16:10 widescreen resolution

[masser120]

Hi All,

 

I have looked and looked and looked, but I just can't find it. Is there some sort of option to enable 16:10 widescreen in GTA SA? I have a 22" Acer widescreen monitor with a resolution of 1680x1050. If I turn off wide, the game looks stretched. If I turn on wide, CJ looks a little taller than normal.

So anybody got an idea for 16:10 monitors?

[gillies]

It isn't in the game. You can try using SA Cam Hack from this site to adjust the FOV but you have to do it in increments and I don't think it makes it look any better.

[masser120]

It isn't in the game. You can try using SA Cam Hack from this site to adjust the FOV but you have to do it in increments and I don't think it makes it look any better.

No unfortunatly. Nice program, but it can only zoom in and out...

[adidastrainers]

Perhaps turning on wide mode in-game, having also selected at your graphics card panel (at windows - before starting game) the

option "centered output" or "centered scaling" or whatever it's called, at the "scaling" menu. I suppose this would give you a correct aspect ratio, but you'll probably have 2 small black bars over and under the gaming picture..

[FAR-CRY MASTER]

im running it in widescreen on 8:5 ratio & surprisingly it looks good, is there much difference in 16:9 & 16:10?

[ovni]

I just got the game and the aspect ratio problem was the first thing I noticed. I looked online and this discussion was the only relevant information I could find. Has anyone discovered a solution yet? I've got a Dell 20.1" widescreen monitor at 1680x1050. Thanks.

[gillies]

The stretching isn't that bad, and since this game is so old now if anyone had fixed it (if it is possible, it probably isn't) we would know about it by now.

 

Quite a few games have widescreen that works this way. It should be better but if you consider that a lot of games don't have widescreen resolution support of any kind, it isn't so bad.

[Cran.]

Running 1680x1050 with the widescreen option off will look perfect.

 

The widescreen option should only be used when you are using a 4:3 or a 5:4 (Or ratio that does not match your montior) resolution.

[gillies]

say what

 

"widescreen on" is for when you are using a widescreen resolution, otherwise it will get stretched horizontally by ~20 percent which should be pretty noticable.

[jnzooger]

It is a forced widescreen option. The offical readme file for SanAn says how Widescreen On|Off is not what it seems. I don't have it on me ATM, but it says widescreen on is for 4:3 resolutions on 16:9 monitors and widescreen off is for native resolutions.

 

Example: A 20" Widescreen (16:9) monitor running with 1024x768 would need widescreen on. (Off would result in wide CJ)

Example2: A 20" Widescreen (16:9) monitor running with 1600x900 would need widescreen off. (On would result in tall CJ)

Example3: A 19" Regular (4:3) monitor running 1024x768 would need widescreen off. (On would result in tall CJ)

[gillies]

That makes sense up to the point where you notice that the thing which defines something as 'widescreen' is using a widescreen resolution, also if you compare it with widecreen on and off you will see that the picture on a "widescreen" with "widescreen" off is massively stretched horizonally, with "widescreen" on it is not so bad but the top and bottom of the screen is cut off (the reason for using the camhack to zoom out a bit, or so it would seem) and it is streched slightly vertically because they only gave it proper support for 16:9 and not 16:10.

[jnzooger]

 

That makes sense up to the point where you notice that the thing which defines something as 'widescreen' is using a widescreen resolution, also if you compare it with widecreen on and off you will see that the picture on a "widescreen" with "widescreen" off is massively stretched horizonally, with "widescreen" on it is not so bad but the top and bottom of the screen is cut off (the reason for using the camhack to zoom out a bit, or so it would seem) and it is streched slightly vertically because they only gave it proper support for 16:9 and not 16:10.

Ok, I went into the readme file.

 

 

Widescreen   On / Off

  This option is not as obvious as it sounds. Using the Widescreen toggle you can force a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution to use a 16:9 aspect ratio (so if GRAND THEFT AUTO: San Andreas only offers you 4:3 aspect ratio screen resolutions to use, but your laptop has a 16:9 ratio widescreen display, then this will force the 4:3 resolution to look like 16:9, thereby sorting out the "squashed CJ" look). A proper 16:9 resolution displayed on a 16:9 screen does not need the use of the Widescreen toggle (or this will result in "skinny CJ").

 

They soulda named it "Force 16:9 ratio" instead. All it does is squash everything and the monitor re-streches it. Widescreen is not defined my resolution. It's defined by how things look on a widescreen monitor. A 4:3 resoultion can look 16:9 just by squishing it horizontally.

 

For the record, I am using a 15.4" 16:10 monitor. When running 1024x768 wide off, I get "fat cj"; wide on, I get "tall cj". however, when running my native 1280x768 wide off, I get a perfect cj with more side view. If I go 1280x768 wide on, I get "tall cj" cause the game thinks I am running on a 24:9 monitor at 1280x768.

Edited April 18, 2007 by jnzooger

[gillies]

Well, a lcd panel only supports one resolution natively (always the highest resolution it supports), if you use a different resolution the picture will take on a blocky appearance. The reason for this is that unlike a crt which points the thing that produces the picture at where the pixels will go, a lcd resolution reflects the actual number of pixels in the array of pixels in the screen, using a lower resolution means it uses more screen pixels to represent one pixel from the video so it gets all blocky. With that in mind you don't change the resolution, so even if you want to argue about what it means for you, for the purposes of displaying things on a lcd at least widescreen = widescreen resolution.

 

If you use 1920x1200 with widescreen off in a gta game it will be stretched horizontally. If you use widescreen on it will be stretched vertically. Because the vertical stretching is due to this mode being for 16:9 widescreens which are a bit wider than 16:10 widescreens, the picture is narrower than it should be, but the vertical stretching in this mode should at least be less severe than the horizonal stretching you will get without it on. Either way it is not working properly because the game company was too lazy to make it work properly, and there are unfortunately quite a few other games that do it the same way.

[jnzooger]

Well, a lcd panel only supports one resolution natively (always the highest resolution it supports), if you use a different resolution the picture will take on a blocky appearance. The reason for this is that unlike a crt which points the thing that produces the picture at where the pixels will go, a lcd resolution reflects the actual number of pixels in the array of pixels in the screen, using a lower resolution means it uses more screen pixels to represent one pixel from the video so it gets all blocky. With that in mind you don't change the resolution, so even if you want to argue about what it means for you, for the purposes of displaying things on a lcd at least widescreen = widescreen resolution.

 

If you use 1920x1200 with widescreen off in a gta game it will be stretched horizontally. If you use widescreen on it will be stretched vertically. Because the vertical stretching is due to this mode being for 16:9 widescreens which are a bit wider than 16:10 widescreens, the picture is narrower than it should be, but the vertical stretching in this mode should at least be less severe than the horizonal stretching you will get without it on. Either way it is not working properly because the game company was too lazy to make it work properly, and there are unfortunately quite a few other games that do it the same way.

I know how LCDs work.

 

1920x1200 is a 16:10 resoultion thus with the widescreen option off you sould get a perfect picture on a 16:10 display.

 

If you were to run 1600x1200 with widescreen off or on you would get what you decribed.

 

(Above,and in game, read all "widescreen"s as "force 16:9")

[gillies]

But you don't get a perfect picture with it on or off. That I believe was the point of the topic.

[jnzooger]

I am sure this topic is soon to be locked as it has been deturmined that there is no force 16:10 ratio option (Mistake on monitor makers part, not the game developers), however, let me rephrase my previous post.

 

1920x1200 is a 16:10 resolution thus with the widescreen option off you will get a perfect picture on a 16:10 display.

 

You might not be used to the extra peripheral vision, but everything is in proper proportions. Just check your targeting scopes, they will be round if widescreen is off, but if you turn widescreen on, they will be capital O shaped. (Aka, a narrow ellipse.)

[gillies]

jeez you know argument by repetition is a fallacy, and I am not going to go to the trouble of submitting a screenshot documentary for you so if you want to be right you can be, but you are not as the orinal post and some of the others indicate.

 

If your hud is unstretched you must have a magic version of this game because from what I have seen the hud is done with overlays and like every other game with overlayed hud it streches but it will never be narrow, it will be wide even if you enable the widescreen setting which as we have established makes things on the screen narrower.

 

arguing about computers on the internet, gotta love it.

Edited April 18, 2007 by gillies

[masser120]

@jnzooger: thanks for your mail.

 

No it's not really what I mean.

 

See, it's a 16:10 monitor.

 

Using a 16:10 resolution, like 1680x1050 gives me a bad aspect ratio...

 

 

Wide off is 4:3

Picture is too wide

 

Wide on sets it to 16:9

Picture is too tall

 

 

With other words: no 16:10!

[jnzooger]

Ok, that is strange. I'm guessing you are using version 1.0 yes? The only advice I can give you is try upgrading to 1.01 (which I am using), or see if your video card settings has a force aspect ratio option. That should allow you to run a 16:9 resolution with slight black bars on top and bottom.

[masser120]

Ok, that is strange. I'm guessing you are using version 1.0 yes? The only advice I can give you is try upgrading to 1.01 (which I am using), or see if your video card settings has a force aspect ratio option. That should allow you to run a 16:9 resolution with slight black bars on top and bottom.

Yes, I've never had the need of updating it, so I will try that.

[masser120]

Nope, patching to v1.01 does not make any difference

[gillies]

[jnzooger]

 

Nope, patching to v1.01 does not make any difference 

Well, I'm sorry about that. I don't seem to have any problem at 1280x786 with version 1.01. If you have the option of doing the forced ratio, that would be your best bet. (I know for a fact nVidia has this option.) If not, I feel the tall CJ is the better of the two evils.

 

Edit: Just for Mr. up there, I did a comparison study on my own computer. A 4:3 resolution with wide on comes out the same as a 16:9 native resolution. This was already deturmined, but I confirmed it as a calibration.

 

I then compared a 4:3 wide on (aka 16:9) with a 16:10 wide on and off. They both came out differently. This is in contradiction to my earlier posts, however, not unexpected and not what I was getting at.

 

Last, I compared a 4:3 wide off with 16:10 wide on and off. With wide on the Greenwood was noticibly taller than the 4:3 one. With wide off however, the cars lined up exactly and the only difference was the 4:3 had less side view.

 

The pics are too big to inline post, so you'll have to click the links to see.

 

4:3: http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g147/jnzooger/gallery1.jpg

16:9 (and 4:3 Wide on): http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g147/jnzooger/gallery2.jpg

16:10 Wide on: http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g147/jnzooger/gallery3.jpg

16:10 Wide off: http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g147/jnzooger/gallery4.jpg

Edited April 20, 2007 by jnzooger

[masser120]

Nope, patching to v1.01 does not make any difference 

Well, I'm sorry about that. I don't seem to have any problem at 1280x786 with version 1.01. If you have the option of doing the forced ratio, that would be your best bet. (I know for a fact nVidia has this option.) If not, I feel the tall CJ is the better of the two evils.

I have found what I think you meant, but even that unfortunatly won't work! I have a nVidia Geforce 7800GT graphic card.

 

Well, seems I have to work with the taller CJ.

Unless somebody finds a nice solution.

 

Nice comparison btw Thanks!

[gillies]

jnzooger 1280x768 isn't 16:10

 

1920x1200 8/5 - 16:10

1680x1050 8/5 - 16:10

1280x768 - 5/3 - 15:9

1280x760 - 16/9 ...

[jnzooger]

I appologize, you are correct there. However, my monitor is a 16:10 monitor and that resolution looks correct. (Default resolution in windows.) May have to do with the ratio being different by less than 0.1 (1.6 vs. 1.6667), where 16:10 and 16:9 differ by over 0.1 (1.6 vs. 1.7778).

 

@ masser: You may want to try a 15:9 resolution with wide off and/or on to see if either works for you as well.

 

Edit: You should have an NVidia Control Panel. Just click on Start on the desktop, go to Control Panel then open NVIDIA Control Panel. It may be a bit different depending on what version of the drivers you are using, but I click on Display, then click on 'change flat panel scaling'. I then click on the option 'Use NVidia scaling with fixed-aspect ratio'. After this, go into the game and set it on a 4:3 ratio and you should be all set.

Edited April 21, 2007 by jnzooger

[gillies]

So basically you have a 15:9 monitor (call it what you will, but the resolution is what counts not what the marketing says) with a default resolution of 1280x768, but you have been arguing that 16:10 works properly when it doesn't, and you haven't even been using it yourself. wtg.

[jnzooger]

No, I have a 16:10 monitor (12"x7.5") runing a 15:9 resolution. Thats like saying a 16:9 monitor running a 4:3 resolution isn't a 16:9 monitor. So, yes a 16:10 MONITOR is working for me, just in a 15:9 RESOLUTION. My monitor also can run in at 1024x768 and 800x600, is it a 4:3 monitor now?

 

And now we are way off topic..and I'm having deja vu. All future conversation by me in this topic will be to masser only, and only on the topic at hand.

 

Edit: I forgot it was my old computer that had the 15.4" monitor. This one has a 14".

 

@Masser: Any luck with the new suggestion?

[gillies]

Whatever the default resolution of the panel is is all that matters, since you "know how they work" you should know at least that much.

 

The subject at hand was already over after the first couple of posts, 16:10 resolutions don't work properly because they weren't made to work properly. It has only been dragged out by your whack thinking about using non default resolutions on a lcd as some kind of solution. aspect scaling is an option, but that still doesn't get 16:10 resolutions working properly.

Edited April 21, 2007 by gillies

[masser120]

I don't even have the ability to go to a 15:9 resolution. However, I did manage to get a 16:9 aspect ratio resolutions having black bars at the top or bottom. Only bad part: that only goes to 1600x900 . That means I have 2 options: scaling it, so it fits into the screen with black bars on the top and bottom, but that gives me a vague upscaled image. Or I can make it a centered output, making the picture a square surrounded by black. Both are not ideal. Unfortunately a 1680x945 resolution does not exist