How many monitors do you use to race?

[Bram Hengeveld]

Polly time!

We are discussing an interesting issue in the Assetto Corsa forums about triple screens. This raised the question what average RD members use so please take a second to vote on the poll

 

[Kjell Eilertsen]

Good god those cards are expensive That puts a damper on my triple screen urge for a while, I was hoping to get away with buying 2 more mons only but as I need a new gfx card as well I just can´t see myself going this route in a good while (I bought my GTX 570 less than 6 months ago and had hoped to keep it for at least another 2 years ><).

 

[JD Webb]

I used to use 3, however, it's a little difficult getting used to. It's not like looking out the windshield, it's like looking at 3 monitors! The divider (monitor frame) between each one throws you off a bit, and it's still 2 dimensional. Better than one monitor, but still hard to get used to.

 

[Von Butters]

Running 3 x Alienware 21"5 Monitors right now one an ATi 5970.

Correct me if im wrong, but thats a GTOmega rig init?
How is it?

 

[Andrew Bortz]

Yup just got it set up a few days ago and yet still haven't managed to get any tracktime in. Was gonna do Abu Dhabi last night but ran out of time. Will hopefully get time on Thursday after work or all day Friday.

 

[Derek Speare]

I've been reading up a bit on triple monitors and it seems Nvidia cards can't run games on three monitors unless I run SLi with two cards. Anybody able to confirm or deny this? Sorry if this is the wrong thread to ask this.

Nvidia requires two cards to run three screens, but I think they have a new card either coming out or already released which allows three screens from one card. ATI supports three screens on a single card with Eyefinity. Any 6xxx or 7xxx (and some older 5xxx series) cards will run three screens. I use a 6950 with 3 28" screens (and a 7" satellite screen).

I used to use 3, however, it's a little difficult getting used to. It's not like looking out the windshield, it's like looking at 3 monitors! The divider (monitor frame) between each one throws you off a bit, and it's still 2 dimensional. Better than one monitor, but still hard to get used to.

So I was pondering this very post last night and why JD was having some trouble getting used to the display. It occurred to me that possibly either his FOV was off for his particular sim of choice or that the edge warp which is common in many sims may have been doing it, or a combination of it.

I've watched a few videos of sims with and without edge warping. I realized that the warping on the outer screens makes it appear as if the speed is faster on the periphery views than on the view directly in front. The can easily cause disorientation as two views are showing one relative speed and the main one a slower speed.

Fortunately, there are some sims which don't have the warp! I've also noted that the warp is common in FPS shooters and flight sims as well. Let's hope this poll helps to generate more support for three screen users!

Take up the banner...march for three screens! Crush the evil enemy "Warp"...save the future!

d

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

I use 3 23" monitors in my rig but i have a 22 on the desk and also connect my tv when i'm not in the rig. My pc case us built for easy carry so i lug it back and forth.

 

[JD Webb]

Derek, it has nothing to do with edge warp or FOV, it has more to do with the black frame around each monitor. The picture looks perfect in each one, the frame around each monitor gives it that..well...monitor look! Again, it's not like looking out the windshield of you car, its like looking at 3 monitors!

 

[Mat Venn]

I voted for single monitor but have just purchased 3x 40 inch led's

Cant wait

 

[Ken Leamy]

Now this with 5.1 surround Sound and Dual subwoofers , OMG Let er Rip !!!!
Oh Baby Formula 1 racing, Damn !
Dont forget to put on your Track IR.

 

[Robert Woodward]

I got triple screen (recently) and its not really as expensive as people make it out to be...
i collected my 3 screens over time and my best (23" 1080p) was £120 brand new, my other two are second hand screens which dont ma, you can get a graphics card which will play even pCARS on high graphics with triple screen for under £100 (AMD HD6850)
My setup might be super cheap but its atleast 70% as good as one costing 5-10 times more.
Also the division between monitors isn't that bad really if you put the side screens slightly behind the middle one so you only have the line from the middle screen, even better if your middle screen has small barriers

You dont need to buy samsung or sony sceens to do triple screen well...
My brother had 3 samsung screens and as far as i can tell compared with my hans.g screens all they have is a higher energy usage, more features that noone will ever use, far more complicated to use and pointless touch sensitive buttons which you cant see without a torch...

I would maybe try projectors one day if i get rich xD my only problem with projectors is u need a new lamp each few months lol... and u need to clean them every 5 minutes...

 

[Mapu]

I can understand JD Web's argument against 3 monitors and how it looks seperated like three cameras. To get the views of the left and right monitors I could assign two buttons for look left and look right and could achieve a similar effect. That's what I do in rFactor (head movement adjusted to be more efficient). Of course, 3 monitors give you the advantage to have all three views present at all times.

But thinking of it I came to the conclusion that something like TrackIR might be more useful.

 

[Derek Speare]

I can understand JD Web's argument against 3 monitors and how it looks seperated like three cameras. To get the views of the left and right monitors I could assign two buttons for look left and look right and could achieve a similar effect. That's what I do in rFactor (head movement adjusted to be more efficient). Of course, 3 monitors give you the advantage to have all three views present at all times.

But thinking of it I came to the conclusion that something like TrackIR might be more useful.

Once you use three screens, you'd rethink your argument. There is no substitute and any appearance of bezels becomes unnoticed quickly after the immersion factor has substantially increased.

Have you personally used three screens and taken some time to race with them?

 

[Mapu]

No, like I said. Form a point of a more or less rational person looking at his household expenses, I don't see a good reason to justify buying more monitors and other extras for my sim-racing needs; and to be honest I do not miss it. A track IR system would be less expensive and most likely more useful.

Anyway this thread is supposed to be a poll, not a place to convince people. At least there is no chance to convince me here into buying more monitors.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Derek, it has nothing to do with edge warp or FOV, it has more to do with the black frame around each monitor. The picture looks perfect in each one, the frame around each monitor gives it that..well...monitor look! Again, it's not like looking out the windshield of you car, its like looking at 3 monitors!

Hide one side of the fram and it gets much better.
Or buy screens with almost no frames.

 

[Senad Subasic]

Although head tracking is dirt cheap, it's not that great for racing. You move your head to look around, but you still have to keep your eyes looking forward at the screen.
I'd prefer three screens by miles without ever trying them. Much more natural.

 

[Rupe Wilson]

Head tracking is really good, but always makes me feel like the car is under steering, if you don't keep head still when cornering.. which is when you need it the most... in the same sense as when you have your auto apex look set to high....
i made mine for about 20 euros ... so it cheaper but maybe not better...but a great compromise when on a tight budget... or if you have a big multi purpose TV..

 

[Jack Sargent]

I use one 24" monitor.

Two days ago I had a little bug crawling behind my screen.........a thunder bug I think they are called.......Well it decided to die right in the middle of my screen and now I have a black mark right in my line of sight!!!!!

I was quite angry to say the least.

Anyway I am now looking at getting a new 24" monitor as they are only about £130 for a semi decent one. Or maybe a 27" one as they are only about £200.

That is my max really. Any advice??

Obviously the quality on a 27" would be less than a 24" if they are the same pixels.....

The main problem I noticed is it is very hard to get a 24" monitor with 1920x1200.........everything is 16/9 these days.

 

[Robert Woodward]

i would get a 24", for £110 you can get a 24" LED 1920x1080 from hanns.g like i have and compared with a 24" LCD Samsung 1920x1080 which my brother has that cost him twice as much the quality is the same

Its also very good if you decided to go triple screen at some point later partly cuz the cost but also because hanns.g monitors atm all have very thin borders

 

[Kjell Eilertsen]

A lot of the monitor stands I've looked at won't support 3x27" should you decide to go that route. Worth keeping on mind.

 

[Jack Sargent]

i would get a 24", for £110 you can get a 24" LED 1920x1080 from hanns.g like i have and compared with a 24" LCD Samsung 1920x1080 which my brother has that cost him twice as much the quality is the same

Its also very good if you decided to go triple screen at some point later partly cuz the cost but also because hanns.g monitors atm all have very thin borders

Does LED have any advantages over LCD??

Hanns G stuff looks really nice..........I just found this 28" 16/10 aspect for £200....

http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/17184...urce=0&searchtype=allproducts&urlrefer=search



I don't have the space for tripples so I doubt I would ever go that route.