You are right, actually. I blindly trusted the computer to figure this one out, but just looking at it I found a better solution by hand. Maybe there really are some better solutions for the 22 monitors problem.
::: spoiler spoiler
This better not end up in any scientific papers, ever.
:::
To answer your question: fitting more monitors into these gaps would not result in the optimal placement for that amount of monitors. 23, 24, and 25 monitors all have "expected" results. And closing the remaining gap would not result in a smaller bounding box square.
But it reduces the usable space in the middle, as any rectilinearly-designed webpages will have areas on the far left and right that aren't viewable except in small parts while scrolling.
42 Comments
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca · 154 pts · 157d
Why have many monitor when few monitor do trick?
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 54 pts · 157d
Finally a screen wide enough to display a single error in Java.
EpicFailGuy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 157d
oh dear jesus ... this sent me on a spin
user224@lemmy.sdf.org · 47 pts · 157d
https://sprocketfox.io/xssfox/2021/12/02/xrandr/
AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 157d
that's awful, thanks for sharing
ConstructiveVandalism@piefed.zip · 21 pts · 157d
This is so wrong and right on the same time!
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 157d
29º represent!
mech@feddit.org · 8 pts · 157d
Wayland isn't ready until it can do that!
ulterno@programming.dev · 7 pts · 157d
It actually can.
No extra protocol should be required for it.
Just needs someone to implement it in their compositor.
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 157d
Is there any use to having a DMM with a screen that large? (Off topic, but the o-scope caught my eye then the 'mini o-scope')
9point6@lemmy.world · 81 pts · 157d
I literally cannot conceive of a more efficient arrangement of 17 monitors
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 157d
As long as the monitors and space are squares and all monitors have the same side length
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 157d
And the side of the space for monitors isn't an integer multiple of the monitor side.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 54 pts · 157d
Where are you getting so many 1:1 monitors?
witty_username@feddit.nl · 23 pts · 157d
lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 157d
Here you go. 22 16:9 monitors.
I chose 22 monitors, because all other numbers have very expected results:
::: spoiler spoiler 17 monitors:
ulterno@programming.dev · 3 pts · 157d
So what's that gap for?
You can clearly either fit a few more, or make the total area smaller.
lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 157d
You are right, actually. I blindly trusted the computer to figure this one out, but just looking at it I found a better solution by hand. Maybe there really are some better solutions for the 22 monitors problem.
::: spoiler spoiler
This better not end up in any scientific papers, ever. :::
To answer your question: fitting more monitors into these gaps would not result in the optimal placement for that amount of monitors. 23, 24, and 25 monitors all have "expected" results. And closing the remaining gap would not result in a smaller bounding box square.
craigers@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 157d
Ratio_Tile@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 157d
Where can I buy this
drmoodmood@lemmy.ml · 32 pts · 157d
ViaGetty@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 157d
This slaps though! Where are all the diamond monitors at??
quantumcrop@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 157d
Step 1: Buy This
Step 2: Rotate 45 degrees
Step 3: Idk
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 157d
Hmm, that is kind of cool, in that you can have text on all 4 sides and it's still generally readable. Not really possible for vertical panels...
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 157d
But it reduces the usable space in the middle, as any rectilinearly-designed webpages will have areas on the far left and right that aren't viewable except in small parts while scrolling.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 157d
Oh yeah, I was kind of playing devil's advocate. It is certainly also cursed in many ways...
pticrix@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 157d
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 157d
where can I get square monitors?
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 157d
2005
Zorque@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 157d
Bolt cutters should work, no?
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 157d
an angle grinder might be a better tool for the job
Venat0r@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 157d
you could get the type that's used for large led/micro led displays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBd7_uxrq6c
UxyIVrljPeRl@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 157d
16 should be rotated 37 degree to the left
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 157d
Who are you to think you know better than the computer that came up with this
UxyIVrljPeRl@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 157d
Well my Machine always believes Displays have to be overlapping
ulterno@programming.dev · 6 pts · 157d
Make sure to implement the arbitrary angles in your Wayland compositor.
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 157d
You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev · 6 pts · 157d
https://sprocketfox.io/xssfox/2021/12/02/xrandr/
Edit: someone already posted it somewhere is in the thread lmao
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 157d
I cannot even conceive of how angles not based on 90° increments would render various things without issues. Or why you'd want that.
Zangoose@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 157d
X11 already supports this lol
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 157d
X11 supporting it likely doesn't mean that all software would support it flawlessly. What about Wayland?
Zangoose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 157d
I mean I don't see any reason why a Wayland compositor couldn't support it, it's pretty cursed either way though.
There's a screenshot in one of the other comments in this thread (from owenfromcanda, I think the other screenshots are fake)
psoul@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 157d
Also the table layout at my local Chinese restaurant