4K Tv/monitor size recommendations

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

55 minutes ago, HeLord said:

I have a 65" Samsung TV and I sit around 3 feet from it. I like it, no problems with pixel size. Very immersive!

 

Bloody 'ell! That must be some sort of world record! 😲

[Ted Striker 338]

I have a 42" 1080p TV in my living room. I hooked my computer up to it to see how P3D would look on it and it was terrible. The image was very blocky because the pixel density was so low I could see individual pixels.

I then got a 55" Sony 4k TV for my sim with the idea that if I didn't like it for P3D it could replace my living room TV. The 55" inch Sony replaced a triple monitor setup on my sim that was about the same width as the Sony TV. Long story short, the Sony is staying with the flightsim computer. The bezels are gone, I can now see the panel and outside the windshield without panning or scrolling, and the pixel density is the same as my previous triple monitor setup.

My eyes are about 3 feet from the screen and I am usually using a 0.5 zoom in widescreen mode.

Ray, when you watch TV you are trying to view the whole screen at once so you have to sit further back. When you flightsim on a large screen you are only looking at one area at a time, same as flying a real plane or driving a car. What the large screen provides is peripheral vision and drastically reduces the amount of panning, scrolling, and popping up 2d panels to access and view dials and switches.

I have been using this Sony 55" 4k TV with the Concorde X for six months and have never had an OOM. However, I have never completed an entire flight in one sitting. Just too long, even in the high speed Concorde. I also don't have high settings or complex scenery installed. As long as Concorde is 32bit this is the tradeoff. I have a 3770k @4.5 ghz and a 3gb 780 GTX, a less capable computer than yours. I would suggest that you take a full size screenshot of the Concorde VC, put it on a thumb drive, and then go down to your local TV store and have them put the image on the screen of various sizes of 4k TVs. That is the only way you can decide what is the best size for yourself.

Ted

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

3 hours ago, Ted Striker said:

My eyes are about 3 feet from the screen and I am usually using a 0.5 zoom in widescreen mode.

Ray, when you watch TV you are trying to view the whole screen at once so you have to sit further back. When you flightsim on a large screen you are only looking at one area at a time, same as flying a real plane or driving a car. What the large screen provides is peripheral vision and drastically reduces the amount of panning, scrolling, and popping up 2d panels to access and view dials and switches.

I have been using this Sony 55" 4k TV with the Concorde X for six months and have never had an OOM. However, I have never completed an entire flight in one sitting. Just too long, even in the high speed Concorde. I also don't have high settings or complex scenery installed. As long as Concorde is 32bit this is the tradeoff. I have a 3770k @4.5 ghz and a 3gb 780 GTX, a less capable computer than yours. I would suggest that you take a full size screenshot of the Concorde VC, put it on a thumb drive, and then go down to your local TV store and have them put the image on the screen of various sizes of 4k TVs. That is the only way you can decide what is the best size for yourself.

Ted

Good post Ted, thanks. But I can't physically fit a 55" in my PC room so the limit is 40" and that's pushing things. But where there's a will and all that...

Good point about taking screenshots and sticking them on a USB for viewing on TVs. I did that when deciding on my Sony 32" Full HD TV 5 years ago and it helped a lot. This time however, I want to judge how a UHD P3D panel is displayed but I can't do that as I don't have a UHD TV. So I will ask here and FSL forum for a couple of people to supply a UHD screenshot which I can then assess. I have more or less decided on the Samsung MU7400 which does 4:4:4 and makes Windows text on a UHD display much crisper. But probably around September.

I use ChasePlane to set views and those will probably remain the same given the ratio is still 16:9. I am looking forward to the extra sharpness especially on aircraft gauges.

If you ever want some shorter Concorde plans send me a PM. I have a few that take less than 1h 30m like JFK to Orlando and Manchester to Lisbon, Portugal. Lots of fun without too long at the controls.

[Ted Striker 338]

A 40” UHD screen may be fine. You’ll just have to judge that for yourself. I just went with a 55” because it offered the same pixel density as my triple monitor setup and if the UHD Sony ended up in my living room it was the right size. I was also concerned about the text size being to small on a smaller monitor because I am on windows 7. I understand that windows 10 has a scaling feature that will adjust that. I will send you a jpeg screenshot if the Avsim PM messenger allows that.

Ted

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

Ted,

I’m also running Win 7 which is more limited in scaling. 40” will be fine but my initial choice, a 32” would have had problems.

An email would be best. I’ll send you a pm with my address. Thanks!

[flytrumpet767 68]

Sorry to resurrect this topic, but since I recently upgraded  my pc, I think I will go ahead and get a 4K TV. I think I will go with the model listed here

https://www.techspot.com/article/1602-what-to-buy-4k-tv-as-a-monitor/

the Samsung NU7100 is available at my local Best Buy, and in my budget price wise.

I have room for up to a 50 inches on my desk, and sit a little over 3 feet from the screen. Since the price difference between the 50 and 43 is not too big, are there  reasons to not pick the 50 over the 43? I’m just wondering if the picture quality would be less sitting that close to the 50.

thanks

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

13 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

Sorry to resurrect this topic, but since I recently upgraded  my pc, I think I will go ahead and get a 4K TV. I think I will go with the model listed here

https://www.techspot.com/article/1602-what-to-buy-4k-tv-as-a-monitor/

the Samsung NU7100 is available at my local Best Buy, and in my budget price wise.

I have room for up to a 50 inches on my desk, and sit a little over 3 feet from the screen. Since the price difference between the 50 and 43 is not too big, are there  reasons to not pick the 50 over the 43? I’m just wondering if the picture quality would be less sitting that close to the 50.

thanks

Richard,

Imagine 3840*2160 pixels condensed onto a 32” monitor as I now have. The image quality is superb albeit on a smaller display.

Then imagine the same number spread over a 50” TV. They’re much larger pixels and there will be fewer per inch. The fine detail in gauges will not be as obvious. You’ll get immersion for sure but you may be disappointed in the detail.

It’s a personal choice which only you can make. You’ll get people saying their 65” from 4 feet is fantastic. We’re all different. Frame rates will be the same whatever the screen size for the same resolution. Think long and hard. I did and my choice was easier as a 40” TV could not be easily accommodated in the space available. But despite the 32” display I’m totally satisfied.

[flytrumpet767 68]

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Richard,

Imagine 3840*2160 pixels condensed onto a 32” monitor as I now have. The image quality is superb albeit on a smaller display.

Then imagine the same number spread over a 50” TV. They’re much larger pixels and there will be fewer per inch. The fine detail in gauges will not be as obvious. You’ll get immersion for sure but you may be disappointed in the detail.

It’s a personal choice which only you can make. You’ll get people saying their 65” from 4 feet is fantastic. We’re all different. Frame rates will be the same whatever the screen size for the same resolution. Think long and hard. I did and my choice was easier as a 40” TV could not be easily accommodated in the space available. But despite the 32” display I’m totally satisfied.

Thanks Ray,

 I was thinking along the same lines. It seems that a 43 at 4K should offer enough in terms of both immersion and image quality, especially from 3 feet away.I’m presently on a 34 Ultra wide 2K. I’m still wondering if it’s even worth upgrading to the bigger 4K.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

6 hours ago, flytrumpet767 said:

Thanks Ray,

 I was thinking along the same lines. It seems that a 43 at 4K should offer enough in terms of both immersion and image quality, especially from 3 feet away.I’m presently on a 34 Ultra wide 2K. I’m still wondering if it’s even worth upgrading to the bigger 4K.

The best way to check is to put some UHD screenshots on a USB stick and look at them on your favoured TV. Hard to do without access to a UHD display of course. The next best thing is to ask the shop to show some test UHD images from the internet like the old BBC Test Card F if they're happy to connect it. You could even take in your monitor for comparison purposes.

Your existing resolution sounds like it's a 3440*1440 resolution. Moving up to 2160 from 1440 is a 50% improvement so it will be noticeably sharper. Against that you have to factor in the larger screen size. FPS will take a small hit.

That TV does have chroma 4:4:4 so you will benefit from the highest quality images.

[flytrumpet767 68]

Hopefully it's part of a boxing day sale, that would sweeten the deal even more. Looks like a decent tv for the price. Especially as a pc monitor.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

27 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

Hopefully it's part of a boxing day sale, that would sweeten the deal even more. Looks like a decent tv for the price. Especially as a pc monitor.

I see you're in Canada. I wasn't sure if you celebrated Boxing Day over there. Good luck, hope you get a decent deal. Yes, the chroma 4:4:4 makes a big difference.

[DylanC 181]

I ended buying this beauty:

Dell U-Series 32-Inch Screen... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HDBD9CM?ref=yo_pop_ma_swf

Have not had the opportunity to hook it up and play around with it yet since we’re moving in a few weeks.  I would rather wait until settled in the new house.  Definitely will report back once I have it up and running.  I happen to think 32” is the sweet spot with 4K, just judging by all of the demo set ups I’ve been lucky to see and play around with. My opinion is of course subjective and not based on any scientific fact, but just personal limited experience.

[flytrumpet767 68]

Thanks. Although I don’t think I want to go down in size from the 34 ultra wide I have now. My only concern is the amount of performance I would lose going to a 4K 43 inches TV.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

1 hour ago, flytrumpet767 said:

Thanks. Although I don’t think I want to go down in size from the 34 ultra wide I have now. My only concern is the amount of performance I would lose going to a 4K 43 inches TV.

Accord to test results I’ve seen the 2080 is equivalent to a 1080Ti. I’m getting frame rates around 30 ish at Addon airports rising to 60 when airborne. That’s limited by the monitor refresh rate.

If your TV can run at 30Hz that’s a bonus.

[flytrumpet767 68]

According to the review at rtings.com, it looks like it does.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/nu7100

By no means it’s the best TV out there, but seems adequate for usage as a pc monitor. Being highly rated as such because of very low input lag.

 I might take a chance on it, as it’s a pretty decent deal these days.