1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

21:9 monitors for racing

Discussion in 'Sim Racing Hardware' started by Pär Öqvist, Mar 15, 2016.

  1. Curious if anybody use the new 34-35" 21:9 monitors? I have a trouble fitting larger triple monitor setups (nor afford them) since I do more then race. 3x27 wouldn´t quite do it for games where I am limited to one monitor. I am also no fan of artificial borders so thought about testing a 35" 21:9 as in the Acer Predator Z35 even though it feels a bit on the small side.

    Will not get close to the fov of proper triple monitor setups but I do hope it will be wider then my current 50" 1080p as I hope to be comfortable with it less then 50 cm away. Reasoning is I have this 1,8 metres away to my 50" to not suffer to much screendoor and stiff neck because the vertical height of it get to impressive when on the cockpit. That said the experience when I put the cockpit is terrific apart from the headache following from unergonomically tilted neck.

    Question is do all racing sims offer proper fov for the odd 21:9 format?
  2. PicoBp

    #26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew Premium Member

    I'm using this one on an Obutto Ozone, and can't complain a bit. Distance from eye is around 28", I tend to use a FOV of 33 vertical/69 horizontal all around. Haven't yet found a sim that didn't support manual FOV adjustment one way or the other. For RaceRoom I had to manually edit a config and set it to read only (alert pops up at start as a side effect) to achieve a precise FOV, Dirt Rally needed an enhanced camera mod for it, older Codies games have a FOV modifier app, but most other games support it out of the box. You might need to use the Flawless Widescreen app for compatibility with older titles, not much racing in there.


    Display and input lag are perfect for gaming, nice image quality, and the 2560x1080 doesn't look bad at all from the seating position I have. And it has the upside of putting less strain on your config, I'm running it on a GTX770 without any real compromises compared to FullHD. Screen height matches a 27" 16:9, but with around 31% added horizontal space. ;)


    • Like Like x 3
  3. Oops

    Premium Member

    Hi I also run a 34" lg monitor I have mind running @ 3440 x 1440 but I'm very interested how you manually adjust the FOV ? you say that you run most games @ FOV of 33 vertical/69 horizontal,
    I'm curios how you get the vertical and horizontal in game as I can only see one adjustment in games?
  4. Thanks for the input.

    Some games uses vertical for fov and others horisontal? So he just use whatever the game is using not two values :)

    rFactor 2 is vertical I think? I run 35 there currently with my 50". The fov calculator don´t quite work as I have it 1,8 metres away but it´s what feels natural. Surely hope to be able to increase it quite a bit.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PicoBp

    #26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew Premium Member

    Exactly. ISI based games, AC, Dirt Rally and such use vertical FOV, but PCars and iRacing uses horizontal. 33 vertical gives the same FOV as 69 vertical with a 21:9 screen.

    The strangest are Dirt Rally and R3E, which use a hardcoded FOV with an adjustable multiplier, so those need a bit more calculation and kind of modding. Nothing more serious than downloading a FOV pack or getting in a config file.

    BTW, with the distance I sit from the screen, a FOV of 40 was still a nice setting with a good sense of speed but not too much distortion. Getting down to 33 was a gradual transition with much practice involved, but it gives me a way better feeling of distances and proportions. Despite that I'd also like to bring the screen closer with some sort of VESA mount extension to be able to see more of the surroundings. :)
  6. SOLO59

    Premium Member

    I can say that my LG 21:9 34inch monitor is just simply amazing. I love this thing. You won't regret it.

    My monitor as well as @PicoBp, is a 75hz AMD freesynce monitor. We both are using Nvidia GPU's. I have frresync enabled from the monitor settings, and I have 75hz and adaptive vsync from Nvidia's control panel so I can get 75 fps consistantly in game with high/max settings (pending on the game). I wonder if the use of an AMD GPU which will enable freesync technology to its full potential will make more of a difference than my current setup with Nvidia GPU and adaptive vsync enabled. I might upgrade to an AMD GPU card to properly use freesync, but I'm still debating if it is worth it. That means I may have to purchase a new PSU for the new GPU card. I'm thinking of the Sapphire R9 380 for 1080p gaming at high - full settings.

    @Pär Öqvist, are you really considering the Acer Predator z35,

    Gsync monitors are very expensive. Freesync monitors are more affordable at that 34/35 inch size. I think I'll convert to AMD GPU for this very reason and because I now own a Freesync monitor
  7. It measures a bit better overall then some of the cheaper offerings. A bit less input lag, higher build quality, VESA support, higher refresh rates. Maybe not less motion blur the panel have some issues with transitions on dark colours but it supports ULMB which would erase that issue pretty much.

    G-sync is a bit better then freesync also it seems. Very expensive for sure to say the least in term of image quality I think you can get better for less. But it does fit most my bills (I hope).

    Currently I run without any v-sync whatsoever and really have no issues with it. I find my racing games perform smoother then with v-sync but I run rFactor 2 at 2-300 fps. If you run fps that high I am not sure Gsync or freesync do much good it´s more for games where you get dips below 60 as I understand it.

    It sure is expensive and the X34 for example is just 200 euro more but I think actually the lower res in my hunt for smoothness and higher fps, refresh rates w besides ULMB support may actually make the Z35 a better choice for me. It also have more of a curve 2000 CR which I think do actually add some perception of depth.

    As for ULMB it´s the only 21:9 34/35" that supports it that I have found?

    Had it just been bigger it would been almost perfect. But then I guess I really would want that 1440p resolution and run into more fps issues. It appear to be a good compromise I hope though in term of sheer image quality I would be very surprised if it can compete with my 50" Sony W650 which I bought for less...
  8. I used to have triple 24" screens but due to space constraints I got rid of them. Around six months ago I got the bug for widescreen racing again and decided on a 34" 21:9 monitor. I was using a 40" tv on my sim rig and I found the 21:9 to be a big improvement over that as well as giving a better resolution. The screen was about 26" from my face and gave a really good experience.


    However after a few months of use it just wasn't doing it for me and I've decided to do triple screens properly and now have 40" triples on my sim rig.

    So a 21:9 screen was a vast improvement over a single 16:9 screen but it really can't replace a decent triple screen setup.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  9. Azfalt Raser

    Azfalt Raser
    DC Premium Member

    Unless....you use a 21:9 screen for the front monitor. A smaller monitor on the left (like side window) and use software to move the video image to the left, just abit off center of the 21:9 monitor.
    Then you can pull of a triple screen fov look, with only 2 monitors and only 1 bezel section.
    I just need a guinea pig first.;)
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Oops

    Premium Member

    That's very interesting I was thinking something similar as I have two 17" dells I would love to add one each side of my lg 34" to make it a triple, I only have room for the dells to be turned horizontal but I cant find the software to make the dells rotate 180 and 90 degrees, the monitors would have to be treated as individual screens for it to work and then as one screen when in game (if you know what I mean lol) :(
  11. Azfalt Raser

    Azfalt Raser
    DC Premium Member

    I thought Windows allowed you to rotate the image? maybe not. it's late.


    I'm drawing a blank, but "a software program" allows you to move an image/video on your screen - to the left more or wherever in a multi-monitor setup. Maybe it was the link I provided?

    Then you would see the entire dashboard on the 21:9 monitor with the steering wheel more to the left side (more natural). See your driver's side mirror and window on one of your smaller Dell's. Then, I would just not bother with a smaller monitor on the right. If you get the FOV right, the bezel will be blocked by the pillar or rollcage structure and the bezel will be as if it didn't even exist. :)
    Yikes time for bed. I can't even explain it to myself. :roflmao:
  12. 27" would be about the same height depending a bit on how thick bezel of course. But I guess it would be more fiddling trying to get the perspective to work.

    One day with the Z35 and it sure is promising. Surprisingly the best experience was with watching the movie pixels and I am watching on a 50" plasma usually! But the 2560x1080p resolution seem to help a bit and offer minimum scaling errors. Image quality is of course not even in the same ballpark as my plasma but the immersion and experience was absolutely phenomenal. I sit just some 50 cm away so the screen size is bigger then the distances I have to my 50" tvs. It completely blocks my vision of my 50" behind it so that it would be to small I wouldn´t have to worry about.

    Now I don´t say bigger isn´t better but then I would need that 1440p. I do feel this compromise is right afterall but I will probably never really know. 1440p is half the framerates though so I would need to get a pascal or something my 980 wouldn´t cut it with my high demands on framerates and fluidity.

    Haven´t done that much racing but certainly it does give something extra. If it´s 50 % of a triple 24" setup hard to say but looking straight ahead what is outside of the borders is an absolute blur for my eyes so it´s a good way for the triple monitor feel. When I get my Rift I will get the rest and more hopefully.

    One thing I notice though is that in the various first person games I tried objects on the side gets phattened. If you have a three in the center of your vision then pan the camera so it´s to the left or right it´s a lot phatter. Most games seem to behave like this if it´s due to the curve or something else.
  13. SOLO59

    Premium Member

    I feel like starting a "freesync vs g sync" monitor thread here.:D

    I have nvidia gpu but I still purchased an amd freesync monitor? Why?

    1. A freesync monitor is cheaper than a g sync monitor pending on size. If you want the massive 34/35 inch widescreen 21:9 monitor and you are on a budget, then the choice of freesync monitor is a no brainer because they are at that size almost half the price of a g sync monitor. Obviously, if money is no issue than go for g sync.

    2. Freesync min to max adaptive refresh rate range is lower than g sync. Any compatible nvidia gpu will work just fine with g sync but to squeeze out every bit from your monitor, you'll need a really good gpu. With freesync, the low min-max range can be compensated with a good mid range to high end amd gpu like the r9 380/r9 390.

    3. With my nvidia gpu; I can enable "adaptive vsync" from nvidia's control panel (I do not use vsync, only adaptive vsync), I can still enable freesync from the monitors settings using display port cord, and I can enable 75hz in the nvidia control panel.

    Gameplay is very smooth and I use a mix of high to max settings with fps locked to 75 (tested with Raceroom, Assetto Corsa, Ftruck 2013 and Automobilista). Assetto Corsa fps dives to mid 40's with full grid @ max settings but still very much playable. Raceroom, I get varible fps with the wtcc cars but almost all other cars fps is locked at 75.

    As mentioned above, I can enable 75z, freesync and adaptive sync with nvidia card, but I'm still debating if I need to upgrade to amd card or stick with nvidia.

    I simply want a 2560x1080p 21:9 widescreen 34 inch 75hz IPS monitor at a affordable price. The freesync LG 34um67 is perfect as it does all of the above at a very affordable price. Picked mine up on sale at Best Buy for only $550 CAD ($650 without sale). Spending over a thousand dollars plus tax, warranty and delivery charges (if necessary) on a monitor is not possible nor justifiable for me. Its total overall package that freesync offers which is the reason why I prefer freesync monitor @ 34inches.
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Wow Wow x 1
  14. Yes as I understand it freesync just for AMD and Gsync just for nVidia.

    Experimenting a bit and I still don´t think ULMB is for me. It works as advertised but the loss of contrast make the iq suffer even though this monitor have brightness enough to give some contrast at least. But for some reason it run smoother with G-sync. Will give it another go making dead sure I never venture below 120 and enable v-sync but then I add more then 5ms in input lag and will probably feel less responsive for that reason.

    This made me question weither I shouldn´t go for the 1440p X34 or new Swift but running 100 hz vs 144 hz I felt there was actually quite some difference. I was testing with fps with quick transitions probably matter much less for racing but the cursors smoothness when moving the mouse is something I never witnessed before :)

    The Z35 has gotten a lot of flac for it´s pannel not being able to run 200 hz but tbh it works fine. I disabled any overdrive and I actually felt I got a bit less nausea then when running 144 hz. Feel like there is actually some difference here though small versus 144hz. Quite significant over 100 hz.

    Now the question is how much the curve matters. X34, new Asus has less curve probably because they want ot to work better as a work station. The 2000 CR curve on the Z35 does really distort the image quite a bithowever it feels like it somehow is positive for gaming and movies or I imagine things. For desktop it´s just odd.

    But due to me finding the higher refresh rates useful I think it will hold me off from the X34 despite that extra resolution would for sure amp the image quality at my distances. But it does pass the bill as good enough (if you forget about the price tag of course).

    I find it phenomenal with movies just as much as with games I wonder how the 1440p panels would fair with their tougher scaling of bluray and dvd resolutions.

    But the format is truly phenomenal. Won´t take long before 21:9 gets the norm for gaming displays.
  15. I am hoping this weird format dies and gets replaced by true 16:9 40"+ monitors, having traditional format 4K 40" monitor on your desk is so much better. Not sure why manufacturers cling to 21:9, most games do not work with this format, and video has black bars on sides, what is so "phenomenal" about it?
  16. PicoBp

    #26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew Premium Member

    That's simply not true. Most games work properly with it out of the box, especially in the racing genre. For the rest there's the Flawless Widescreen app. And for that odd piece of software that doesn't support it, you can live with having some black bars. ;)

    P.S.: Remember the days, when 4:3 was the standard and the 16:10 monitors came out. No widescreen support at all! And then 16:9... Why would you want to loose screen height? - they said... 21:9 is actually a really cool ratio when you need something to fill your peripheral vision, and is awesome to work on as well. ;)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Bigger is better for sure but you would have to compare a 40" 16:9 to a 45" approx 21:9 to get the same display area and a fair comparison. The 21:9 will be wider and the 16:9 taller. Take the picture it´s more an argument to get a 21:9?

    What is nice with it in my case is when having it up front and close I can have the wheel in front and not loose any vertical info. I also don´t have to tilt my neck to much as when I had my 50" on my cockpit to look up and down the screen.
    I would have to mount it lower then my wheel desk but where do I put my legs. I guess it´s not entirely impossible to build a cockpit where you can integrate them quite well though but yes that would require your 4K to battle screendoor.

    I can´t say I miss the vertical information much in most my games. Vertical is the same as a 27" for reference.

    The extra side vision is greatly appreciated I have not tried flight simming but that will be VR territory I am quite sure. VR will be a utter failure if I would preferr a standard monitor over it for FSX, IL 2, DCS and the likes.

    As for support I actually got ALL my games to work so dunno if it´s correct to say most games doesn´t work can say that most games is not fully optimized for 21:9 but even with the issues it´s a better experience then 16:9 for me :)

    4K would of course be nice may just be tough to find a GPU (SLI comes with it´s issues) that can drive it well and also I must say higher refresh rates do a difference. It´s not really easy to push 4K at 144 hz or above which seem to be the sweetspot :)

    So no I don´t see any reason for 21:9 to die it won´t happen but I do understand where you come from. I was a bit frustrated when 16:9 replaced 16:10. That didn´t really give me all that much extra width and came at the cost of lower resolutions. I was more into flight simming and pinball then where vertical info is more needed.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. What is the biggest 21:9 you can find today, 34"?
    Just a quick comparison against 42" 16:9 like WMUHD420 I am using.
    And if one day we finally get 42" Utlra Wide, the FOV advantage seems to be negligible.
    But on the other hand you can get same FOV as 42" 16:9 with 40" UltraWide
    And move from 4:3 to 16:9 wasn't that unexpected as movie industry was using this format for ages, first wide screen movie was shot back in 1897.
    But 21:9 is quite an oddity, anamorphic format that then is stretched to restore original image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21:9_aspect_ratio

    Anyway, this is very interesting subject and a great discussion.
    In the end it could be something industry will adopt more widely or will die in vain when more powerful modern GPUs can easier cope with full 4K resolution as shorty ultrawide has an advantage on pixel count.
    Good article on this very subject
    • Like Like x 1
  19. PicoBp

    #26 | HSRC - Banzaaaiii Touring Car Crew Premium Member

    Let's have a look from another perspective...

    I'd like triples, but that costs a lot of money for the displays, mount, hardware to drive it, and space (which I lack). I could go for a 40" 16:9, and it could be more immersive having a full dash behind the wheel, but then I couldn't be working from my Obutto due to the huge overlap on the bottom of the screen. If I mount it high enough to get rid of the overlap of the wheel/screen, then what's the point? Seeing the roof of the car?

    So for me 21:9 is the best of both worlds. It's relatively cheap, doesn't need a lot of space or resources, I can see the bottom of the picture for work, photo editing, fps games without messing with the wheel, and I get an awesome FOV and peripheral vision still. It fills my peripheral vision enough to not feel that I'm looking at a screen.

    And BTW, 21:9 is the movie standard now. ;)