personal preference

Because you still want 90 vertical FOV /You are attached to the stigma that fov_desired 75 is inherently bad.

u want more fps or want to be cool

the models are bigger

b4nny does it because hes always played games on 4:3

but also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DzjKDJ-bX4

They are also bigger with <90 FoV.

You didn't read my post either, did you?

are you really gunna ask why people do something and then argue all the answers you get

There's no real need in making models bigger in TF2 (unless you main amby Spy or something) imo. Whoever uses streched has their own reasons to do it. I think kaidus said he made it stretched once and just liked it and kept it that way.

I didn't. So far I only reacted to answers that ignored stuff I already said in my OP.
I didn't argue anything I only made people aware that they're repeating stuff I already said.

I mentioned possible reasons for why people might use 4:3 stretched, because I didn't want people to give me answers I'm already aware of, because I'm looking for reasons I might have missed so far.

Do you really think people like b4nny and kaidus decided to use 4:3 because it "looks pretty pro"

I've found all hitscan to be more comfortable due to the seemingly larger model (especially scout vs scout and sniper). I personally also like it because I can use 20inch 360 without it feeling ridiculously low. On 16:9 that sens feels impossible to play with on soldier but on 4:3 stretched it feels much faster (due to lower fov?? Idk it could be placebo) and more comfortable.

4:3 stretched gives you wider models, whereas lower FOV gives you wider and taller models, but at the cost of vertical FOV, which is very important in a vertically-oriented game like TF2.

Lower FOV also affects depth perception and makes movement feel slower. Not a problem if you're adjusted, but spectating other players renders the game in their FOV, so you'll be constantly looking through 75 and 90 FOV, making it difficult to maintain familiarity with the feeling of lower FOV.

Some people also experience motion sickness or other ailments in games with low FOV (this being one of the reasons Darn wanted OpenPlugin, IIRC), which doesn't happen with 4:3 stretched.

it is inherently bad, are you retarded?

75 FOV has benefits and drawbacks compared to 90 FOV.

No. That was obviously a joke.
But I do think that maybe some of them didn't necessarily put a whole lot of thoughts into the decision and just tried it at some point and stuck with it.

Why would you say that?
If you think 75 FoV is inherently bad, 4:3 is inherently bad aswell (less FoV aswell).

If you make claims like that without backing them up at all you just seem ignorant.

https://i1.wp.com/eduncovered.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/its-time-to-stop-posting.jpg

or at least stop quoting the entire fucking thread in every post jesus christ ive already caught face aids and eye cancer reading this shit thread dont make it worse

what is this thread

because you put yourself at a disadvantage because you see less in your peripheral vision. thought it was obvious

i thought 4:3 sacrificed horizontal fov for more vertical fov whereas fov_desired 70 just decreases fov both vertically and horizontally

It kinda is placebo.
The degrees turned per mouse moved is the same with both stretched and not stretched, so it doesn't actually increase your sens in any way.
However your X-axis gets stretched, while your Y axis doesn't.
As a result horizontal mouse movement appears faster, because your crosshair moves a larger distance on the screen (it's still the same distance as far as degrees turned goes, it's just that that distance is optically stretched).

That's also the reason for the problem I described above: while your X- and Y-axis sensitivity stay the same, your X-axis sensitivity feels faster, while your Y-axis sens stays the same.
That can screw with your muscle memory, since it doesn't work just off of hand movement but with your brain learning which movement of your hand translates into what movement on your screen, and the latter visually changes.

Nah. Vertical FoV stays the same, horizontal FoV is decreased.
When you use 4:3 NOT stretched you'll just have the left and right side of your screen cut off (horizontal FoV) by black bars, while the image within the black bars stays exactly the same (so vertical FoV doesn't change).
You're right tho that fov_desired <90 decreases both your horizontal and vertical FoV, while stretched only sacrifice horizontal FoV.

However, I'd argue that horizontal FoV is a lot more important than vertical, so if you gonna sacrifice either you might aswell have both in the normal ratio to each other and have player models get taller aswell as wider.

you didnt read my post either where i answered your question on why b4nny does it
i explained why they do it, im not saying whether what they're doing is worth it or not

i didnt know this was a debate thread thickly veiled as a "why b4nny 4:3" thread

A lot of people change cl_yaw to 0.0165 to fix exactly that. And many don't because their aim isn't hindered and that's how they prefer it. It's not really a downside or an objective problem, it's personal.

That's your opinion, and while I also prefer to have 16:9 native, that's all it is and the objective advantages/disadvantages are much more minor than preference.

The extra fov from 16:9 will rarely mean the difference of seeing someone or not if they're close enough to be a pressing concern, and making sure to look around and knowing maps' hiding spots will mean that you basically never run into a problem from it.

I don't see what's so hard about this, some people prefer some things and some people prefer some other things and that's far more important than some occasional minor technical advantage.

i Do iT so I can POWnd like b4nie

Sure, but you also make player models bigger and therefor easier to hit (also pretty obvious, isn't it?).
It has pros and cons, like the other dude said.

In QL for example there's no limit on FoV and pros use anything from 80 to like 120.
If smaller FoVs were inherently bad, players would just use the highest one available, so there's obviously a give and take.

Also, you said "you put yourself at a disadvantage because you see less in your peripheral vision", which also applies to using 4:3 res.
It seemed like you were using that argument to explain why people don't use lower FoVs instead of 4:3 stretched, which is a pretty bad explanation when "you put yourself at a disadvantage because you see less in your peripheral vision" is your only argument.

I said "you didn't read my post" because the link you posted explains the benefits of 4:3 stretched, which I already did in my first post.

youre actually trying to argue why 4:3 is just as "bad" as 70 fov 16:9. I honestly don't think that needs explaining.

I think you should read the first comment of this thread and stop thinking of its "technical disadvantages" because hitting your shots is the most important factor.

hey man u got some boobers in ur profile picture and as a christian virgin practicing abstinence ur really oppressing me by expressing urself in for the sole reason of spite, i suggest u change it or face the wrath of my facebook group https://www.facebook.com/Christians-Against-Pornography-240287152843859/

https://youtu.be/lZqC1jZsDHY?t=84

wouldn't that be great :)

I agree with most of what you said. It's definitely personal preference and while with some stuff you can argue that one has objectively some advantages over the other, using what you're comfortable with/used to is definitely more important.

Just to adress your m_yaw 0.0165 thing: it doesn't solve the problem. It just turns a visual disparity between X- and Y-axis into a 'numeric' one. With m_yaw 0.022 the senses are the same, they just look/feel different.
With m_yaw 0.0165 the senses are actually different, but they look/feel the same.
It's personal preference again, but it by no means nullifies the problem.

Uhm I'm not.