When you complain that BF2 doesn't support WS, is your complaint valid or is the problem inherent with your monitor's max resolution? In some cases the problem is not BF2's lack of WS support, the problem solely belongs to the resolution of the monitor. For example, a 22" WS monitor's most common resolution is 1680x1050. That is not a good resolution (for a 22" WS) to play on because it stretches any image on a 22" screen. All you do is visit a brick/mortar store and view a 20" at 1600x1200 against a 22" WS at 1680x1050 and you will clearly see the image is stretched.
In a nutshell you gain far more vertical real estate then the extra 80 pixels you get. Because of this, you cannot compensate for the extra room, the only option is to stretch the image. But wait there is more, you also lose 150 horizontal pixels. Now that's a big, big deal because now the images viewed horizontally are now chopped.
This leaves you wanting to adjust the FOV to compensate for the inherit problems with your monitor limited resolution. Don't get me wrong, you always want to adjust the FOV to get a proper image on WS. However, those with 1680x1050 are attempting to compensate for the vertical stretch and the horizontal chopping of the image. In most cases, there is really no cure for unless you buy a monitor with the proper supported resolution.
Here is a break down of what I know:
17" 1280 x 1024 - 0.264 mm up to 19" 1280 x 1024 - 0.294 mm. You get the best image out of the 17" even though it's a smaller monitor. There are other WS resolutions supported but for obvious reasons may do the same thing as a 22" at 1680x1050. In particular 1440x900 WS between 17"-19". Although you get a healthy vertical pixel count you still get a reduction of 124 horizontal pixels, again chopping the image.
20" 1600 x 1200 - 0.255 mm. Usually these are not WS monitor and you get the best image quality at this resolution. 20" monitors (where I am) is getting harder to find. It appears they are being replaced with WS selections. However, 20" monitor at this resolution is the ideal non-WS monitor to buy (brightness, contrast, response time, etc still apply). However. please note that a decent video card/cpu is required.
22" 1680 x 1050 - 0.282 mm. As mentioned earlier, not a good resolution for that size. If you find a 1600x1200 (if it exists) it maybe a good choice. However, there are other issues to worry about such as response time, contrast, brightness, etc.
24" 1920 x 1200 - 0.270 mm and IMO is the ideal WS monitor to buy. Again depending on the response time, brightness, contrast, etc. The only downside to this monitor size is that you need a powerful video card/cpu or else you will find yourself turning down the graphical options in your game to gain a respectable frame rate. Now a days 60 FPS is more ideal then 30 FPS in days past because of the image of cache used and other intensive graphical coding that goes into games now a days. For example games like F.E.A.R and Crysis to name a few.
The following images below are just examples. I want to demonstrate what happens when your screen is not stretched vs when it is stretched even though the FOV needs to be adjusted for WS monitors display on the 1680 x 1050 resolution.
This image shows correct aspect ratio in relation to the game being played. If you look in the upper right corner your mini map shows a perfect circle. Also, notice that the scope on the M4 is circular in shape.
This shows a stretched image in relation to the game. If you look in the upper right corner, your mini map shows an oval shape. Also, notice the oval shape of the scope on the M4. This aspect of WS support in BF2 cannot be fixed IMO. However, the FOV can be changed to "show more area" but it will always be stretched. Therefore, the total area will always be less then someone who uses 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
In a nutshell you gain far more vertical real estate then the extra 80 pixels you get. Because of this, you cannot compensate for the extra room, the only option is to stretch the image. But wait there is more, you also lose 150 horizontal pixels. Now that's a big, big deal because now the images viewed horizontally are now chopped.
This leaves you wanting to adjust the FOV to compensate for the inherit problems with your monitor limited resolution. Don't get me wrong, you always want to adjust the FOV to get a proper image on WS. However, those with 1680x1050 are attempting to compensate for the vertical stretch and the horizontal chopping of the image. In most cases, there is really no cure for unless you buy a monitor with the proper supported resolution.
Here is a break down of what I know:
17" 1280 x 1024 - 0.264 mm up to 19" 1280 x 1024 - 0.294 mm. You get the best image out of the 17" even though it's a smaller monitor. There are other WS resolutions supported but for obvious reasons may do the same thing as a 22" at 1680x1050. In particular 1440x900 WS between 17"-19". Although you get a healthy vertical pixel count you still get a reduction of 124 horizontal pixels, again chopping the image.
20" 1600 x 1200 - 0.255 mm. Usually these are not WS monitor and you get the best image quality at this resolution. 20" monitors (where I am) is getting harder to find. It appears they are being replaced with WS selections. However, 20" monitor at this resolution is the ideal non-WS monitor to buy (brightness, contrast, response time, etc still apply). However. please note that a decent video card/cpu is required.
22" 1680 x 1050 - 0.282 mm. As mentioned earlier, not a good resolution for that size. If you find a 1600x1200 (if it exists) it maybe a good choice. However, there are other issues to worry about such as response time, contrast, brightness, etc.
24" 1920 x 1200 - 0.270 mm and IMO is the ideal WS monitor to buy. Again depending on the response time, brightness, contrast, etc. The only downside to this monitor size is that you need a powerful video card/cpu or else you will find yourself turning down the graphical options in your game to gain a respectable frame rate. Now a days 60 FPS is more ideal then 30 FPS in days past because of the image of cache used and other intensive graphical coding that goes into games now a days. For example games like F.E.A.R and Crysis to name a few.
The following images below are just examples. I want to demonstrate what happens when your screen is not stretched vs when it is stretched even though the FOV needs to be adjusted for WS monitors display on the 1680 x 1050 resolution.
This image shows correct aspect ratio in relation to the game being played. If you look in the upper right corner your mini map shows a perfect circle. Also, notice that the scope on the M4 is circular in shape.
This shows a stretched image in relation to the game. If you look in the upper right corner, your mini map shows an oval shape. Also, notice the oval shape of the scope on the M4. This aspect of WS support in BF2 cannot be fixed IMO. However, the FOV can be changed to "show more area" but it will always be stretched. Therefore, the total area will always be less then someone who uses 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
Comment