What resolution do you play at?

[RemingtonRyder]

I voted for option 3 because I have a 1920x1080 screen at home. But when I'm over at mum's (like today) I'm playing at 1366x768.

[Monkfish]

1440 X 900 here. Not sure where that fits into the poll.

[Enjoyment]

Sorry, if this is off-topic, but as we can see - positions in poll is really wierd, cause of most people uses 16:9/10 ratio, and all of them not sure what res to vote for...
So, maybe Tynan should re-do the poll? Only IMHO, not even a suggestion though...
And one more thing... I'm a paranoic one, so I think, there is always a person who plays on granpa's cga monitor, but who will vote for a greatest res, just to say: "Im as cool as Chuk's steel balls. Cause it is internet and you can't check it". Again, just thoughts, maybe not worth to worry)

[Montanio]

As long as things continue to work well at non-standard ratios, I don't mind. Currently playing on a 21:9 (2560x1080) screen and it works very well, no UI issues other than a slightly cropped background picture on the main menu. 

A UI scaling slider however, would be nice.

[Adamiks]

I use 1440x900. I do not know what option i should select :/

Would it be a problem if I upped the minimum resolution a bit?

I think you should stay with min 1024x768 (like now).

I'm a paranoic one, so I think, there is always a person who plays on granpa's cga monitor

Yea.. I think about this too... But anyways you can always select 640x480 resolution.

[Mystic]

I play RimWorld at the native resolutions on both my MacBook Pro (1680x1050), where it is very nice, and my iMac (2560x1440), where it is spectacular.

[MsMeiriona]

I have a 1920x1080 screen and normally run the game at 1042x987 which is what I keep my left-hand side browser on.  I have a second browser on the right taking up the rest of the screen which is usually where my background video is.

[Dr. Z]

1366x768, voted option two because it's mathematicly closer

[Treldent]

1920x1080, like most a' the people here

[kic]

2560x1440 is what I play at. I was considering getting a 3440x1440 monitor, but I'm having a difficult time swallowing the price.

[geredis]

1920x1080 as well and no complaints as yet.

[REMworlder]

1920x1080 as well and no complaints as yet.

1920x1080 reporting in too

[tommytom]

Looking back, there isn't a proper answer for "1080p 16:9" as the 1920x1200 is right for width and the 1680x1050 option is just about as close in the height.

Why these strange resolutions? Isn't everyone 16:9 these days AND 1080p (1920x1080)?

I understand the 1366x768 or even 1360x768 for laptops or possibly even smaller 720p* monitors, but it's got to be ancient/terrible to be 4:3/16:10 and/or less than that. Why even make the poll in 4:3? Certainly a 4:3 CRT has to be blurry/dim as #%*( by now and not worth using.

Anything in the last 5 years is going to be 1080p or higher unless it's a laptop. 23" 1080p 16:9 monitor is dirt cheap. Got to be really cheap if you can't afford that. That's basically bare minimum for me and that's only $100-$120.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#Computer_displays

[Coenmcj]

Looking back, there isn't a proper answer for "1080p 16:9" as the 1920x1200 is right for width and the 1680x1050 option is just about as close in the height.

Why these strange resolutions? Isn't everyone 16:9 these days AND 1080p (1920x1080)?

I understand the 1366x768 or even 1360x768 for laptops or possibly even smaller 720p* monitors, but it's got to be ancient/terrible to be 4:3/16:10 and/or less than that. Why even make the poll in 4:3? Certainly a 4:3 CRT has to be blurry/dim as #%*( by now and not worth using.

Anything in the last 5 years is going to be 1080p or higher unless it's a laptop. 23" 1080p 16:9 monitor is dirt cheap. Got to be really cheap if you can't afford that. That's basically bare minimum for me and that's only $100-$120.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#Computer_displays

Following statistic probabilities, there was always going to be 'those' bunch of people.
There's also people running older screens that aren't CRT's that are at 4:3 aspect ratios, that do not feel the need to upgrade simply because there's no reason to as it still works.

Edit;
[OFFTOPIC] Because I don't want to bump the thread unnessessarily...
That Free-Sync stuff looks nice, Wouldn't mind having some of that next time I upgrade my systems, definitely better than V-Sync's dodginess.
[/OFFTOPIC]

[tommytom]

Yes, I suppose there are still some 4:3 LCDs running around. I have seen a few, and they are absolutely terrible. LCDs back then were VERY primitive. I used to be a CRT advocate and still am to some extent, but they are dead and gone and my 19" CRT (R.I.P.) was dim as a candle and blurry as all get out before I retired it, and that was a looooong time ago and it's been about that long they stopped making them (mainstream anyways. I'm sure you can pay a ton to get one new still).

Old 4:3 LCDs will have terrible ghosting due to the terrible response times. It's like the 1990s where everyone used mouse trails in Windows 9x because it was cool. Everything should have excellent response times, size, resolution, LED backlit (brighter, last longer, energy efficient). I have a CCFL myself and need to replace this one at some point. Only because the polarization sheets separated and dust got in there (there are specs under the screen "skin") and the light bleeds through the edges on dark scenes (since I bought it, actually).

I suppose I am one of those "won't buy a new monitor because this one still works" guys. The irony. But, It's got all the latest tech besides being LED and... well... being new.

I want a G-Sync monitor, but it's old TN panel technology (terrible view angles and color) and it's ridiculously overpriced just to remove tearing with v-sync off or removing the input lag/framerate drop with v-sync on. I'll upgrade when it's viable.

/sort of off-topicness

Edit: Nope. Sorry. More off-topicness: http://www.techpowerup.com/210846/amd-announces-freesync-promises-fluid-displays-more-affordable-than-g-sync.html