how to fix the order 1886

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -

each image viewable full size

so here is the game scene 'normal'. unfortunately it is not full hd and because some consolites deny this then i suppose it needs to be 'fixed'.

now when someone plays the game on a 1920x1080 monitor, the game will add in black bars to help make the game achieve full HD, see, now it looks like the below, nice and full HD. also, notice the crispness of the black? that is due to a choice of video memory known as gddr5.

however, if you really want to spank the XBONE, then play the order 1886 on a proper cinematic display. that will actually increase the resolution to 2560x1080, giving way more detail than ever thought possible, as demonstrated below:

note that you probably won't be able to see the awesomeness of the last picture unless you have a proper monitor able to harness the awesomeness of the cinematic aspect ratio.

so there you have it. completely flawless analysis, completely flawless!

(PS - for some reason gamespot made my three images smaller. no worries. here they are in order.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23555618/cka/TheOrder1886/native.png 1920x800

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23555618/cka/TheOrder1886/with_black_bars.png 1920x1080

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23555618/cka/TheOrder1886/cinematic_monitor.png 2560x1080)

#2 Posted by Blabadonn (10 posts) -

I hate the borders

#3 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Needing to be fixed would mean something's broken or doesn't work. Which isn't the case

#4 Edited by Solid_Max13 (3548 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur: Links don't work and make them clickable!

#5 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2582 posts) -

I'd much rather have bars on the top and bottom than around the whole screen.

#6 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -

@Solid_Max13: quite surprised gamespot's system doesn't automatically linkify. done.

OT: uh guys. maybe don't take this too seriously. i thought you guys had been on the internet before?

#7 Edited by PinkieWinkie (1363 posts) -

I guess RE4 needed to be fixed too then. Wait, no it didn't.

#8 Edited by NFJSupreme (5374 posts) -

Lol funny thing is I've read this argument in many threads here. Cows gonna cow I guess.

#9 Posted by Solid_Max13 (3548 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Solid_Max13: quite surprised gamespot's system doesn't automatically linkify. done.

OT: uh guys. maybe don't take this too seriously. i thought you guys had been on the internet before?

Yea I know everyone else is Current while we still have forum tech from 2003!

#10 Edited by Telekill (4603 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin: That's what I was thinking too.

#11 Edited by lundy86_4 (43423 posts) -

How many people missed the point? TC is mocking the use of bars.

#12 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9753 posts) -

The fuck are you talking about?

failed troll thread

#13 Edited by 2mrw (4986 posts) -

i was gonna say remove the black bars .... very bad design choice.

#14 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

I imagine the best way to fix The Order jelly, is to get a ps4.

#15 Edited by ominous_titan (707 posts) -

Game gonna get a 7 that's about it. But this point cows would probably hype tic tac toe they're so thirsty for something to play

#16 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

#17 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14022 posts) -

I'm planning on getting a 21:9 monitor(2560x1080p) anyway. It looks amazing for PC games. Someone should make a bendable 21:9 monitor.

#18 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

so you have to play the game in a square box with a frame around it on your t.v to take use of the ps4?

OOOO INCREDIABLE!

#19 Posted by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

#20 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

#21 Edited by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

#22 Posted by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Sounds like you're just butt hurt it's not on PC. Find another way to deal with it than making moronic fail threads, because it's just going to backfire.

#23 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

Needing to be fixed would mean something's broken or doesn't work. Which isn't the case

That would also mean that OP has actually played the game in its final form and not just seen some screen shots of it before its even released. But he doesn't seem interested in talking about something he actually has had real experience with and insight.

#24 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@Shielder7 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Sounds like you're just butt hurt it's not on PC. Find another way to deal with it than making moronic fail threads, because it's just going to backfire.

the order 1886 is not full hd. sorry to disappoint you #fact

got lots of games to play. got a 360. got money for ps4.

what have you got? nothing. except for incorrect usage of specific terminology eg: "full HD"

#25 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

It's full HD. The black bars don't reduce the resolution, it only changes the aspect ratio.

#26 Edited by napo_sp (274 posts) -

1920x800 is 1.5 mega pixels period and is a significant reduction from 1920x1080

#27 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

so, what's happening in the third picture in my opening post?

using identical logic, the ps4 now renders the order 1886 in 2560x1080, is that correct?

the truth is a 1920x800 scene was rendered in all three instances. an interesting fact about this resolution - it is below full hd.

I'm using the definition of 1080P

i never talked about reduction. the simple facts:

1. the scene render is done at 1920x800

2. this is vertically centered on a 1920x1080 display

3. the rest is populated by what i'll crudely describe as 'free black'.

i'm sorry. but full hd is 2 073 000 pixels. the order 1886's 1 536 000 pixels does not achieve this technical definition of 1080P. Earlier today you earned a victory, even if I wanted to - I cannot grant this one.

#28 Edited by ninjapirate2000 (3031 posts) -

Haha I can't believe people are falling for this.

On topic: I agree with the TC.

#29 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@I_can_haz said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

It's full HD. The black bars don't reduce the resolution, it only changes the aspect ratio.

so, 2 073 00 pixels of game scene were rendered? no. only 1 526 000 were because it's a 1920x800 scene.

or you consider what i'll crudely describe as 'free black' equal to the bright colorful bit that's got models and stuff? hey - if that's our point of difference i would love it!

is the free black equal to the game scene? i don't count the free black as part of the game scene.

i wouldn't call a wii u, or xboner's 1920x800 game hd either.

#30 Edited by lostrib (36961 posts) -

no black bars and no film grain would be cool

#31 Edited by TheFadeForever (1754 posts) -

Cows completely missed the point of the thread but you know they aren't the brightest bunch

#32 Posted by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

so, what's happening in the third picture in my opening post?

using identical logic, the ps4 now renders the order 1886 in 2560x1080, is that correct?

the truth is a 1920x800 scene was rendered in all three instances. an interesting fact about this resolution - it is below full hd.

I'm using the definition of 1080P

i never talked about reduction. the simple facts:

1. the scene render is done at 1920x800

2. this is vertically centered on a 1920x1080 display

3. the rest is populated by what i'll crudely describe as 'free black'.

i'm sorry. but full hd is 2 073 000 pixels. the order 1886's 1 536 000 pixels does not achieve this technical definition of 1080P. Earlier today you earned a victory, even if I wanted to - I cannot grant this one.

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

#33 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@Gargus said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

Needing to be fixed would mean something's broken or doesn't work. Which isn't the case

That would also mean that OP has actually played the game in its final form and not just seen some screen shots of it before its even released. But he doesn't seem interested in talking about something he actually has had real experience with and insight.

actually, it was insight which prompted me to create this thread. But your criticisms are fair enough, superficially this must look like a bait thread ... or perhaps even less than that. The truth it this is a bit baity, but it's a satire. And also in the case of the third image, my technical prediction (a kind of insight) which I suspect is the very likely outcome of that scenario.

i would like to offer a different insight of my own. You see Gargus, fanboyism is a very interesting thing. A most interesting thing about Fanboys - I've noticed they always have double standards.

This discussion has already played out in system wars about 4 times, but every time it is awesome for me. I am just amazed, astounded, astonished (and that's just the 'A's!) at how many fanboys ignore the technical definitions of industry standards like 1080P when it suits them.

One could argue that this is too baity a thread, but it is also a satire, and I hope that one day these Playstation Zealots realize there are some times where you can't win ... or don't necessarily have to.

I'll stand tall the whole day long saying 'no!' to every incorrect declaration made by some Playstation Zealot, that The Order 1886 is - errneously -full HD! but i never said i thought the graphics were bad.

you see? this is one of those times. i think the correct answer is

'its not full hd - so what?'

#34 Edited by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Sounds like you're just butt hurt it's not on PC. Find another way to deal with it than making moronic fail threads, because it's just going to backfire.

the order 1886 is not full hd. sorry to disappoint you #fact

got lots of games to play. got a 360. got money for ps4.

what have you got? nothing. except for incorrect usage of specific terminology eg: "full HD"

How could I miss use specific terminology eg: "full HD" When I never even mentioned it before now? I decided to leave I_can_haz to school you on resolution. I just know a butt hurt crying hermit when I see one. Don't worry I'm sure the PC will get a GOTY sometime this decade for sure..................

#35 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16418 posts) -

I have a feeling that the people who actually care about the black borders and film grain are in a very small minority.

#36 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

#37 Edited by trugs26 (5483 posts) -

Man I hate borders. I remember when DVDs came out, they had borders. I disliked it so much, I'd rather watch a VHS. I prefer a bigger screen than resolution. That's why I also loved playing gameboy players on the TV over the gameboy, or why I prefer the XL version over a regular DS.

#38 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@Shielder7 said:

How could I miss use specific terminology eg: "full HD" When I never even mentioned it before now? I decided to leave I_can_haz to school you on resolution. I just know a butt hurt crying hermit when I see one. Don't worry I'm sure the PC will get a GOTY sometime this decade for sure..................

ironically, misuse*

perhaps the reply was for the person who made the claim?

i have already read and understood the technicalities of the 1080P standard, i'm confident of my position. its why i made the thread. also, for light hearted humor - by the way its not a joke aimed at you. nfjsupreme got it and he was the kind of audience i was going for.

are you confident of your position? you were agreeing with someone with a contrary position and saying that i, the one with the right position was - hahaha - 'a moron'. oh man shielder7.

#39 Posted by happyduds77 (1451 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

So image quality is the same, but ratio is different. Is that what you're saying?

#40 Edited by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

Yeah... no can do bub. Wikipedia isn't proof of anything.

You linked me to some BBC standards. For 3D video of all things. The BBC want 1920 * 1080P content. Ok, and so what? What does that have to do with anything? People in hell want ice water.

Yes, I'm aware 1080P has 1080 pixels along the side. 1080P is 1920*1080P. No one has ever argued that it wasn't.

"full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed." - prove this please.

#41 Posted by locopatho (20282 posts) -

Your BBC HD standards link also says this btw:

"2.5.1 ‘Cinemascope ratio’ letterbox

For delivery to dedicated movie channels or at the discretion of the broadcaster, programmes may be

delivered with an active picture in the cinema ratios of 2.35:1 (21:9) or 1.85:1, centred vertically

between black bars in a 16:9 frame, filling the width of the frame, and with no geometric distortion."

So even the BEEB agree it's ok to letterbox, as it's still full HD ;)

#42 Posted by ConanTheStoner (5336 posts) -

So a joke topic actually goes on to expose a number of "slow" users.

Was this your intention CKA?

#43 Posted by Wasdie (49907 posts) -

Nothing is broken. They wanted to go with an unusual aspect ratio for games. That's not broken, that's their decision.

#44 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

OP, when you make a "joke" thread and you're the only one laughing at your joke it's probably time to hang the towel.

#45 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@happyduds77 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

So image quality is the same, but ratio is different. Is that what you're saying?

short answer, yes - because the ratio's difference comes from subtraction of pixels when rendering, from the vertical lines of the full hd standard resulting in a below full-hd resolution. the original rendered scene is never upscaled, stretched or skewed in the case of TO1886 on a full HD 1080P TV, i think this is the argument many people have when they say the quality doesn't decrease, but my argument is it never achieved 1080P in the first place.

#46 Edited by Vecna (3394 posts) -

#47 Posted by PinkieWinkie (1363 posts) -

Its always funny to see a good ol thread backfire.

#48 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

Yeah... no can do bub. Wikipedia isn't proof of anything.

You linked me to some BBC standards. For 3D video of all things. The BBC want 1920 * 1080P content. Ok, and so what? What does that have to do with anything? People in hell want ice water.

Yes, I'm aware 1080P has 1080 pixels along the side. 1080P is 1920*1080P. No one has ever argued that it wasn't.

"full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed." - prove this please.

the bbc source mentions the 1080p standard throughout the document, and "1080P", "1920x1080" - that was the first best place they appeared together

here is my third source, you've supplied none - http://web.archive.org/web/20081209101345/http://www.vesa.org/Public/Panel%20Standards/TVpnlV1.pdf

page 3 table 1, 'f hd', meaning full hd as is as i have always been representing it, the same as 1080P

regarding the thing you want proof for, two things, one: in your post you acknowledge about 1080P is 1920x1080, which multiplies out to 2 076 000 which is my deduction from the 1920x1080 resolution. also the three sources support this. full hd is always 1920x1080.

two: so, do you dispute the 'no free black'?

my response to you is this, i don't need to refute that. you need to provide an excuse to me for why i should consider 'unrendered free black' a part of the game scene.

it's like this. try to disprove my magic sandwich? well you can't. all the full hd 1080P games I've seen render at 1920x1080, i would like for you to excuse your exception to the rule - which renders at 1920x800 and populates the missing area with free black.

#49 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4782 posts) -
@ConanTheStoner said:

So a joke topic actually goes on to expose a number of "slow" users.

Was this your intention CKA?

yip

#50 Posted by happyduds77 (1451 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@happyduds77 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

So image quality is the same, but ratio is different. Is that what you're saying?

short answer, yes - because the ratio's difference comes from subtraction of pixels when rendering, from the vertical lines of the full hd standard resulting in a below full-hd resolution. the original rendered scene is never upscaled, stretched or skewed in the case of TO1886 on a full HD 1080P TV, i think this is the argument many people have when they say the quality doesn't decrease, but my argument is it never achieved 1080P in the first place.

I agree with you on that.