black bars on the side of my screen piss me off so 16:9. res is 720p so that i can still run it at 75hz.

i have black box around my gameplay :)

X:Y because who gives a fuck

Im using 1280x1024 @ 75hz, not using black borders anymore, since i cant be arsed anymore to use it. i will wait till i get money for a 120hz+ Monitor and then i might consider it again. :p

I did change a few days ago from 16:9 to 4:3 with black bars just to see how it feels, and I think I hit slightly more rail. Gonna get a new monitor soon so I'll switch to 16:9 again.
Stretched 4:3 on a 16:9 monitor is really awesome btw, makes the game feel faster.

16:10 1680x1050 for all my games.

1920x1080 because it's native resolution and i see more than players with 4:3 res at same fov.

1024x768 because 800x600 is a no no in ql because of menus and 1280x1024 is too much pixels to render.
P-p-p-p-p-overty

I used to have 800x600, got a new lcd screen and used it for a while still.
Tried native res, was weird at the start but never went back.
Just felt better.

1024x768 @ 120 Hz because my PC is rubbish right now, would use 1080p @ 144 Hz if I had a normal GPU (using integrated).

Stretched 800x600 on a 1920x1080 monitor with no black bars. When I'm playing on any other setup my aim is totally off. Played like this for many years to increas fps and just got used to it. I'm also on 60hz.

I'd play whatever is fullscreen, there should be no downside, apart from the tinkering with fov (going broader means you could use a lower fov if you don't care about the vertical as much)

1920x1080

higher resolution is more comfortable to me (less strain on the eyes)

2560x1440 120 Hz. i started using 1920x1440 (4:3) so i could focus easier but filling up the whole screen is better because you see more with same fov vs 4:3/5:4.

Seeing more is useless in duel and counter-strike as long as your not doing pugs. I guess the pug thing applies to quake as well.

after watching players not see other players at quakecon i don't think it's useless

This is due to 90 fov and 4:3. They still would have not seen them with 16:9.

orly?
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4255/3gw.gif

That image kind of proves my point.

um, no it doesn't

The parts that are missing are useless. There is barely anything missing. To me it just seems like the 1680x1050 makes everything appear stretched.

800x600 is the best resolution for quake. If you disagree you are a noob.

Even if it makes no impact on my hz because my monitor is terrible?

16:9 @ 1366x768.

I just prefer wide.

4:3 800x600 154 Hz

"and why exactly."

Because 2x77 which is quakeworld's normal frame cap if you are using frame dependent physic.

It's an assumption though.

This. But also I don't get any tearing in QL, so I just left it at 154. For whatever reason setting displayRefresh 150 just invokes the 154 I had set for qw.

im not some pro guy but i quess when u want to be lg pro then 16:9 should be better cause 4:3 equals 1.33333333 and 16:9 equals 1.777777 etc. so wider rooms i quess are advantage :D(i dunno mby im wrong)

wat

???

4:3 on 27 inch at 120 Hz. Played with 16:9 fot quite some time but 4:3 just felt more natural. I guess its just the time spent on that ratio...

4:3 is the closest aspect ratio to human eyesight so it should feel more natural. i wish 4:3 never fell out of popularity :(.

With a "field of view" of almost 180 degrees I doubt that 4:3 is the closest ratio to the human eyesight.

155°h x 120°v is close to 4:3

I did some research and I surprisingly got a lot of different results ranging from 150°h to "almost" 180°h (whatever that means) and 120°v to 135°v.

I used the 2 extremes(for simplicity's sake) and calculated the "aspect ratio" of 2 human eyes.

150/120 = 1.25 = 5/4
180/135 = 1.333 = 4/3

This information was new for me and it sure as hell is very interesting. Not enough to make me use a 4:3 resolution but still thanks for educating me on this subject. Maybe it'll come in handy in the future.

Maybe that explains why I just couldnt get used to it. With call of duty and other games the extra width is nice (with low standard fov) but even that felt a bit weird.

Guess extra columns in Excel > quake ;)

1680x1050@120Hz 125fps. I am solid on 250fps, but I prefer 125.

1920x1080 144Hz

It's really comfortable, although I did have to lower my FOV from 130 to ~115.

You shouldn't have had to, unless you were bothered about CPM's fov cap and using widescreen.

115 on 16:9 in QL is similar to 130 in cpm at 16:9.

Higher FOV in Q3 feels weird. I don't play QL.

ok so that's 100 fov @ 4:3 assuming you have 115 fov @ 16:9 in Q3

Except 16:9 warps the view a lot at higher aspect ratios.

EDIT I somehow got the fov in Q3 mixed up with the fov in Skyrim :D It's true 115 is super low in Q3, feels really cramped. I'm dumb.

hue hue hue

1024x768 stretched (NO black bars) because:

A) Its smoother even though I get 250 fps 144hz stable on 1920x1080 4:3 just FEELS a lot smoother and mouse input feels more responsive

B) Using 4:3 stretched makes enemy models quite a bit fatter (makes everything fatter horizontally) which helps with visibility long range compared to widescreen

C) im use to 4:3 from years of 1.6 and quake and aiming on 16:9 feels weird