Ah, so you are the 0.1% eh? ;p

1920x1200 had the "problem" that it couldn't use the "FULL HD" logo, since it wasn't full hd, even though it was higher than that. Thus whenever someone came to a store and said "I want a full hd monitor", they couldn't sell him the superior 1920x1200. Sucks...

Unexpected auto-playing video alert. (I was expecting a picture.)
4:3 and 5:4 are better. Anyone else have a 5:4 monitor that is actively used?

"better" is purely subjective, and depends on a variety of factors, all of the metrics of which need to be clearly specified in order to make an accurate relative comparison. Otherwise, it's just an opinion. Nothing wrong with an opinion, but it is subjective nonetheless.

I have a recently deceased 5:4 monitor that was superb. The only actual issue with it was that some games nowadays assume that everything is widescreen, so even if they supported the resolution oftentimes the UI was broken or there were scaling problems such as in-the-corner minimaps taking up 25% of the screen real estate. But that's just lazy devs, really.

Wow this is awful! :/
Devs didn't put much effort at this, it seems.

Considering the font doesn't increase as you get larger resolutions, it means there's only a certain level of resolution that's practical. This is why I still play quite a few games at fairly low resolution.
Reminds me a few years ago when HD was the rage, and there were cell phones toting HD content, when in fact they could probably barely do SD resolution.

Never heard of that before, however when I say "FHD" or "Full HD" around anyone they wonder and ask "how's that different than normal HD", where in their mind HD is either an unknown thing or it is 1920x1080 and just called "HD" normally. Likewise most people have no idea what aspect ratio even means or why it could be important, at least in my experience talking about it with the average layperson.

What bums me out though, is that in another 2-4 years I would like to buy a 30-32" 4k (ugh... 3.8k really...) monitor in 16:10 aspect, however unlike every display resolution prior which has had options in both 16:9 and 16:10 with both easily available even though 16:9 is pushed out to the marketplace more and people generally only buy 16:10 who know the difference and desire the difference (generally professionals) - there are no modern 4k monitors on the market in 16:10 resolution (3840x2400) sadly. :( So I probably will avoid buying one for even longer than I normally would have waited, just because I don't want to give up 16:10. I'm hoping that when 4k actually starts to catch on, that a professional market opens up that drives demand for 16:10 however I'm not hopeful because with the high res displays that preceeded 4k, it was the professional market that opened up first making them viable at all, and the resolution slowly trickled down to consumerland. With 4k displays they seem adamant to push it on consumers first and ditch 16:10, which is pretty damned disappointing if you ask me.

The only solution in the end that is a compromise, might be to buy a larger 5k monitor instead to keep the vert real estate. That's one shitload more pixels than 4k though.

16:9 1920x1080 == 2073600
16:10 1920x1200 == 2304000
2.5k 16:10 2560x1600 == 4096000
4k 16:9 3840x2160 == 8294400
4k 16:10 3840x2400 == 9216000
5k 16:10 5120x3200 == 16384000 (has twice as many pixels as 4k@16:9, and 4 times as many as my 2.5k display!!)

Lots of fun gaming pixelsauce right there... :)

Oh yeah, that kind of shared knowledge would be greatly appreciated I think ;)

For easy online sharing, you could use the google spreadsheets (in "locked mode" to prevent unwanted editing).

Let us know by making a new thread if you put that up ;)

Of course it has, though not by the same measure. In the days of 640x480 games monitors used to be 15", now 24" is standard (for 1080p). Most 2560x1600 screens are 30".

Looks great indeed! But could you post a similar screenshot with mostly explored map?

Probably not, unless there is a quick and easy way to make it show the whole map. :) I was just testing the game with the Galaxy overlay and giving it a quick once-over. First time I ever played the game and I did well for about 20 minutes then lost the game, didn't get far. I've uninstalled the games to install other games for testing now though. :)

Good luck playing that in 4k. everything will look like ants or speckles lol

Yeah, after 10 minutes at 2.5k I had to drop the res down to 1920, and then to 1650, I think I ended up with 1440 and calling it "just right", which is incidentally the same resolution the sequels max out at although they have better image scaling at any resolution - but at the tradeoff of quality over quantity as you see less of the map in the newer games at higher res. :) Would be nice to be able to set both the resolution and a scaling factor, and even better if you can dynamically change it with the scroll wheel on the mouse or something during gameplay. That's be snazzy. :)