ZDoom

So I'm doing HUD work on one of the unfinished projects I have on my PC right now, just to scratch that itch to work on something, and I think to myself "Does anyone ever use these Aspect ratios anymore?", because no matter what I try, the ARs in question make the HUDs I come up with not as good-looking as the other ratios, and It piqued my curiosity.

Even if they don't, there's options aplenty to emulate widescreen aspects.

I use 4:3 when makin' DOS game review videos. Making a full HD video out of something which uses 320×200 at the best is totally, utterly pointless.

Reactor wrote:I use 4:3 when makin' DOS game review videos. Making a full HD video out of something which uses 320×200 at the best is totally, utterly pointless.

....in GZDoom, though?

Reactor wrote:I use 4:3 when makin' DOS game review videos. Making a full HD video out of something which uses 320×200 at the best is totally, utterly pointless.

I can sorta understand this, but I mean in GZDoom. I shoulda clarified that (even though it's kinda implied I meant this to be related to Doom, and thus in a source port of sorts, whoops.)

But yeah, I mostly asked this at the time because 5:4, 4:3 (and to a degree 16:10, although not as much) just makes any work I put into a hud a bit less pretty, mostly because the offsets I need to use to get stuff in it's supposed position ends up cramping the screen a fair bit more than I would like.

iSpook wrote:(and to a degree 16:10, although not as much)

For what it's worth, both of my monitors run in 1920x1200 (16:10) - which, IMO, is a far nicer looking size and ratio versus 1920x1080.

Enjay wrote:

iSpook wrote:(and to a degree 16:10, although not as much)

For what it's worth, both of my monitors run in 1920x1200 (16:10) - which, IMO, is a far nicer looking size and ratio versus 1920x1080.

And I try and get my 16:9 to look like 16:10 because I can't stand how flattened it looks. I used to letterbox the sides just to give the impression of more height!

In GZDoom? Well, funny as it is, I still use an old Samsung CRT monitor, so 4:3 is kinda all-right for now. Of course, I shall grab a new HD LCD monitor soon, then I shall see which aspect ratio is the best. If I play the good old DOS-Doom, 4:3 is good, I guess.

800x600 windowed here.

*raises hand so hard*

70hz at that too

All the time. I actually use 5:4 and scale to 4:3.

Uhh...

What kind of hardware are you people using?
I got my first 16:9 flatscreen more than 8 years ago and since that time have neither touched a 4:3/5:4 nor a CRT monitor again.

1024x768 on a 17" CRT here.

Only when I have no other option

No, really, 4:3 or 5:4 is better for working with text. Longer text can fill the screen. But as Graf noted, I also got my first widescreen display like 8 years ago and didnt touched 4:3 since then

Graf Zahl wrote:Uhh...

What kind of hardware are you people using?
I got my first 16:9 flatscreen more than 8 years ago and since that time have neither touched a 4:3/5:4 nor a CRT monitor again.

A 17" Samsung CRT monitor. It is amazing, but it is more than 11 years old now, and the only problem - albeit it CAN be annoying - is that the screen is darker than before. This year, however, I desire to grab a shiny new HD monitor. All good things come to an end, ye?