the micro stutter was there. Also I’m not the only one since I found a whole thread on reddit about it. Not saying, you didn’t notice the stutter, but high fps alone doesn’t mean there is none.
I still have a uw monitor available, so I may try to run a benchmark sometime.
@@RacingRalphEVO i dont have micro stutters but i had them on an old 5:4 monitor and running cs in borderless windowed fixed it
I'd like to see some sort of testing to see if the pros actually perform better at those resolutions vs just 1080p or 1440p after getting used to each
Its rarely scientific. The pros said aug and ssg were shit too until someone used them, and then both were op.
Amazing transition :3
That's my reddit post at 16:06!!!! Nice to know I'm not the only one asking these questions :D
I use a 21:9 monitor and I have to say I love it compared to a standard 16:9, not only for the fov advantage, but moving the monitor farther away from my head makes seeing everything with my peripheral view much easier. IMO 21:9 is the way to go for video games.
yeah 16:9 is really bad, it never was good, for anything, or you use like 4:3, 3:2, 5:4... or wide, 16:9 is bad for everything :/
Yup, never going back to another ratio than 21:9. I would only consider going up. Also 21:9 is the cinematic aspect ratio of a lot of movies, so they fit your screen perfectly without black bars. It's really the best.
It's a bit more demanding on the GPU, but then again the advantage is that you can run 1920x1080 without any problem
I've been looking at the comments for a while and I find it pretty interesting that NOBODY has commented about owning a CRT monitor yet.
4:3 has always been a go-to for me as my monitor IS actually square! I play on 1600x1200 with 75hz and everything feels silky smooth regardless. I also can't understand 4:3 stretched, I think it's quite taxing on the eyes from time to time, but maybe it's because I'm just so used to non-stretched that it doesn't feel right at all.
Rich dude owns a 1200p crt.
@@gregdaweson4657 The opposite, poor dude never been able to afford anything other than a CRT
My CRT could do 2048x1536, but not at high refresh rates, and on CRTs it makes quite a different from flickering alone. But gaming at 800x600 160 Hz was amazing.
very good video. You can tell there was a lot of work put into.
I think that having a 18x9 is more beneficial. Seeing with your foresight is important and not only that, you may not notice a flash but the flash will still fully blind you like if you had it on screen
Honestly before I adapted 4:3 I did some A/B testing with both native 16:9 and 4:3 and the latter (stretched) immediatly helped me with my aim. I feel like I have trouble spotting enemies so them being wider and also moving faster helps with picking that up
Felt the same too when I tried it, I dont call it the magic aimbot like some people do but for me it helped alot, its worth trying all 3 resolutions
@@gob8056 I played on 16:9 since beta, but after switching to 4:3 I feel like my depth perception and thus my ability to land headshots at medium and medium-long ranges is significantly better.
"very sus indeed"
This is my soundboard now
cypher said that he does't need a wide FOV in diabotical duel because he knows where the enemy is most of the time with map knowledge and sound cues. I assume it's the same for CS, most of the time you know where the enemies are coming from and a narrower FOV helps you focus and see targets at range better. There are even some diabotical players who costumized their HUD so that the edges of the screen get blacked out when zooming in with the sniper. they say it allows them to focus better.
Glad to see Philip taking sponsors, he deserves the pay!
I think you are right when you said the main reason for 4:3 might be that it stretches it in just one direction. I always thought about it like this: you train to keep your crosshair at head level and when you are good at that, all you need to do is move it to the right x coordinates. When stretched, that "line" is bigger. I would like to know by how much percent. Maybe it really doesnt matter. You made me switch to 5:4 tho. Keep the good Videos coming, Mate. Love from germany.
16:9 is 1/3 wide than 4:3 (Or in other words 16:9 is to 4:3 what 4:3 is to 1:1)
@@HappyBeezerStudiosyou are right when you use blackbars at the sides. Even then, the actual size of a head on Screen does not change (only the number of pixels its made of). When you Stretch 3/4 over the whole screen tho, thats where the heads get their extra width from
I actually like the speedy feel that 4:3 gives you I absolutely can't get myself to play something like valorant, players just move around sooooo slowly and unfluidly there
Thanks for the FOV data!
Hey Phillip, when am i going to see your next "going low in CSGO" video? They were hilarious. And that flashback music is just awesome. Wish you made more of those videos.
Had this argument with my friends so many times, couldn't agree more with you. The lower level pros in MANY games just copy the higher level pros until those lower level pros replacement and the cycle continues etc. It takes once in generation talents to break these trends by showing the community it is better imo, which is sad because I think all pros should ALWAYS be looking for the min-max best option.
The problem is that in order to look for a new min/max you must stray from the old min/max and in the world of competitive gaming, where all that matters is win/lose ratio…and finding a new min/max usually requires messing around with “bad” options…They’re better off using the proven method until a new one arises :(
It’s lame af, but people like their dopamine hit, and feel like they’re good when they’ve essentially just copied everything.
@@MikeyCyan Spitting facts my guy
Very bold of you to simply throw away all the opinions of current pros simply because you think they're not min maxing. Weird.
@@TunaIRL My opinion is based across MANY esports titles, I just see the same pattern in CS. New titles like Valorant, this trend tends to be less common, I'm not sure why, newer minds open to newer ideas I guess.
@@theinfamouskcaj Still weird of you to say current pros aren't doing something simply because you think they're not open minded enough.
I use 2560x1080 on a 16:9 display just for the extra FOV [21:9 with horizontal black bars]. The difference is that I only really play Danger Zone, where you have only one teammate, less intel and less predictable enemy locations. High FOV really helps with spotting enemies that most people wouldn't see.
Also, high fov = increased sense of speed when travelling >1000 units a second [due to bumpmines], so that adds to the fun. In other games I find my sweet spot for fov to be between 110-120 before thing get too warped at the 140 mark, especially for games with large outdoor areas and enemies at far distances.
And yes, this video was [sort of] done before, and I had hoped Valve would include an FOV slider back then. Still dreaming...
Edit: I used to be a 4:3 stretched player, but the FOV is just too restricting for me. I think it's fine in a pro's situation, but isn't ideal for a lot else. Does kinda feel good tho.
danger zone gang represent
The whole "if you stretch the screen the enemies just move faster on your screen" thing blew my mind. Makes sense thinking back on it but...wild
I like how Philip labelled the vertical slider "vertigo"
I think you should try the differences in game. I think i once heard that if a target is moving faster you are more likely to react faster. So its probably not only about the peripheral vision at all.
I would really be interested to see you test out how resolution affects your reaction time
I use 4:3 stretched because as well as people it also makes gaps larger too, so areas like B-apps on mirage where usually you'd have small pixel gap, is much more pronounced so it's easier to see people that run across it, it might even give you more time to react to it, potentially, more tests needed.
Placebo effect dude
Its actually the opposite its less time because objects move much faster on 4:3 streched
@@rocketrod9429 enemies would cross the gap at the same rate regardless of your FOV. It's just easier to see when you play stretched because everything looks bigger. That's the tradeoff for me. It has nothing to do with being easier to aim or fps, it is simply easier to see enemies when they take up more of the screen. To me that's worth losing a few degrees of peripheral vision. I just have to be more deliberate when clearing corners.
I was going to skip the ad but the music was a bop.
Look, I never new about any aspect ratio untill I hit LEM.
After that I wanted to know what people use and their settings a bit.
Started with 16:9, switch to 4:3 (1280x960 streached) and now I am happy on 5:4 (1280x1024 streached). Playing against pros at the moment.
Choose what every works best for you.
man really had to sneak in the upscaler at 14:55
Low resolutions allowing higher refresh rates was a thing in LCDs as well. I'm still using an old 1600x900 60Hz LCD which I use to play TF2 at 1440x900 75Hz
in LCD its artificial limitation just to sell monitors with same matrix at different prices. On Nvidia cards you can create custom profile with your native resolution and 75hz and it will work just fine, did it with my BENQ
I use 1440x1080. To me this feels crisper since theres no vertical stretch happening.
You can create custom resolutions in videocard settings.
0:57 the greatest transition in youtube history
2:12 I see that subtle Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference. That was actually a really good and subtle way to do it too.
as a 1280x1024 player, thank you for pointing out our small community of thick models!
Great video changed my life
That fatter enemies means they move faster was always my Argument against 4:3 stretched too! I guess you can say that pros play that well that when they shoulder peek with their ultra fast reflexes its like everybody is standing still? Idk i think its mainly a habit.
I always thought about getting an ultrawide or 3 montior setup just so when i die i can tell my teammates when someone is trying to backstab them xD
I’ve used 1280x1024 for past two years when I switched from native, 960 felt weird and 1024 felt more natural, settings aren usually something I mess with so it’s stuck well with me
Same it works well for me so idc what anyone says about it
I play on 16:10 and it’s a perfect balance I love the art style of 4:3 but realistically 16:10 gives me better performance when it comes to flicks and such
That was some creative sponsor plugging 😁
I appreciated that Hitchiker's Guide reference
I still play on an old samsung CRT from 2000. 960x720@123Hz. Feels far more smooth and far less blurry than my old 27” 144Hz LCD, and it only cost me £10. Just a shame that a lot of newer games don’t support anything under 1080p
I'm playing on a Sony GDM-F520, 1280x960p135hz B)
At one point I used a NEC monitor I have overclocked to 200hz with 960 interlaced. Silly experience.
>Feels far more smooth and far less blurry
Yep not even modern OLEDs look as good as CRTs thanks to sample&hold motion blur.
Tf was going on w that chicken @ 11:10
11:51 I love how on the sticker on the minitor it says "21:9 you see more" in Polish yet they still crop their screens to 4:3
I don't think that stretched resolutions make targets necessarily easier to hit. If the target is fully horizontal, then thats fine, but if it is diagonal or vertical, the sensitivity vertically is different so that may hinder some people. The sensitivity is different horizontally and vertically because only the image is streched and therefore the horizontal sens is streched. At least thats what I understand thinking about it intuitively.
At some point in my life i tryharded csgo and changed my settings around and setteled with 1280x960 stretched. Played for a year like that and saw no change in my performance. Have played with native res since, and my current monitor is more oriented towards video production than gaming. Yes. I play CSGO in 4k60hz with an hdr10 monitor, quoted response time was a "massive" 8ms
60fps gang
I play 16:9, 2560x1440p, maxed out & STRETCHED on a 21:9 3440x1440 screen. It has 175hz refresh rate too. Works amazing. 🦖
2 bad csgo in 1440 max settings looks like a PlayStation 3 game... But when playing any other fps game like valorant/destiny 2/rainbow6 they all look so goood
12:20 on the off chance you see this, your other protractor map was "CS GO's FOV - Your resolution matters"
goat video on fov, ty based klik