What resolution do you play KSP at?

[Hary R]

windowed 1280x720... yhea, I have a pretty old screen

[Thomassino]

Fullscreen on 1650x1050... I am considering to buy ultrawide 21:9 monitor

[superm18]

1680x1050

[rodion]

what, no 1920x1200 option?

[DmdKt]

1920x1200

[ShawnPhillips]

3840X2160 Play very little of KSP now but that might change with 64 bit and when I can use all my RAM Been play a lot of the Witcher 3 and GTA V recently

Yay! I am no longer alone in my 4K master realm.

[eddiew]

1920x1200, because I have a properly sized monitor rather than a thinly disguised TV (No, really, a general-use PC feels much nicer when the wideness of the screen is less pronounced. 16:9 is vertically cramped when doing actual work...)

But I was a tard and clicked 1080p because I didn't read the options :<

[RizzoTheRat]

1600x900 as that means running int windowed on a 1920x1080 display I can see other stuff on the screen at the same time...yes Im sad enouhg to have an excel spreadsheet with a list of which biomes I've visited and what experience all my crew members have got

[rabidninjawombat]

Fullscreen on 1650x1050... I am considering to buy ultrawide 21:9 monitor

You should do it!

I play at 2560X1080 (21:9 ultrawide screen) Just picked up a Ultrawide screen a week ago and LOVE it. Lemme tell you the amount of space you have to build in the VAB/SPH is glorious.

[NecroBones]

1920x1200, because I have a properly sized monitor rather than a thinly disguised TV (No, really, a general-use PC feels much nicer when the wideness of the screen is less pronounced. 16:9 is vertically cramped when doing actual work...)

But I was a tard and clicked 1080p because I didn't read the options :<

Yeah, that's why I love my 2560x1600 30". It's also 16:10 (or rather, 8:5) rather than 16:9. I agree, vertical space is important.

[steve_v]

...vertical space is important.

Yeah, I actually miss my old IBM 4:3 CRT at times. But my current monitor (1920x1080) was a proper bargain, and it doesn't weigh 21Kg either

Unfortunately it seems finding a decent non-widescreen monitor for a reasonable sum isn't that easy of late.

[Alphasus]

2880x1800. Macbook Pro Retina.

[cantab]

16:10 is still widescreen and therefore a con

In all seriousness, the difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 isn't much, with 20:20 hindsight they would have been fine as a combined entry in the poll. And if anything I find the snag with 1080p is that it's not wide enough - it's more than I need for one window but feels cramped opening two windows side-by-side. I see the appeal of the 2560xwhatever displays for that.

But since my 1080p screen cost me 50 quid (second hand) and I have a secondary 1280x1024 screen to go with it I'm not complaining too much.

[Red Iron Crown]

Funny, I've been coveting the 21:9 1440p monitors. Eventually widescreen become equivalent to two monitors, but better.

[InterCity]

1366x768. My laptop screen doesn't like moar pixels.

[Jouni]

1920x1200, because I have a properly sized monitor rather than a thinly disguised TV (No, really, a general-use PC feels much nicer when the wideness of the screen is less pronounced. 16:9 is vertically cramped when doing actual work...)

If a display feels cramped vertically, it's physically too small and/or the resolution is too low.

The aspect ratio of my eyeglasses is around 4:1, with the middle 2.5:1 being mostly free from reflections and distortions. That 2.5:1 is what I would expect from the ideal display.

[Superfluous J]

1920x1200, because I have a properly sized monitor rather than a thinly disguised TV (No, really, a general-use PC feels much nicer when the wideness of the screen is less pronounced. 16:9 is vertically cramped when doing actual work...)

Ever since widescreen monitors became common, I move the taskbar to the left side of the screen. Those extra... I don't know. 50? pixels makes all the difference to me. Also, I make all window borders as thin as possible and cut out all extravagant toolbars.

That, plus an extra monitor both at home and at work, and I can do plenty of actual work with 1080p

[waterlubber]

It was distorted on CRTs, but the common 1280x1024 LCDs had square pixels. I think it fell out of favor for the same reason as all the 4:3 ratios: Widescreen took over everything.

I can't stand widescreen. It's so wide! Reading things on the internet usually leads to huge borders on the side of the screen, and you need a very large desk per square pixel.

[Majorjim!]

1680x1050

NEC Multisync p221w. It's a little old but the picture is amazing. Its has fantastic colour accuracy and almost 90 degree viewing angle.

I suspect there is a little ghosting as its not a super fast response rate of 8ms. I am tempted to buy a 1080p 144hz monitor but I am worried about the picture quality..

[V8jester]

1920x1080 on a 46" Samsung TV (at 240HZ as I recall, I've had the TV a while now)

I also run borderless windowed mode so I can fast switch with less brain damage.

[Aladran]

1680x1050 windowed

[Seanoog]

Voted - Other.

I play specifically at 2560x1600 Fullscreen.

Graphically KSP doesn't stress my PC with a default installation.

But one I add in some mods I't can have an affect on performance.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

It was distorted on CRTs, but the common 1280x1024 LCDs had square pixels. I think it fell out of favor for the same reason as all the 4:3 ratios: Widescreen took over everything.

That's very interesting about the CRTs!

1280x1024 is actually very nice for KSP, since most rockets are vertical. The only problem is that the GUIs (stock & mod) are a bit big since most people have more screen real estate. But in the editors the resolution really shines. Not a huge number of pages of parts, and they're right near the working area.

[Korizan]

Used to play the game at 6144 x 1152 but I lost a monitor so sadly I am now down to 2048 x 1152

[WeirdCulture]

1920*1200