How big is yours? .. and do you stretch it, or leave it alone?

Wonderful thread title.

I always run SL in a window. I'm not sure at all what you mean by "the right aspect ratio for SL". If I stretch the window wider, I simply see more of the world at a time. The window proportions don't alter the proportions of the content in any way. All the window does is frame the content, nothing more. Fonts for me aren't affected by the window size either.

Do you perhaps not have Use Resolution Independant Scale enabled? Take a look at your Preferences -> General tab. It's about half way down the list of options. If it's turned on, the UI elements, including all fonts, will be completely unmarried from the window size. They'll stay the same, no matter how big or small the window is.


To answer your question about hardware, here are my desktop and laptop setups:

I use 4 monitors on my main desktop. Two are 24" Eizo Flexscan S2411W, running at 1920x1200. The other two are a couple of very old Samsung Syncmaster 192T+, which are 1280x1024. The four are driven by a pair of GeForce 8800GTX graphics cards.

Needless to say, I do most of my work on the Eizos. The color match, response rate, brightness, etc, are phenomenal on them. Eizo screens are really unparalleled for doing graphics work.

The Samsungs are there mainly for two reasons. First, they're good for testing purposes, like when I need to see how a texture will look to people with low quality displays. If something looks pretty good on both the ultra high end Eizos, and the 7-year-old old Samsungs, as opposed to really good on just one or the other, then I know it will look pretty good to just about everyone. Second, I often park windows that don't need to be displayed in high quality on the Samsungs, such as command prompts, text files, etc. This leaves the Eizos clutter-free for stuff that DOES need to look good, like SL, Photoshop, Maya, etc.

My laptop has a 17" 1920x1200 display. It also has an HDMI port, so sometimes I plug it into my 50" TV (1920x1080), in my living room, which is fun.

I actually just watched season 5 of Lost that way, after having watched 1-4 on Bluray. The discs for season 5 aren't out yet, so figured I'd give it a whirl on iTunes. I found myself quite pleasantly surprised at how good the iTunes downloads actually looked on the TV. I was expecting them to look terrible from over-compression, but they turned out to be really good. The weren't anywhere near as good as Bluray, of course, but they were markedly better than DVD. Except for some need for color correction, they were about on par with HD satellite TV quality, which isn't bad at all.

i run windowed at 800x600 on a 19" crt.

22" wide screen @ 1680x1050 for primary, 19" flat screen at 1280x1024 on secondary. I run SL windowed, but maxed on my primary - the SL Prefs are set to 1680x1003 (I assume it is the default for my graphics card and wide screen monitor).

If you turn it on the UI elements stay the same size independent of the display resolution... not the window size, based on what your scale setting is. If you run in a window changing the window size doesn't change the size of UI elements no matter whether you have that setting on or off.

I always disable it, and set my scale to 1:1, because I don't like the blurring and distortyion it causes.

Ah, thanks for the correction. I haven't run it full screen in years, so I guess I misunderstood slightly. Any idea why the OP's window size is affecting object/font sizes? I've never seen that happen.

I have no idea, I disabled the "resolution independent size" option and set my scale to 1:1 within a few minutes of it being introduced because it gave me a headache, and I've never had window size change UI element size.

It made me laugh

22 inch Asus Widescreen LCD. 1600 x 1024. 2ms response time.

Nvidia GTX 275 1792MB version

Vista Ultimate 64

8 GB RAM

All SL settings on Ultra.

It's not the window size, as that's always a maximized window.. it's the main desktop resolution that's affecting how WIDE things are in SL, depending on what it's set at. The UI size is 1.0 and the "use independant scale" is ON. I've never noticed any stretching problem with UI/HUD or title bar or tool menus in SL. It's only been the world of SL, as in the architecture, the AV's especially, etc..

I'm following what others have said and running at native (1680 x 1050) right now, but I can tell that it's the same aspect ratio as 1440 x 900.. as in everything looks great except the AV's in SL are stretched a little on the wide side. All the smooth curves I spent so long tweaking on my AV are now gone. Legs and arms are thicker, ass is bigger, hips much bigger, and my boobs.. omg they dont hang, they JUT. Even faces are wider.
It could be that this is how most people are, and have been seeing things (me included), in which case I think my AV's going on a prim diet via the slider method.

Someone else said they had an LG, same size as mine run at native resolution, but they didn't say if they had the "4:3 in Wide" option on their monitor turned on or not. It's screwy because native 1680 x 1050 without that monitor button turned on is actually letterbox on the sides. I can't win.

crap. still disappointed. it's not the window size, but the 3D quality that counts.

can someone please bring this to the topic it was meant to become...

If you've got some doubts that your pixels are really square at native, there is a low tech way to double check it. Rez a cube and sphere and attach them to the HUD to cut away camera distortions, and check the width and height with a plain old ruler. They should be really close to equal.

Oh, that's a clever trick.

i would say, in general, it's bad form to actually use a ruler. unless you're certain, of course.

22in, 8:5 ratio (aka 16*10) native...

anyone ever notice that aspect ratios for NTSC mostly follow common photographic print sizes (or their squares)? (4/3,8/5, 16,9)

I run a holoscan 30000x20000x10000. I usually run SL in cube mode 10000x10000x5000.

My bf claims he gave me a 19" monitor but it seems smaller when I really look at it....

Isn't it normal for men to overestimate size?

But, seriously: If you're curious about the size of the monitor, take a ruler or tape measure and measure from one corner, diagonally, to the opposite corner. For example, measure from the lower left corner to the upper right corner. This is the display size. Also, be aware that screen size and viewing size might be slightly different.

Ah, this is starting to make more sense now. Flat panel monitors are only designed to run in one resolution. For most 22" panels, that's going to be 1680x1050. Occasionally, you'll find one at 1440x900, but that's nowhere near as common.

If you change the desktop resolution, you're forcing the screen to run at a pixel count that doesn't match the number of pixels that are physically in the panel. The results typically aren't pretty. You can end up with everything from blocky, pixelated, and grainy imagery to distorted proportions to letterboxing, just as you've been experiencing.

To make things more complicated, monitors and graphics cards each have their own scaling settings. So, depending on how exactly you changed the resolution, and how you set the options for both your monitor and your card, things can get all kinds of wacky.

For best results, always, always, always run your flat panel in the resolution it was designed for. It should say the native resolution right on the box, and at the beginning of the manual.



Yes, 1680x1050 and 1440x900 are both a ratio of 1.6:1, or as it's more commonly written, 16:10. You don't even need to look at it to determine that. It's just simple math.

1680 / 1050 = 1.6
1440 / 900 = 1.6

However, just because the proportions are the same doesn't mean the visual quality will be equal at both resolutions. If your screen is meant to display 1680 pixels across, and you're scaling it down to 1440, you're not getting an even division. Every virtual pixel of that 1440 will occupy the space of 1.17 actual pixels in the screen. Depending on your settings, your computer will be doing any number of backflips to try to figure out what data to put where on the screen.

The end result will be nowhere near the visual fidelity of the native resolution. Some pixels will be too big while others will be too small, and still others will be interpolated to fill in the gaps. You won't be seeing an accurate representation of your imagery at all.

To avoid problems, stick with the native resolution.



Sounds like something in either your OS desktop settings or your video card settings is wrong. You shouldn't have to use that 4:3 In Wide setting. What it does is take a 4:3 picture, and stretch it out to fit your 16:10 display. That's why you're seeing avatars looking wider than they should.

The picture coming out of your computer should be 16:10, not 4:3. To set it properly, do the following.

I. SET YOUR OS DESKTOP SIZE PROPERLY

For Vista:

1. Right-click on the desktop, and hit Personalize.

2. In the Personalization dialog, click on Display Settings.

3. Near the bottom of the Display Settings dialog, you'll see a resolution slider. Set it to 1680x1050. After the screen refreshes, hit OK, and close out of the dialog.

For XP:

1. Right-click on the desktop, and hit Properties.

2. Click on the Settings tab.

3. Near the bottom left, you'll see a slider labeled Screen Resolution. Set it to 1680x1050, and hit Apply. After the screen refreshes, hit OK, and close out of the dialog.


II. SET YOUR VIDEO CARD RESOLUTION AND SCALING PROPERLY

1. Access your nVidia Control Panel, by clicking Start -> Control Panel -> nVidia Control Panel.

2. Near the top, you'll see a pulldown menu called Advanced Settings. Options will be Standard, Advanced, and Custom. Set it to Advanced.

3. Now, in the left pane, you'll see a list of options. The number of options will vary, depending on what nVidia hardware and software you have installed. At a minimum, you should see 3D Settings and Display listed. If you see a little plus sign next to Display, click it to expand the tree, so you can see the items under it. The second one down should be Change Resolution. Click on it.

4. In the right pane, you should now see the Change Resolution Options. Toward the top, it will say "1. Select the display you would like to change." Since you're only using one monitor, it should already be selected. But if for some reason it's not, click on it now.

5. Next, it will say "2. Choose the display settings for the selected display." It should already be set to 1680x1050, but if it's not, set it to that now. I'd also suggest setting the color quality to Highest (32-bit color), and setting the refresh rate as high as it will go. When you're done, hit Apply. If the screen refreshes, you'll see a dialog asking you if you want to keep the new settings. Hit OK.

6. Now go back to the left pane, and click Change Flat Panel Scaling. Again, you'll want to select your monitor if it's not already selected. You'll see four different scaling options. Hover your mouse over each one, for a description of what they all do. I'd recommend you choose one of the two nVidia options, rather than your display's built-in scaling. That way, you'll never have to bother pushing buttons on your monitor ever again. You'll also find that any games with funky resolutions will tend to work better with nVidia scaling than with builit-in monitor scaling. Your video card is far more sophisticated than your monitor's processor, in that regard. After you've made your selection, hit Apply, and then close the nVidia Control Panel.


Everything should be working properly now. The letterboxing should be gone. (Turn off that 4:2 to Wide thing, if it's still on, by the way.) Fr0m this point on, leave the resolution alone. Your monitor wants to run at 1680x1050. Let it.

I knew a bloke who used to try to impress female realtors by telling them "I have a lot!"

Pep (And cue old jokes about why women can't reverse without hitting something. )

24" monitor running full screen at 1920x1200 (native) from a 9800GT. I used to use a 32" LCD TV, although it had lower rez, something like 1200x768.

I must need more coffee,cause it took me five minutes to get that.

Very nice summary. I ought to save that somewhere.

Absolutely agree. I gather the OP dislikes how small text and icons become at the native resolution, but isn't there some way to adjust all that? I've been buried in Linux/KDE long enough that my memory of Microsoft OSs is vague, but even Windows must have some desktop-wide adjustable defaults for font and icon sizes, mustn't it?
Maybe in the very broadest interpretation of "your computer", but AFAIK the backflips all happen in the monitor's electronics, not in the CPU nor video card. I mean, the video card may sample the monitor's EDID to figure out what resolutions to recommend, but for whatever resolution you tell it to use, it will just pump out the corresponding signals and the monitor is responsible for smearing the pixels across the screen.

Well THIS could be part of the problem:



You can see that advanced settings are selected.

I don't know where you're seeing that option. Is it possible it's included as part of the older G92/G94 (9800/9600) series drivers, but not made available for some stupid reason?
wth

Yup.. it was something stupid. Gotta be using a HD digital cable for those options to show up

Edit: The monitor constrains everything, including the desktop boundaries to 4:3 when not in wide mode, so software scaling won't help. Using the digital connection makes the lower refresh rate noticible (faint flickering, ghosting).. ditching it and going back to analog. I'm also done messing with this.