4K vs curved 34"

[Krister 51]

In a distant future I might get my newly built rig to actually post and not simply refuse to do anything when turning the power on. In anticipation of that moment I started thinking of upgrading my two 27" inch monitors to something more grand and have my eyes on the LG 43" 4K (43UH650V). But now I am also considering some 34" ultrawide monitor and wonder if anyone have an opinion on which would give the best feeling of "beeing there". I also fly IRL and can't imagine flying without TrackIR. 

[edpatino 1,960]

I'm actually buying a UltraWide monitor, also a LG, as it seems they're very immersive for games.

Cheers, Ed

[Krister 51]

Interesting! I would imagine having a wider view would be more rewarding than more vertical estate. Of course Track IR also gives you a lot of free moving and it really becomes very natural to look around with Track IR. Perhaps the Track IR/ultrawide combo would be best (albeit more expensive)

 

[TheDanger 182]

I have a 50inch TV running on my gaming PC (GTX 970 and i7 3770k) at 1080P and my P3D rig (as per sig) on a Dell Ultrawide 34.

In my P3D rig I also have a 2nd SSD with Windows 10 running Steam. I use this rig also for games such as Dungeon Siege, Witcher 1, Starcraft, No Man's Sky etc. Running at 3440^1440 is immersive indeed for these type of games.

I prefer the P3D rig for the games mentioned above.

Definately get an ultrawide if you will also use the rig for more than FS. I bought mine not long after Jim did based on his review of it.

[MarkDH 234]

2 hours ago, Krister said:

LG 43" 4K (43UH650V). But now I am also considering some 34" ultrawide monitor and wonder if anyone have an opinion on which would give the best feeling of "beeing there".

If you're intent on that dichotomy then obviously the 4K monitor wins. You can simulate the "ultrawide" monitor's display on that monitor if you want. Regarding the 'being there' factor, a 4K monitor has a more natural aspect ratio so that's why it wins, assuming of course that your machine can drive it. Personally I would not go for 43" at 4K, I'd choose 55" because 4K resolution will look good that big even at a viewing distance of three feet. Or 50" if you need to economise on the AA.

[Raven9000 272]

19 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

If you're intent on that dichotomy then obviously the 4K monitor wins. You can simulate the "ultrawide" monitor's display on that monitor if you want. Regarding the 'being there' factor, a 4K monitor has a more natural aspect ratio so that's why it wins, assuming of course that your machine can drive it. Personally I would not go for 43" at 4K, I'd choose 55" because 4K resolution will look good that big even at a viewing distance of three feet. Or 50" if you need to economise on the AA.

 

"More natural aspect ratio"..?  Uhm.,. no...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-aspect-ratio-of-human-vision

 

[MarkDH 234]

19 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

"More natural aspect ratio"..?  Uhm.,. no...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-aspect-ratio-of-human-vision

"But really, the aspect ratio of your eyes is somewhere between the two aspect ratios of 4:3 and 16:9. We're all a bit different, but most of us tend to be closer to 4:3."

So not 21:9. Your citation.

[odourboy 1,287]

The aspect ratio argument presumes you don't move you eyes or head. I do both,  so until VR becomes a viable choice, I opt for the largest 4K screen I can afford (58") along with track IR. 

[MarkDH 234]

11 minutes ago, odourboy said:

The aspect ratio argument

Straw man. For the same horizontal dimension a 16:9 aspect has more area than 21:9. Move your head, don't move your head, there are more pixels to see.

[Raven9000 272]

5 hours ago, MarkDH said:

"But really, the aspect ratio of your eyes is somewhere between the two aspect ratios of 4:3 and 16:9. We're all a bit different, but most of us tend to be closer to 4:3."

So not 21:9. Your citation.

Where did I say 21:9 was it?

[MarkDH 234]

4 hours ago, Raven9000 said:

Where did I say 21:9 was it?

Above.

 

[Krister 51]

I have a Samsung 65" 4K in my living room so I guess I should try first what it looks like on that. Why I'm considering a 43" screen (an LG actually)  is simply because of where it has to fit in, not so much the money. I tried with my 48" but it was too big!

Currently I have a 29" running 1920x1080 but I'm missing the peripheral vision I have when flying IRL although I can of course pan the view using TrackIR. I always fly in VC so I guess a larger screen with the same ratio would let me zoom out more and then getting more view of the side and still keeping the instruments readable.

But noticing Marks signature I realize I will first try to run my two 29" in a nVidia 2D surround set up just to see what it looks like! :D

[TopGun33 124]

Hello !

Here are my two cents : I own an Acer Predator X34A (3440x1440 and 100Hz G-SYNC).  In addition, I use two 24" FullHD displays which I use for the various utilities and maps while flying, so my 34" display is concentrated on only displaying my P3D. The immersion is fantastic, although due to the overall not so good framerates of P3D (meaning, not reaching the 100 fps needed for GSYNC most of the time), the true blow comes when I play Civ6 or any other STR.

Be carefull though, because you gotta have a good graphic cards for all those displays though. I own a GTX1080 and the two other displays are on a 1060. A bit overkill, but I'm fine with that for the future.

The 100 Hz GSYNC comes with a price, and to be honest, I think the Predator X34A is overpriced (I paid 1100 euros for it).

The overall feeling is awesome. One of the secondary display is below the 34", so depending on the aircraft I put down the PFD,ND and FMC, and the upper screen is dedicated only for the outside view.

Here's a link of how P3D looks in the VC of the PMDG 744, unedited so you can look closely at all the details if you wish.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eo9zezyv1gmbpcf/2017-03-27 20_23_18-Greenshot.png?dl=0

I hope this helps.

 

 

 

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Folks,

What zoom levels do you use on the 21:9 ? I'm still on 4:3 and to get what I would consider a "good" view - I zoom to .5 for my default view...

Thanks...

Regards,

Scott

[Ted Striker 338]

Krister, your answer is sitting in your living room. Hook that 65" 4k TV up to see what your view area is like. Then reduce the resolution to that of the 34" ultrawide monitor and see what it is like. I realize the overall size is not the same as you are considering but this exercise should give you an idea of the view area you prefer. My bet is you will go for the 4k.

I have 3 old 4:3 monitors hooked up in surround sound giving me a 3840 x 1024 view. The width is perfect but I'm dying for some more  panel depth so I don't have to keep scrolling up and down to see the FMC and other stuff down low. A 4k TV will give me the same width and double the vertical view area with the extra bonus of getting rid of those bezels.

Ted