I'm a sucker for good visuals, and accordingly set my mind to get a 16:9 32" 4K monitor when building my PC for MSFS2020. But the new and official trailer looks like it was shot in a 21:9 ultrawide monitor and the extra screen real-estate is very appealing. 

So here's where my mind is at

16:9 4K 32"  - Cheaper, options for higher refresh rates (if i'd like to divulge in some FPS games), lesser sim performance (fps wise) due to more pixels to be rendered.

21:9 Ultrawide >29" - More expensive, more field of view, more fps due to lesser effective pixels having to be pushed by Graphics Card allowing for more sliders on the right, higher refresh rates options are cost-prohibitive.

Other use-cases for my monitor would be light productivity work with my laptop connected to the monitor via USB-C.

Any thoughts on which monitor would be ideal for MSFS2020?

5 hours ago, FAZZ3 said:

Any thoughts on which monitor would be ideal for MSFS2020?

16:9 every time. Not sure what you mean by field of view, a 21:9 display is always going to be inferior to a 16:9 of roughly equivalent physical width. You just need to ensure you have decent resolution (90+ dpi) for the size. And yes, more pixels is harder to drive.

Edited July 14, 20205 yr by MarkDH

Once you move away from 16:9 you cannot have UHD/4K. Look at the vertical resolution of a 21:9 monitor. It's likely to be 1440. That's a 33% reduction over UHD. Or to put it another way moving from 1440 to 2160 is a 50% increase in resolution. Every subdivision on a gauge is clear at 4K. It won't be at lesser resolutions.

I've had my BenQ for nearly two years now and still love it. Remember, what you gain in lateral vision with a widescreen you lose in the vetical plane.

For UHD you really need a 1080Ti or better.

On 7/14/2020 at 8:04 AM, MarkDH said:

...a 21:9 display is always going to be inferior to a 16:9 of roughly equivalent physical width...

Could you please elaborate on this comment?  It would seem to me that if you have two monitors of roughly the same physical width, let's say 30" wide for instance, isn't the 30"W 21:9 monitor going to have more smaller, densely packed pixels across the width of the monitor than a 30"W 16:9 monitor, and thus have the sharper image of the two?

On 7/15/2020 at 12:20 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

...Every subdivision on a gauge is clear at 4K. It won't be at lesser resolutions...

I don't quite follow.  Please explain, as I'm also currently looking to build an FS2020 rig (I don't really play any other games, so I'm not worried so much about features like high refresh rate for first-person shooters etc.).  I'm coming from a Dell 2412M (1920 x 1200, which is 16:10), so already by going to a 21:9 monitor, such as a 3440 x 1440 (which is really 43:18, or 21.5:9), I'm increasing my field of view both vertically AND horizontally.  Is your statement a product of the fact that hardly any of the monitors sold under the 21:9 aspect ratio are truly 21:9 (i.e. 3440 x 1440 is really 21.5:9, and 2560 x 1080 is really 21.333:9)?  Even so, I still don't understand why the aspect ratio must be a true 16:9 for things to appear clear on the monitor...

35 minutes ago, 94JZA80 said:

Could you please elaborate on this comment?  It would seem to me that if you have two monitors of roughly the same physical width, let's say 30" wide for instance, isn't the 30"W 21:9 monitor going to have more smaller, densely packed pixels across the width of the monitor than a 30"W 16:9 monitor, and thus have the sharper image of the two?

That depends on the resolution of each. I'm talking about the aspect ratios, given a roughly comparable resolution.

40 minutes ago, 94JZA80 said:

I don't quite follow.  Please explain, as I'm also currently looking to build an FS2020 rig (I don't really play any other games, so I'm not worried so much about features like high refresh rate for first-person shooters etc.).  I'm coming from a Dell 2412M (1920 x 1200, which is 16:10), so already by going to a 21:9 monitor, such as a 3440 x 1440 (which is really 43:18, or 21.5:9), I'm increasing my field of view both vertically AND horizontally.  Is your statement a product of the fact that hardly any of the monitors sold under the 21:9 aspect ratio are truly 21:9 (i.e. 3440 x 1440 is really 21.5:9, and 2560 x 1080 is really 21.333:9)?  Even so, I still don't understand why the aspect ratio must be a true 16:9 for things to appear clear on the monitor...

You’ve mentioned several resolutions none of which have 2160 vertical pixels. That vertical resolution will give you the sharpest display simply because it has the highest number of pixels. That resolution can only be found on 16:9 displays. 3840*2160 is UHD.

Yes, you can have a wider aspect than 16:9 by choosing a 21:9 and you’ll have a wider viewing angle but it won’t have a vertical resolution of 2160 pixels. It could be as low as 1080 which is half the number or 1440 which is still significantly fewer pixels.

Only a 16:9 display will deliver 3840*2160. I hope that explains things.

Thanks for clarifying your initial replies gentlemen.  It definitely helps me in my decision.