Hi guys,

 

I'm a sim pilot and also a real world pilot and I've been using MS Flight Simulator since 5.1a, but this is my first post in this magnificent AVSIM forum. I've been searching for an answer already, but I couldn't find it yet.

 

I'm orienting myself on a bigger screen for FSX. Now I use a 13" laptop and with the Saitek Proflight Yoke between me and the laptop, the screen is quite small. Especially the PFD is very small when I want to practice an B737 NGX ILS approach on manual flight.

 

So it's clear; I need a bigger monitor! I still need to decide between a 24" and a 27" but I also see differences in reaction speeds of monitors like 5 ms or 2 ms. Is that reaction speed actually relevant for FSX?

 

And is the 27" worth the extra money over the 24"? And are there any more considerations for selecting a monitor?

 

I'm also considering a better PC (i7 3770K), dedicated for FSX, with those beautiful scenery enhancement add-ons, and I'd like to purchase Track IR in the future. I'd like to have one monitor only; I think I prefer to invest the money in a fast PC.

 

Your advice is very much appreciated!

The bigger the better, go for the 27" and yes 2ms makes a difference especially if your looking at buying trackir.

 

 

David DD

27 inch would be great. Just don't go any higher than 1080p. Those ultra high resolutions cost you double the price, and it will look double as good but you'll get 25% less performance so in my opinion it's not worth it to go over 1080p. It can look more than good enough.

The bigger the better, go for the 27" and yes 2ms makes a difference especially if your looking at buying trackir.

 

 

David DD

 

not wanting to hijack this thread, but dell ultrasharp 24" = 1080P, however 5 ms. So with track IR this is a no go?

 

not wanting to hijack this thread, but dell ultrasharp 24" = 1080P, however 5 ms. So with track IR this is a no go?

 

I have 3 of those monitors and TrackIR 4 works perfectly with them.

I have 3 of those monitors and TrackIR 4 works perfectly with them.

 

no ghosting?

 

I think I will buy the 24", so not to reduce the fsp. 27"will have fps hit.

 

 

no ghosting?

 

I think I will buy the 24", so not to reduce the fsp. 27"will have fps hit.

 

There might be some ghosting but it's not something that will distract you or render the view unusable.

For what it's worth, I upgraded from a 24" HP @ 1920x1200 res to a Dell ultrasharp 30" @ 2560x1600. I was very concerned about the potential performance hit and this will obviously depend upon the power of your rig. For me, I have a test scenario which is in the VC, sat at the end of the runway at Orbx's Anacortes airport with AG set at very dense. So, with the HP 24" @ 1920x1200 I would just get 28/29, now I get about 26, about a 10-15% hit. If things are tweaked slightly, the bigger displays are often worth the small price in performance IMO. As for the refresh rate, I have never had any issues running FSX on any monitor. I think it only becomes a problem with very fast moving images. As for higher resoultion... well, it once again gets down to personal preference. For me, quality of the image takes priority over size, a little like a well known analogy you may be familiar with BUT, the main thing to remember about monitors, is not just the size of the display and resolution, but just as important is the viewing distance. That is why resolution is so important.

 

no ghosting?

 

I think I will buy the 24", so not to reduce the fsp. 27"will have fps hit.

Go for the 27, you will be just fine!

There is a huge difference between 24 and 27!

Just don't go over 1080p. 24 is still to small for a flight simulation.

 

 

David DD

The speeds of monitors can be very misleading, a 2ms response time does not mean the whole colour spectrum of the monitor has that time, its normally one or two colours with that fast response time and the rest can be as slow as 24ms or more but it really depends on the monitor which is why it pays to read the tech data for the monitor you wish to buy.

 

An example could be, take the Dell Ultrasharp U3011, it has a Green to Green response time of 7ms and all the other colours are up to 17ms max response time which in user terms means the chances or ghosting or tearing are extremely slim to none but when you buy a monitor which has a max response time in the mid to high 20's the chances of ghosting or tearing increase but it still might not produce those effects.

24 is still to small for a flight simulation.

 

With respect David, although I agree to a point, it is completely dependent upon the viewing distance.

Anyone using a 1080p 40" or 42" HD TV, or 3 x 40" surround? Wondering how that would look 2-3 feet away with aa cranked, and if one would get good FPS. Installing a 3rd 24" 1920 x 1200 Samsung this weekend. Was thinking 3 x 2560 x 1400 catleaps, but do not think my computer can run it. I must be greedy, feel 24" too small. I would think bigger = more immersion, 3 x surround with big TV's = more immersion. The ticket would be owing 3 x Dell's that run 2560 x 1600. One would need a super computer to run it.

Anyone using a 1080p 40" or 42" HD TV, or 3 x 40" surround? Wondering how that would look 2-3 feet away

 

I should think that would be fine if you don't mind looking at a screen of pixels :o

I'm sorry but the assertion that resolutions greater than 1080P are "too high" or that a pixel response time less than 5ms will be noticeable in a flight sim, I have to disagree entirely. As the user of three 2560x1440 27" monitors that have a fairly high response time (i.e. low refresh rate) I wouldn't give up the screen real estate or pixel density of these monitors. I went from a 1080P 27" screen to one of these 2560x1440 27" screens and the difference was astounding. I couldn't believe the image quality difference right off the bat, and the lower refresh just isn't important for civilian flight sims since the rate of change of terrain and other objects on the screen tends to be quite low, as long as you fly realistically (i.e. within the limits of the airframe).

LOL! I want your monitor!!!!! After reading your post and TechguyMaxC, be great to have a high density monitor. If I could run 3 x 30" Dell's I would save and get them. Possable to run 3 x 2560 x 1600, or maybe get 3 x 27" Catleaps. I would buy a second computer to run the 2 side monitors if need be. Really enjoy this thread! Keep the info comming! I think I got someone interested in buying my 3 x 24" units, thus can upgrade. 3 x 1600P would be great! Cheaper than buying a motorcycle, as my wife encourages me to do so. You guys are great! What would it take to run 3 x 30" Dell's? Sigh!!!!!

 

I should think that would be fine if you don't mind looking at a screen of pixels :o