Yes. I would agree to some extent, but each resolution has its optimal screen size - the point at which there are about 60 pixels/inch (don't mark my word on that). If you have too high a resolution on too small of a screen, you have essentially wasted your money because the difference between the two are virtually unnoticeable. Also (in case you haven't noticed) I play FS on a gaming laptop. Before I bought my first monitor, I suffered a problem derived from too many pixels on too small of a screen, which is some text appears blurry. This is how control panel looks on my laptop screen: https://ibb.co/vzYpBR7, and this is how it looks on my monitor: https://ibb.co/JdMcnkz.

4 minutes ago, WilliamS said:

Yes. I would agree to some extent, but each resolution has its optimal screen size - the point at which there are about 60 pixels/inch (don't mark my word on that). If you have too high a resolution on too small of a screen, you have essentially wasted your money because the difference between the two are virtually unnoticeable. Also (in case you haven't noticed) I play FS on a gaming laptop. Before I bought my first monitor, I suffered a problem derived from too many pixels on too small of a screen, which is some text appears blurry. This is how control panel looks on my laptop screen: https://ibb.co/vzYpBR7, and this is how it looks on my monitor: https://ibb.co/JdMcnkz.

You will hear thousands of different opinions on this.  Just depends what you are used to.  I couldn't imagine simming on a 24 inch 1080P monitor.   But I am used to a 43 inch 4K TV and a 38 inch ultrawide.

You're making me jealous!

Okay, here's my take on screen resolution and size. To try and remove the subjective element and make it purely objective sharpness depends on two things; how many pixels per inch and how far away your eyes are from the screen.

Let's take an extreme example. Remember back when we had portable CRT TVs and how much sharper a 14" looked compared to your massive 21" CRT in the lounge? 😁 That's because the smaller screen (but still the same number of lines) had more info packed into a smaller space.

Now let's look at FullHD, 2K (or QHD to give it its proper name) and UHD/4K. Load this calculator and enter your desired resolution and screen size. It will calculate the number of pixels per inch. Entirely objective.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

A 28" FullHD display results in 79ppi. Increase that to QHD (2560*1440) and it increases to 105ppi. That's just 33% more. You will only see a small improvement.

If you go to a 32" QHD it actually decreases to 92ppi. A FullHD 32" gives just 69ppi. Ouch!

But if you go UHD/4K a 32" gives you a massive 138ppi. A 43" gives 102ppi and a 50" gives just 88ppi, hardly any better than a 28" FullHD display.

Size and resolution is all about getting a balance. If you want immersion go for the biggest display you can afford but you will lose the sharpness a smaller display gives.

Some say the sweet spot for UHD/4K is 32" but others want the immersion of a larger display. Only the user can decide.

Obviously all this depends on the graohics card. The 2070 is borderline for UHD/4K so I would suggest a QHD display is a good compromise. Use the calculator to work out what is best for you.

Edited April 16, 20197 yr by Ray Proudfoot

QHD versus FullHD on 28" is "just 33% more ppi" but those 31% more ppi when comparing 4K vs. QHD is "massive"? Strange logic 😂

PS: I am aware what you mean, the comparison is just funny. Your post in one sentence: go for the highest ppi number you can get as long as the size of the panel suits you. I agree.

20 minutes ago, AnkH said:

QHD versus FullHD on 28" is "just 33% more ppi" but those 31% more ppi when comparing 4K vs. QHD is "massive"? Strange logic 😂

PS: I am aware what you mean, the comparison is just funny. Your post in one sentence: go for the highest ppi number you can get as long as the size of the panel suits you. I agree.

Where do you get 31% more comparing 4K to QHD at 32”? It’s 50% more.

(138-92) *100 / 92 = 50%.

The highest possible ppi is a 28” UHD display but the small display is unattractive.

Your single sentence is fine. I just wanted to highlight the difference in ppi for various resolutions.

14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Okay, here's my take on screen resolution and size. To try and remove the subjective element and make it purely objective sharpness depends on two things; how many pixels per inch and how far away your eyes are from the screen.

Let's take an extreme example. Remember back when we had portable CRT TVs and how much sharper a 14" looked compared to your massive 21" CRT in the lounge? 😁 That's because the smaller screen (but still the same number of lines) had more info packed into a smaller space.

Now let's look at FullHD, 2K (or QHD to give it its proper name) and UHD/4K. Load this calculator and enter your desired resolution and screen size. It will calculate the number of pixels per inch. Entirely objective.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

A 28" FullHD display results in 79ppi. Increase that to QHD (2560*1440) and it increases to 105ppi. That's just 33% more. You will only see a small improvement.

If you go to a 32" QHD it actually decreases to 92ppi. A FullHD 32" gives just 69ppi. Ouch!

But if you go UHD/4K a 32" gives you a massive 138ppi. A 43" gives 102ppi and a 50" gives just 88ppi, hardly any better than a 28" FullHD display.

Size and resolution is all about getting a balance. If you want immersion go for the biggest display you can afford but you will lose the sharpness a smaller display gives.

Some say the sweet spot for UHD/4K is 32" but others want the immersion of a larger display. Only the user can decide.

Obviously all this depends on the graohics card. The 2070 is borderline for UHD/4K so I would suggest a QHD display is a good compromise. Use the calculator to work out what is best for you.

I recon I'll go for a 28" 1080p ultrawide, or a 2K for normal aspect ratios.

I broadly agree with @Ray Proudfoot's findings, although I used different methodology based on visual acuity (human eyes with 20/20 vision can detect or resolve details as small as 1/60th of a degree of arc) also considering viewing distance, I ended up with similar results; up to 24" 1080p is optimal, 27" is the sweetspot for 1440p, and 32"+ you'll benefit from 4K/2160p, based on typical viewing distances of 0.75-1.25m (2.5-4.0ft).

I myself ended up with 27" at 1440p as it strikes a nice compromise between cost, immersion and usability. The jump to 4K is quite expensive as you need significantly more oomph to drive it (it's more than twice the pixels to draw), and screensizes that benefit from such a high resolution require you to sit quite far away for general use (based on my experiences of using a 37" monitor) otherwise you can only view a small patch of the screen at a time.

I did use some really cool tools but can't find them now, so this will have to do https://toolstud.io/video/screensize.php?screendiagonal=27&screendiagonal_unit=inch&resolution_w=2560&resolution_h=1440

Edited April 17, 20197 yr by ckyliu

I totally agree.

I run P3D v4 @ 1920x1080 resolution on a 24" widescreen monitor. According to Ray's calculations, I think this equates to 92ppi.

I sim on a Full HD 24" monitor as well.

Hi everyone. Thanks for all of the help in choosing a setup. I have one more question regarding the GPU. I have also consulted my friend (who is extemely PC-savvy), who said that using an RTX graphics card would not be worth the extra several hundred pounds, as only a handful of games support the ray-tracing that it offers. What is the advantage of a 20- card with P3D?

William, I would have recommended a 1080 or maybe a 1080Ti but those aren't available any longer. The 20 series is your only option.

30 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

William, I would have recommended a 1080 or maybe a 1080Ti but those aren't available any longer. The 20 series is your only option.

Oh my goodness! You're right! They really aren't!

But why a 2070 over a 1070?