Could someone post the available graphics resolutions that Zwift offers for these wide screen monitors?
It just adjusts to whatever the size is. You can also just resize the Zwift window to something other than full-screen (if running in windowed mode). I have mine sized so there is window space below the game and I put sauce windows there.
That’s what I did - the screen I was using before is 6144x3456 resolution, so I just resize the Zwift window to half of the height of that.
1 Like
But is the game creating and drawing more scenery to the left and the right, to go wider screen, or just zooming out and therefore cropping out more sky (realizing that it has to keep the bottom intact where the rider’s avatar appears)? I’m hung up on this for some reason and am trying to equate to a digital photo.
For example, I can create a panorama-ish looking photo by cropping a 6x4 aspect ratio photo to 6x2 and then view or print it larger, but I’ve thrown away half of the originally captured scene.
Here is a before and after. Before is the game window maximized, the second one is after resizing the window.
Edit: don’t know how I got more trees on the beach in the second one. 
Maybe I took the before too soon after spawning.
1 Like
IF Widescreen = true then + “palm trees” 
I was just comparing some other images. You don’t appear to lose anything widescreen, but things do appear further away - its bad enough racing as it is with how far up the road everyone is 
Have you tried not getting dropped? 
3 Likes
I don’t have a widescreen monitor myself, but isn’t the appearance of things seeming further away just because the forum is displaying both pics at the same width (and therefore effectively zooming out of the widescreen one)? At least, the forum is showing both pics as the same width on my phone’s screen.
1 Like
The end result looks okay but really you loose a lot of screen height. The actual screen you really really want isn’t even made yet and I’m not going to start running a triple head GPU on 3 screens.
The GPU required to run a widescreen curved monitor that is the same height as a 48inch 16:9 would take an RTX5090 to run it. Never going to happen because most Zwift users try and run it on Junk.
The images are basically the same, you have simply zoomed out on the widescreen version.
Has the resolution changed as well ? The first thing I noticed on 4K-2160p is things that were not even present in 1080p, classic example the palm trees. Foliage is pretty nasty on frame rates as well.
To really get the best visual experience in Zwift, you really have to start spending big bucks, especially now that RAM prices have gone through the roof. My PC would now cost NZD$5K or more to replace.
I would still go for an LG C5 48inch OLED as this stage. No doubt there will be way better options avaiable in 10 years time when it dies.
I don’t know what to say other than… you’re wrong.
1 Like
There’s no height lost in those pics if that’s what you’re referring to. Look at what features are drawn vertically - nothing is lost.
Screenshots like that are hard to compare because the forum resizes them to the same width, distorting what they appear to show.
the widescreen just looks more zoomed out, doesn’t appear to be missing anything
I recommend trying this one. Let me know what you think of it.
That’s 5120x1440 resolution compared to 3840x2160 and I have to be honest I wouldn’t go for a widescreen as they are today. Technically that’s 1440p not 2160p for starters.
In terms of actual field of view the 16:9 is more balanced and at 750mm viewing distance while down on the bars the left and right edges are in your peripheral vision as it is. Widescreen would mean you have to move your head at 750mm. I can understand that the text etc is better placed but as you know I have already put in a request that Zwift dump all that onto the Zwift App map when you hit the “H” button anyway and on a Samsung A8 tablet it would be still readable and totally free up the main screen for “Graphics only”, which seems to be the main goal of the widescreen, i.e you really need that information but you don’t want it anywhere near your central field of view stuffing up the immersive experience.
I should probably put up a pic of my final set-up for reference.
Did a long ride today and set the free auto camera angle script running, then killed all the HUD anyway and the result was epic on the 48” LG C5 OLED. It would be possible but unnecessary to move to the 55inch version of the C5 and currently they are twice the price I paid for the 48.
Its obvious that one day you will be able to buy a true widescreen 4K-2160p and get the same height resolution but also more width. As GPU tech improves its only a matter of time, there is basically nobody in the whole world that’s going to buy an RTX5090 just to run Zwift at the current pricing which is exactly what you would need to run one at 120fps.
Thing is, Zwift should never need very high end GPUs at the moment.
If it looked like the following at best detail, then I’d say yes, justified…
The above is not even on modern CPU or GPU technology and runs fine. Look at the last screenshot, the trees look like trees, not polygons with a texture mapped to them (I used to do 3d for games using 3DSMax). The grass as well looks realistic, the mountains also look realistic.
Modern graphics engines can scale that level of detail for all sorts of devices so the lowest level machines can still run okay, while the top high end machines will look stunning.
Unfortunately actual testing proves otherwise.
Its kind of a waste of time trying to explain it on here, you have to get a decent set-up and run it for yourself.
You can do all the math yourself on the pixel count but a true widescreen 32:9 4K 2160p monitor would need an RTX5090 to run Zwift at 120fps.
I currently run the RTX5070 on the 16:9 and obviously the true widescreen version of this requires TWICE the GPU power for twice as many pixels. Currently I have a solid 120fps runs at 30-40% most of the time with peaks in the 90’s when the neon lights appear.
The reason they don’t currently make a widescreen like it is because gamers are really not a smart bunch and think they need 1000fps.
Really? 48” TV at 750 mm distance?
Yep its perfect for 4K, not for 1080p however not even on a 40 inch. Obviously the individual pixel brightness assists over the really old Samsung 1080p I tried.
750mm on the bars 1250mm sitting upright, you just cannot see the individual pixels at this distance.
You simply wouldn’t believe how good the picture is on an LG C5 OLED. The difference is how it handles the lighting and the reflections and shadows. What shocked me is the effort that Zwift went to to provide this level of graphics to a very small percentage of users that are prepared to pay to fully utilise it.
Sorry, but it’s not. For 4K minimum 1x, optimal 1.2-1.5x TV diagonal. Means for 48” TV min 1200 mm, optimal 1450 -1800 mm.
Otherwise the eye strain is to high. I don’t know how old you are, but I am 67 and talking about my own (bad) experience.
1 Like