Tweet
I've been playing TGC2019 for about 9 months now. Due to space limitations in my garage, I use a square 9x9 screen. I've mostly played using a 4:3 aspect ratio but have also tinkered with a 16:9. In either aspect ratio I of course have been left with empty screen space on top and bottom.
Recently I've been reading about how to use the Nvidia control panel settings to set up a custom resolution, which would allow me to fill up my entire screen. I was hesitant about it because I just didn't know how good the image would be after manipulating the native resolution so drastically. Plus, it would require me to move my projector back a few feet and we all know how much of a pain in the butt it is to mount a projector.
But, I have some time off work right now so I decided to just roll the dice and try it out. So I moved my projector the other day and customized the resolution in Nvidia. Here are my thoughts:
1. The image quality takes a huge hit with text. The menu screen is noticeably different as the text is not as crisp and the avatar looks a bit blocky. During play, the on-screen text (like the hole information and what not) is a lot less sharp. And probably my biggest thing I don't like about it is that the yardage to the pin and the elevation change can be hard to read. The text seems like it got squished and appears very small and choppy and I find myself kind of squinting at the screen to read the numbers.
2. As far as the golf course itself, I actually don't notice any change in the quality of the image. The only thing that's different is that in the 1:1 aspect ratio, some of the golf course is chopped off from the sides. In the 16:9 you can see more of the course on the left and right sides. In the 1:1, you still see the entire fairway and the areas immediately surrounding the fairways, but you see less of the stuff beyond that. I tried uploading some before and after pics to show but it seems the file sizes are too large or whatever. But basically there are trees and parts of water or whatever on the sides that you don't see in the 1:1 that you do see in the 16:9 or 4:3.
I was concerned that going from 1920x1080 (in 16:9) or 1600x1200 (in 4:3) all the way down to 1080x1080 (for 1:1) would deteriorate the image quality a lot because I thought the 1080 horizontal pixels would now be asked to occupy that same screen space with the same image as the 1920 pixels were. So I thought that having roughly half the pixel count for the same image and space would be a huge hit to the quality.
But (and I suppose this just speaks to my previous misunderstanding of pixel counts) instead of stretching 1080 horizontal pixels to cover the same screen and image space that the 1920 pixels were, it just simply chopped off the extra pixels from the sides. So instead of stretching the image out, it just cut off the sides while leaving the density of it intact. So the image is still just as condensed, it just includes less of the picture. The same 1080 vertical pixels that used to occupy only part of the screen are now being asked to occupy the entire screen from top to bottom, but that was achieved simply by moving the projector back to cast a bigger image. It may have made it a little less bright going from a 6.5 mount to about a 9 foot mount, but I turned up the brightness of the projector to accommodate that.
3. I guess it's maybe due to the smaller number of overall pixels, but this allowed me to turn up the advanced graphics quite a bit. Previously, I could only go up to about 130% on the render scale and around 55 on the object detail until the ball flight started to show some sputter. But now I can go about 170 on the render scale and about 80 on the object detail before I see any signs of sputtering.
The render scale says that turning it up will increase your resolution. But if you are running it at 1920x1080 (with a 1920x1080 projector), how can you achieve anymore than that by turning the render scale up? It seems like you would already be maxed out and that anything above 100% wouldn't make a difference, right? Going above 100% would only make a difference for someone using a resolution that is less than the native resolution of their projector, correct? Hopefully someone can shed some light on this. In other words, my 1080x1080 resolution can't be anymore than that given that it's a 1920x1080 native projector, so does going above 100% make any difference?
Turning up the object detail did make some noticeable difference. So although I now have less image, the image I am left with does look more detailed.
4. One thing I don't like is that the on-screen displays are no longer in the corners. They are lower, and the HUD offset setting doesn't really help with it. I wish I could get those back into the corners as I really don't like them where they are now. Feels intrusive. I actually turned the mini map off just to get that out of the way.
5. It's definitely much more immersive. I hit from only about 7.5 feet so the 9 foot tall image is just right on top of me. Feels like I'm much more "in" the action as opposed to being "behind" it.
All in all, I'm very happy with it and intend to keep it. I recommend anyone with a square screen give it a try.
Pros =
-- No loss of image quality (if anything it might actually be slightly better by being able to use higher in-game graphics settings)
-- More immersive
Cons =
-- Text is smaller and not as sharp
-- On-screen displays are no longer in the corners of the image and are more in the way
-- You see less of the golf course
Despite the cons, I still see it as a net win and am glad I did it.
If anyone knows how to make the yardage and elevation text larger please chime in. I turned on the text background contrast and that helped a little, but it's just so small in this new resolution. And also if anyone can chime in on the render scale thing that would also be appreciated.
Recently I've been reading about how to use the Nvidia control panel settings to set up a custom resolution, which would allow me to fill up my entire screen. I was hesitant about it because I just didn't know how good the image would be after manipulating the native resolution so drastically. Plus, it would require me to move my projector back a few feet and we all know how much of a pain in the butt it is to mount a projector.
But, I have some time off work right now so I decided to just roll the dice and try it out. So I moved my projector the other day and customized the resolution in Nvidia. Here are my thoughts:
1. The image quality takes a huge hit with text. The menu screen is noticeably different as the text is not as crisp and the avatar looks a bit blocky. During play, the on-screen text (like the hole information and what not) is a lot less sharp. And probably my biggest thing I don't like about it is that the yardage to the pin and the elevation change can be hard to read. The text seems like it got squished and appears very small and choppy and I find myself kind of squinting at the screen to read the numbers.
2. As far as the golf course itself, I actually don't notice any change in the quality of the image. The only thing that's different is that in the 1:1 aspect ratio, some of the golf course is chopped off from the sides. In the 16:9 you can see more of the course on the left and right sides. In the 1:1, you still see the entire fairway and the areas immediately surrounding the fairways, but you see less of the stuff beyond that. I tried uploading some before and after pics to show but it seems the file sizes are too large or whatever. But basically there are trees and parts of water or whatever on the sides that you don't see in the 1:1 that you do see in the 16:9 or 4:3.
I was concerned that going from 1920x1080 (in 16:9) or 1600x1200 (in 4:3) all the way down to 1080x1080 (for 1:1) would deteriorate the image quality a lot because I thought the 1080 horizontal pixels would now be asked to occupy that same screen space with the same image as the 1920 pixels were. So I thought that having roughly half the pixel count for the same image and space would be a huge hit to the quality.
But (and I suppose this just speaks to my previous misunderstanding of pixel counts) instead of stretching 1080 horizontal pixels to cover the same screen and image space that the 1920 pixels were, it just simply chopped off the extra pixels from the sides. So instead of stretching the image out, it just cut off the sides while leaving the density of it intact. So the image is still just as condensed, it just includes less of the picture. The same 1080 vertical pixels that used to occupy only part of the screen are now being asked to occupy the entire screen from top to bottom, but that was achieved simply by moving the projector back to cast a bigger image. It may have made it a little less bright going from a 6.5 mount to about a 9 foot mount, but I turned up the brightness of the projector to accommodate that.
3. I guess it's maybe due to the smaller number of overall pixels, but this allowed me to turn up the advanced graphics quite a bit. Previously, I could only go up to about 130% on the render scale and around 55 on the object detail until the ball flight started to show some sputter. But now I can go about 170 on the render scale and about 80 on the object detail before I see any signs of sputtering.
The render scale says that turning it up will increase your resolution. But if you are running it at 1920x1080 (with a 1920x1080 projector), how can you achieve anymore than that by turning the render scale up? It seems like you would already be maxed out and that anything above 100% wouldn't make a difference, right? Going above 100% would only make a difference for someone using a resolution that is less than the native resolution of their projector, correct? Hopefully someone can shed some light on this. In other words, my 1080x1080 resolution can't be anymore than that given that it's a 1920x1080 native projector, so does going above 100% make any difference?
Turning up the object detail did make some noticeable difference. So although I now have less image, the image I am left with does look more detailed.
4. One thing I don't like is that the on-screen displays are no longer in the corners. They are lower, and the HUD offset setting doesn't really help with it. I wish I could get those back into the corners as I really don't like them where they are now. Feels intrusive. I actually turned the mini map off just to get that out of the way.
5. It's definitely much more immersive. I hit from only about 7.5 feet so the 9 foot tall image is just right on top of me. Feels like I'm much more "in" the action as opposed to being "behind" it.
All in all, I'm very happy with it and intend to keep it. I recommend anyone with a square screen give it a try.
Pros =
-- No loss of image quality (if anything it might actually be slightly better by being able to use higher in-game graphics settings)
-- More immersive
Cons =
-- Text is smaller and not as sharp
-- On-screen displays are no longer in the corners of the image and are more in the way
-- You see less of the golf course
Despite the cons, I still see it as a net win and am glad I did it.
If anyone knows how to make the yardage and elevation text larger please chime in. I turned on the text background contrast and that helped a little, but it's just so small in this new resolution. And also if anyone can chime in on the render scale thing that would also be appreciated.
Comment