tv monitor considerations?

[flyinpilot212121 724]

Hi everyone, 

I currently have a monitor that is a 60hz capable of 1080p, I’m looking at sharpening up my monitor screen and see some users using tv’s, what are the things to look out for or take into consideration when using a tv as a flight sim monitor? 
Thanks 

Edited November 14, 2021 by flyinpilot212121

[seasley 17]

I discovered that some TVs have a noticeable space between the pixels. Not enough to see at normal tv distance,  but very disconcerting on a desk.  Ironically the higher end model I tried had it, but the next step down did not. Take a look at the rtings.com site because they specifically test and rate tvs for monitor purposes.

I went with a 43 inch 4k TV, which I like better than the ultra-wide I replaced it with. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,026]

@flyinpilot212121, I see from your signature your GPU has only 6Gb so its power is limited. You won’t, in all probability, be able to run at much higher resolutions than 1920*1080 unless you’re prepared to sacrifice settings for higher resolution.

So effectively the maximum resolution you can consider is 2560*1440. That is a big jump in pixels and will sharpen things up quite a bit.

The problem is no TV has that resolution as native. You’re limited to monitors. Here are some of the better 2560*1440 ones. The largest 16:9 display is 32” but a 34” might suit you if you have the space.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-resolution/1440p-quad-hd-qhd

TVs these days are nearly always 4K and that’s too much for your 1060. A 1080Ti is the minimum.

If you get a faster graphics card - 2080 or better - a TV can then be considered. Make sure you choose one that supports chroma 4:4:4 for sharp text. Not all do.

[flyinpilot212121 724]

13 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@flyinpilot212121, I see from your signature your GPU has only 6Gb so its power is limited. You won’t, in all probability, be able to run at much higher resolutions than 1920*1080 unless you’re prepared to sacrifice settings for higher resolution.

So effectively the maximum resolution you can consider is 2560*1440. That is a big jump in pixels and will sharpen things up quite a bit.

The problem is no TV has that resolution as native. You’re limited to monitors. Here are some of the better 2560*1440 ones. The largest 16:9 display is 32” but a 34” might suit you if you have the space.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-resolution/1440p-quad-hd-qhd

TVs these days are nearly always 4K and that’s too much for your 1060. A 1080Ti is the minimum.

If you get a faster graphics card - 2080 or better - a TV can then be considered. Make sure you choose one that supports chroma 4:4:4 for sharp text. Not all do.

This is great information, Thank you, I am limited by my gpu but just about to click the buy button on a new pc with a 3080 so hopefully this will help, just trying to set myself up with some information just as you provided, I will dig into this so more but it gives me good direction!

[Ray Proudfoot 9,026]

1 minute ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

This is great information, Thank you, I am limited by my gpu but just about to click the buy button on a new pc with a 3080 so hopefully this will help, just trying to set myself up with some information just as you provided, I will dig into this so more but it gives me good direction!

That changes things considerably. 4K is now easily achievable. Space and budget now come into the equation.

Bigger screens give more immersion but the display won’t be as crisp as there are the same number of pixels in a larger area. I would estimate the sweet spot to be around 40-43”. As you’re in Canada it’s hard for me to recommend any model as they’re country specific. Any set that supports HDR10 or Dolby Vision will support chroma 4:4:4.

Remember a good display will last many years so investing in a decent one is worthwhile.

[Bob Scott 7,741]

At 4K resolution, I found that a 55" TV was optimum for me with a priority on an immersive image with no practical limit on size--at ~3' viewing distance, I can just barely make out individual pixels.  The 65-inch displays all had too much pixellation at the same viewing distance.  Smaller displays will produce a bit sharper image, but you do lose the panoramic feel you get with the ~48" wide field of vision covered by a 55-incher.  The 55-inch display enables me to put the PMDG NGX main panel up with the PFD/MFD at about 85% of life-size.  That spatial near-parity makes a huge difference in immersion.

The things I looked for when comparing monitors were color fade along the sides of the display--when sitting up-close to a big screen, you look at the screen edges at a fairly sharp angle, and some displays had an unacceptable amount of color/brightness fading.  This is where the differences between display technologies makes the most difference, and they do vary considerably.  Pixel size can vary somewhat, also.  I think viewing the display in-person at the intended viewing distance with a true 4K image up on the screen (e.g. not up-sampled 2K video) is important.  Also, my TV display has a direct computer/game console mode that bypasses all the video processing normally done by the TV itself (e.g. up-scaling, frame buffering etc) and that greatly reduces lag.

[flyinpilot212121 724]

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

At 4K resolution, I found that a 55" TV was optimum for me with a priority on an immersive image with no practical limit on size--at ~3' viewing distance, I can just barely make out individual pixels.  The 65-inch displays all had too much pixellation at the same viewing distance.  Smaller displays will produce a bit sharper image, but you do lose the panoramic feel you get with the ~48" wide field of vision covered by a 55-incher.  The 55-inch display enables me to put the PMDG NGX main panel up with the PFD/MFD at about 85% of life-size.  That spatial near-parity makes a huge difference in immersion.

The things I looked for when comparing monitors were color fade along the sides of the display--when sitting up-close to a big screen, you look at the screen edges at a fairly sharp angle, and some displays had an unacceptable amount of color/brightness fading.  This is where the differences between display technologies makes the most difference, and they do vary considerably.  Pixel size can vary somewhat, also.  I think viewing the display in-person at the intended viewing distance with a true 4K image up on the screen (e.g. not up-sampled 2K video) is important.  Also, my TV display has a direct computer/game console mode that bypasses all the video processing normally done by the TV itself (e.g. up-scaling, frame buffering etc) and that greatly reduces lag.

Thank you for your insight, I would have never thought a 55” would be usable at give or take 3’ distance. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,026]

When I was considering a 32” FullHD TV as a display for FSX 10 years ago I took screenshots on my 24” Dell FullHD monitor and dropped the JPGs to a memory stick.

I took it to a local TV store and asked if they could show them on a Sony 32” TV. Once I saw it looked fine I was able to buy with confidence.

You won’t be able to take 4K screenshots but if you wish I can grab a few on my BenQ and send them to your email address. That will give you an ideal opportunity to judge if a 55” or 43” is best suited to you. PM me your email address if you’re interested.

I fly the PMDG737 in P3D v5.2.