1 hour ago, Raven9000 said:

Hmmm I don't think that's true... Maybe your reasoning is since one is 16:9 and the other is 21:9, then if you have both monitor of the same height then yes the 21:9 is wider and you have more horizontal view.

 

However, when I mentioned larger size  what I mean is, if you have 2 such monitors but of equal *width*, then the 4K will definitely give you more real estate, and you won't really have to be zoomed out (on the contrary, since in the same space the UW fill up the image with 3440 pixels, and you have 3840 on the 4K, you would actually have more pixels left or you could even zoom *in* some more)

To simply the math, let-s use a quick common between 21 & 16 which is their product, 336.  If you have two monitors of 336 "units" of width, then the UW one will be 144 units high while the 4K will be 189 units high. Larger view in every way

Sorry but that's incorrect. The VC is a fixed size, it doesn't expand or grow with the number of pixels on your display. With a 4K screen, there are more pixels vertically/horizontally, but the VC doesn't grow in size to accommodate that. The aspect ratio defines what you will see. A 21:9 monitor will display more "left and right" than a 16:9 monitor, regardless of their resolution. If you set the same vertical distance on both monitors side by side (so vertically you see the same amount of VC), horizontally the UW will show more of the VC, the 4K couldn't possibly show more than the UW horizontally without distorting the image to fit it in.

1 hour ago, PMDG777 said:

Sorry but that's incorrect. The VC is a fixed size, it doesn't expand or grow with the number of pixels on your display. With a 4K screen, there are more pixels vertically/horizontally, but the VC doesn't grow in size to accommodate that. The aspect ratio defines what you will see. A 21:9 monitor will display more "left and right" than a 16:9 monitor, regardless of their resolution. If you set the same vertical distance on both monitors side by side (so vertically you see the same amount of VC), horizontally the UW will show more of the VC, the 4K couldn't possibly show more than the UW horizontally without distorting the image to fit it in.

That doesn't make any sense... if VC was a fixed size in pixels, people with 4K (or even UW) would see a horrible VC (or just see a tiny cockpit), and that's just not the case.

20 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

That doesn't make any sense... if VC was a fixed size in pixels, people with 4K (or even UW) would see a horrible VC (or just see a tiny cockpit), and that's just not the case.

Scaling? Think of your desktop with 4K and no scaling. Everything is tiny.

Either way this is all irrelevant.

An UW gives more horizontal view for the same vertical view. A 4K monitor gives you sharper image, with less need for AA.

Thanks for all this info guys. I guess I should know in a couple of days. But from what I read, it seems a UW could have benefits as far as field of view, without having to be gigantic. For what it's worth, I use 4xSSAA in P3D V4 with basically no shimmering and no performance penalty with my rig on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

12 hours ago, PMDG777 said:

Scaling? Think of your desktop with 4K and no scaling. Everything is tiny.

Either way this is all irrelevant.

An UW gives more horizontal view for the same vertical view. A 4K monitor gives you sharper image, with less need for AA.

Yep. not arguing that. But a 4K monitor gives more vertical for the same horizontal view :)

4 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

Yep. not arguing that. But a 4K monitor gives more vertical for the same horizontal view :)

True, and it's personal preference what you prefer, sharp image with minimal AA, or a more realistic FOV.

1 hour ago, PMDG777 said:

True, and it's personal preference what you prefer, sharp image with minimal AA, or a more realistic FOV.

Yep. For now I have the UW. Later on, probably both :D