21:9 monitors for FSX/P3D

[barramundilure 152]

Hi Everyone 

Have been looking at monitors recently and someone suggested a Ben Q 3200PT which seems to be designed for CAD design looking at the reviews. It will set me back about $800 here in Australia.  Are many people running this for FSX? How does it stack up for gaming?

The considerably more expensive options seem to be all about $1200+ for a 32" gaming monitor,  i came across is a 34" Acer X34.

it us an ultrawide running 3440x1440 pixel IPS panel with a flicker-free LED backlight, 10-bit color (courtesy of frame-rate conversion), a claimed 4ms response time, G-Sync, 100Hz refresh (with overclock). 

My question is does this 21:9 ratio suit FSX and eventually P3D or would you i be better sticking with a 32" monitor running at 2560x1440 at a considerable price advantage?

Being older my eyes are having difficulty reading smaller guages on my old 24" 1920x1080 screen.

cheers

Tim Carter

[edpatino 1,964]

For size restrictions of my desk, I bought a LG 29" curved UW Monitor (see model below) and all I can say is that I´m very satisfied with my purchase, even though I would recommend to anyone with more room on his desk a 34" model. I´m running P3Dv3.4 at 2560x1080 without issues.

Cheers, Ed

[MarkDH 234]

8 hours ago, barramundilure said:

My question is does this 21:9 ratio suit FSX and eventually P3D or would you i be better sticking with a 32" monitor running at 2560x1440 at a considerable price advantage?

Suits FSX in the same manner as a three-screen display, which is to say you really need a head tracker because of the unnaturally-narrow vertical FOV. But you won't suffer from bezels in the way. The real problem with 21:9 monitors such as this is that to date they're physically not that big (a 34" diagonal will be about 33cm tall).

[barramundilure 152]

29 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

Suits FSX in the same manner as a three-screen display, which is to say you really need a head tracker because of the unnaturally-narrow vertical FOV. But you won't suffer from bezels in the way. The real problem with 21:9 monitors such as this is that to date they're physically not that big (a 34" diagonal will be about 33cm tall).

So a 32" 16:9 might be a better option Mark?

[MarkDH 234]

45 minutes ago, barramundilure said:

So a 32" 16:9 might be a better option Mark?

For me, it would be a better choice. I would still use a TrackIR, but its main purpose would be to pan the view horizontally. With a 21:9, or with my own current 3-screen setup, the TrackIR is more for the vertical panning, which is less satisfactory in my view. This is because I try to run the display at actual size, which means you can't see enough of the instrument panel. On the approach this means you need to bob your head up and down to check the instruments (and god help you if you don't have a head tracker). In practice, I have found extra vertical FOV more valuable in such situations than extra horizontal FOV.

So yes, I would go for a 32" 16:9 monitor over the 21:9. I have found a 32" 1080p is almost good enough, so a 1440p should be excellent. But these are personal things born of my own experiments. At the end of the day you can listen to opinions but when you look back after having made your choice it's likely those opinions will only approximately match your own experience!

[barramundilure 152]

1 hour ago, MarkDH said:

For me, it would be a better choice. I would still use a TrackIR, but its main purpose would be to pan the view horizontally. With a 21:9, or with my own current 3-screen setup, the TrackIR is more for the vertical panning, which is less satisfactory in my view. This is because I try to run the display at actual size, which means you can't see enough of the instrument panel. On the approach this means you need to bob your head up and down to check the instruments (and god help you if you don't have a head tracker). In practice, I have found extra vertical FOV more valuable in such situations than extra horizontal FOV.

So yes, I would go for a 32" 16:9 monitor over the 21:9. I have found a 32" 1080p is almost good enough, so a 1440p should be excellent. But these are personal things born of my own experiments. At the end of the day you can listen to opinions but when you look back after having made your choice it's likely those opinions will only approximately match your own experience!

Ok thanks Mark!

Cheers

[mtr75 653]

On 4/14/2017 at 5:05 AM, MarkDH said:

For me, it would be a better choice. I would still use a TrackIR, but its main purpose would be to pan the view horizontally. With a 21:9, or with my own current 3-screen setup, the TrackIR is more for the vertical panning, which is less satisfactory in my view. This is because I try to run the display at actual size, which means you can't see enough of the instrument panel. On the approach this means you need to bob your head up and down to check the instruments (and god help you if you don't have a head tracker). In practice, I have found extra vertical FOV more valuable in such situations than extra horizontal FOV.

So yes, I would go for a 32" 16:9 monitor over the 21:9. I have found a 32" 1080p is almost good enough, so a 1440p should be excellent. But these are personal things born of my own experiments. At the end of the day you can listen to opinions but when you look back after having made your choice it's likely those opinions will only approximately match your own experience!

I think you just answered my question. Or dilemma. I'm an instrument student, P3D with Track IR, and I agree, vertical space is "more better" than horizontal would be, particularly flying approaches. I found a 32" HP 1440 monitor on sale for $300 at WorstBuy, I think you just saved me about $500. Thanks for the feedback. I'll report back here after I get it.