Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tareq

16:10 aspect ratio monitor and PMDG 777

Recommended Posts

Hello folks,

 

As you aware, PMDG recommends a 16:10 aspect ratio monitor for its 777.

 

Since I am using an old LCD 32" TV with 16:9 aspect ratio and forced to buy new TV due to some technical issues, can someone advise the availability of 32" HDTV with an aspect ratio of 16:10 or this pic size applicable only to PC monitors?

 

More info and helps regarding this will be highly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

HDTVs are all 16:9...you'll need a monitor to get a 16:10 AR screen.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

 

What are the big sizes of a 16:10 monitors?

 

Is there for example a 32"size of it or bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

 

What are the big sizes of a 16:10 monitors?

 

Is there for example a 32"size of it or bigger?

I use a pair of 30" 2560x1600 Dell 16:10 IPS monitors. There may be larger 16:10 monitors out there, but I am not familiar with them.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your choice of 16:10 monitors is VERY limited these days. I'm afraid the 16:9 '1080' nonsense has taken over the PC monitor space as well.

 

I have a HP ZR30w 30 inch @ 2560x1600 which is 16:10

 

My kids have a fairly good (it was cheap) Hanns G 27" moitor at 1920x1200 which is also 16:10 format.

 

Other than these two plus the Dell mentioned above, I haven't seen any other 16:10 format monitors around at all.

 

Having said that I think there are some at places like Monoprice that are Korean made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello folks,

 

As you aware, PMDG recommends a 16:10 aspect ratio monitor for its 777.

 

Since I am using an old LCD 32" TV with 16:9 aspect ratio and forced to buy new TV due to some technical issues, can someone advise the availability of 32" HDTV with an aspect ratio of 16:10 or this pic size applicable only to PC monitors?

 

More info and helps regarding this will be highly appreciated.

 

 

Are you sure you are interperting PMDG's recommendations correctly?

 

On their product page they say: "Monitor: Widescreen 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio highly recommended".

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/777LRF.html

I would interperate this as meaning both 16:9 and16:10 are highly recommended.

The inference would be that the older 4:3 format is not recommended.

I prefer 16:10 myself but up to a point a big 16:9 will usually be a better visual experience than a smaller 16:10.

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a pair of 30" 2560x1600 Dell 16:10 IPS monitors. There may be larger 16:10 monitors out there, but I am not familiar with them.

 

Cheers

Sounds good. I will look for it. Thx a lot

Your choice of 16:10 monitors is VERY limited these days. I'm afraid the 16:9 '1080' nonsense has taken over the PC monitor space as well.

 

I have a HP ZR30w 30 inch @ 2560x1600 which is 16:10

 

My kids have a fairly good (it was cheap) Hanns G 27" moitor at 1920x1200 which is also 16:10 format.

 

Other than these two plus the Dell mentioned above, I haven't seen any other 16:10 format monitors around at all.

 

Having said that I think there are some at places like Monoprice that are Korean made.

Yes I just realised that 16:9 are commonly used by TV manufacturers. And there should be a reason behind.

 

Thx

Are you sure you are interperting PMDG's recommendations correctly?

 

On their product page they say: "Monitor: Widescreen 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio highly recommended".

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/777LRF.html

I would interperate this as meaning both 16:9 and16:10 are highly recommended.

The inference would be that the older 4:3 format is not recommended.

I prefer 16:10 myself but up to a point a big 16:9 will usually be a better visual experience than a smaller 16:10.

 

gb.

This is written under the "Minimum" topic. If you look at "Recommended" topic you will only see the 16:10.

 

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is written under the "Minimum" topic. If you look at "Recommended" topic you will only see the 16:10.

 

Thx

 

Ok, sorry missed that.

 

Does anyone know the basis for that recommendation?

Do the cockpit gauges look sharper at 16:10?

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using a Sony 46inch TV 16:9

 

No problems here. Beautifully sharp and BIG :-)

I dont see how there would be a difference between a 16:9 and 16:10 monitor?

Afraid of deformed instruments like square things not being square or round things being oval?

As long as the resolution is 1920x1080 things will be fine.

(just dont buy 1920x1200! I have one of those here as well and that is not ideal in my opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am mistaken, but a virtual cockpit looks fine on any sreen format, unlike the 2D cockpit.

So, the cockpit gauge looking sharp is not a matter of 16.10 or 16.9, but will depend on the resolution. As it has been said above, this 16.9 trend is nonsense on a computer (unless you only use it to watch money) and it makes more sense to use a 16.10 for flightsim.

 

Happy flying,

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its purely about having more vertical height.

 

16:9 is like looking through a letter box.

 

Where a 16:9 screen typically is 1920 wide x 1080 high, a 16:10 screen would have to be 1920 wide x 1200 high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent almost full day in elec. stores and could not find more than 24" 16:10 PC monitor (16:10 TV is not available at all).

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(just dont buy 1920x1200! I have one of those here as well and that is not ideal in my opinion)

 

 

Why?  I have been using 1920 x 1200 monitors for many years and and to my eyes they are just great for FSX - no issues whatsoever.

 

Bruceb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?  I have been using 1920 x 1200 monitors for many years and and to my eyes they are just great for FSX - no issues whatsoever.

 

Bruceb

 

I agree. 1920x1200 is a natural evolution from the old 1600x1200 4:3 aspect ratio on CRT monitors. It's unfortunate that many Computer Monitor manufacturers went with the 16:9 aspect ratio. However, I have noticed that a lot of the larger monitor sizes, now support the 2560x1600 resolution, which is also a 16:10 aspect ratio.

 

The advantage of having a 16:10 monitor, is that we can run 16:9 as well .. :)

 

Another advantage, for me anyway, .. is that running older games etc., .. that only support 4:3 aspect ratios, is that I can run 1600x1200 with out any issues at all.

 

A 1920x1080 monitor could only support 1024x768 (4:3) or 1280x1024.(5:4).  1920x1200 can support these as well.

 

So, definitely more flexibility with a 1920x1200 .. :)

 

 

Cheers

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your choice of 16:10 monitors is VERY limited these days. I'm afraid the 16:9 '1080' nonsense has taken over the PC monitor space as well.

 

I have a HP ZR30w 30 inch @ 2560x1600 which is 16:10

 

My kids have a fairly good (it was cheap) Hanns G 27" moitor at 1920x1200 which is also 16:10 format.

 

Other than these two plus the Dell mentioned above, I haven't seen any other 16:10 format monitors around at all.

 

Having said that I think there are some at places like Monoprice that are Korean made.

 

Dell makes a very good and affordable 24" IPS one - I have two of them and love them.

 

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-2676

 

 

(just dont buy 1920x1200! I have one of those here as well and that is not ideal in my opinion)

 

Not sure why you'd say that. 1920x1200 gives you an extra 180 pixels of vertical space - I vastly prefer it to 16:9 displays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?  I have been using 1920 x 1200 monitors for many years and and to my eyes they are just great for FSX - no issues whatsoever.

 

Bruceb

I like the 16:10 format of a 1920x1200 monitor better as well. I just looks more balanced optically.....I dont know how else to describe it.

 

The problem is that many FSX addon developers have choosen to create their graphics in 1920x1080 (16/9) format.

So if you display their cockpit on a 1920x1080 monitor or TV, round knobs are round and square things are square.

If you display the same texture on a 1920x1200 (16:10) display then the GPU or hardware in the monitor will STRECH your textures vertically. This makes round things look oval and square things rectangular.

 

Also, if you want to use 3 displays for NVIDIA 2D surround gaming or Matrox Tripplehead2go.....their max resolution is 3x1920x1080.

(3x1920x1200 was not supported last time I checked and so I have three unused 1920x1200 24" monitors sitting around.....:-( )

 

I have spoken to quite a few guys who are not bothered by this streching....but it does bother me and so my advice is to go with 1920x1080.

 Not sure why you'd say that. 1920x1200 gives you an extra 180 pixels of vertical space - I vastly prefer it to 16:9 displays.

Hi Ryan, see my post above. Am I wrong in that I thought that the PMDG cockpit textures are optimised for 1920x1080?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I wanted to proove my streching point by posting a screenshot.

The top view is 1920x1080. This is a 46" SONY TV at its native resolution

The bottom 1920x1200. This is a DELL monitor at its native resolution.

I ran FSX in full screen mode and opened a second virual cockpit view that I mooved to the bottom monitor and enlarged it so it too fills out the whole display space.

Both are full screen views and both are at 100% zoom.

 

There is a difference, but I have to say I cant see streching, ore things not being square where they should be.

If anything the top picture looks less streched horizontally (I did not expect this!)

I think the defference is so small that either resolution is ok. (but the NVIDIA Surround gaming advantage with 1080 is still something to considder)

 

Comments Anybody?

 

EDIT: Oh my attached picture does not show. Anyone now how to upload a picture here?

Ok, got it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Hi Ryan, see my post above. Am I wrong in that I thought that the PMDG cockpit textures are optimised for 1920x1080?

 

Textures are just textures, you would just see a bit more VC top and bottom. It was a valid concern when 2D panels were still made though.

 

It was a no brainer for me to go 1080... cheapest 24" 1200 monitor with parameters I would consider (contrast and light power were less than what I wanted, but it had input and technology that was important for me) was more than twice the price of 1080 24" LED monitor I went with. Cheapest 24" 1200 monitor even without the inputs I needed was still plus half the price...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you want to use 3 displays for NVIDIA 2D surround gaming or Matrox Tripplehead2go.....their max resolution is 3x1920x1080.

(3x1920x1200 was not supported last time I checked and so I have three unused 1920x1200 24" monitors sitting around....

 

 

Didn't know that. So if you want a multimonitor display you are restricted to a vertical resolution of 1080?  Hardly seems worth it would make for a very narrow  elongated display.

 

Bruceb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is not that bad.

I mean better than just having one display :-)

 

I think you can also turn the display up vertically (3x1080x1920 high) because it is the same pixel count.

No idea if that is usefull though.

 

But I bought a 46" TV and have a huge VC with outside window now.

Then I move all 2D panels to two other monitors (cost almost no performance) and I am having a blast :-)

 

Thinking about it.....the resolution is actually not what makes this tripplehead2go view seem narrow....imagine if you would use three 46" TV with 3x1920x1080 :-) :-)

I dont think that would look narrow, it would look huge haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know that. So if you want a multimonitor display you are restricted to a vertical resolution of 1080?  Hardly seems worth it would make for a very narrow  elongated display.

 

Bruceb

 

 

This is true of the Matrox TH but nVidia 2D surround can go to 3X 2560x1600 screens i.e. 7680x1600.

 

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/technology

(See bottom of page for 2D specs)

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true of the Matrox TH but nVidia 2D surround can go to 3X 2560x1600 screens i.e. 7680x1600. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/technology(See bottom of page for 2D specs) gb.

Ok, that is new for me. Last time I tried (year ago) it would not work with 2x1920x1200 nor with 3x1920x1200.

I either did something wrong or the software has been updated (I have GTX680)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

VC textures are completely aspect ratio independent - the VC view is just a "camera" placed in the 3D world and the resolution is only going to determine how much of that world you can display. The horizontal field of view changes depending on the aspect ratio - maybe that's what you're seeing. If you go too far with the zoom and stuff you'll start to get the "fisheye" effect, but that's a different concept than aspect ratio.

 

The only part of an FS addon where designing for a particular resolution comes into play is with 2D panels and popups. In our case since the MD-11 those are made and designed for 16:10, not 16:9 - we all have 16:10 monitors here and it's what we like. They actually will look slightly compressed/distorted on 16:9 displays, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our case since the MD-11 those are made and designed for 16:10, not 16:9 - we all have 16:10 monitors here and it's what we like. They actually will look slightly compressed/distorted on 16:9 displays, not the other way around.

Ok, I got it all backwards then. And this explains why in my pictures above the top view (1920x1080) looks horizontally streched (or vertically compressed). Thx for clearing that up. Ok so I take my advice against a 1920x1200 monitor back. Post number six I think seems to be spot on with his remark :"I prefer 16:10 myself but up to a point a big 16:9 will usually be a better visual experience than a smaller 16:10."

Because even though my 46" TV is less ideal at 1920x1080 I would not want to miss it anymore :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites