Sim Racing 240Hz - Compared To 60Hz / 100Hz + Monitors?

[Emery]

@Mr Latte

High refresh rates for simracing are aimed at:

1. Reducing overall input lag via shorter frame time (60 Hz = 16.7 mS, 120 Hz = 8.4 mS, 240 Hz = 4.1 mS). This is miniscule compared to multiplayer pings of 90-180 mS and the average human reaction time to visual stimulus of 215 mS (https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime). Graphic post effects that we've come to love also induce more display lag than a 240 Hz monitor will remove compared to a 60 Hz monitor; if reducing input lag is your primary concern, then disable post effects and live in a DX9 world!
2. Removing screen tear, usually in conjunction with variable refresh (gSync, FreeSync) because game fps isn't constant. Since screen tear can be equally improved via other techniques (nVidia FastSync, old-fashioned vSync), the high refresh rate monitor is less important than having the game maintaining fps above the refresh rate.
3. Reducing blur. However there are two display panel components that are more important in this regard than refresh rate: GtG response time and Mean Persistence Response Time (MPRT) (https://blurbusters.com/blur-buster...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/). MPRT is closely tied to the pixel motion rate which, for simracing without head mounted tracking, the peak occurs while doing tight radius U-turns and you don't need 144 Hz refresh to see clearly in that situation. With head mounted tracking (TrackIR, VR), the peak pixel motion rate is significantly higher because it's tied to how fast you turn your head.
4. Reducing flicker, but that was more of a problem with CRTs than our current flat-panel displays. Texture flicker, on the other hand, is a software problem, so no device is going to be able to fix that.

 

[Mr Latte]

As stated, lots of new monitors are going to offer 240Hz, refresh, some already overclockable to 280Hz, and 360Hz models being branded. How well they perform regards different panel tech may vary but the point of the whole thread is about having the option to at least try framerates now beyond what we once could.

If it makes much difference or only minor gains, for lots of people it will not be the main focus of why they buy such new monitors. Other factors will play into purchasing decisions. I also expect quite a lot of sim racers also play other titles too even if indeed racing titles are not expected to favor them.

 

[jamescarruthers]

It’s just the same debate as high res audio... some people just want the specs because they’re the best... in truth nobody will be able to tell the difference beyond the standard... (which is probably 75-100Hz range)

It’s mostly marketing.

Personally I’d rather have higher quality panels - a lot of the stretched panels do not look good at high refresh rates.

Also whilst it’s true that older titles may be able to be clocked higher most modern titles are going to be using more of the GPU. we will never hit 240hz because the graphics are going to get better - and rightly so - nobody needs that high refresh.

 

[Durge Driven]

For years online in rF2 I ran 1080p@60K using nvidia gpu sync
If I could match sector times in fav car with top drivers in my room banging wheels lapping within inches around Belgium I was happy

I think some push eye candy can miss out on best feel from their sims and wheel
Certainly found that the case testing DSR

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

@Mr Latte

High refresh rates for simracing are aimed at:

1. Reducing overall input lag via shorter frame time (60 Hz = 16.7 mS, 120 Hz = 8.4 mS, 240 Hz = 4.1 mS). This is miniscule compared to multiplayer pings of 90-180 mS and the average human reaction time to visual stimulus of 215 mS (https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime). Graphic post effects that we've come to love also induce more display lag than a 240 Hz monitor will remove compared to a 60 Hz monitor; if reducing input lag is your primary concern, then disable post effects and live in a DX9 world!
2. Removing screen tear, usually in conjunction with variable refresh (gSync, FreeSync) because game fps isn't constant. Since screen tear can be equally improved via other techniques (nVidia FastSync, old-fashioned vSync), the high refresh rate monitor is less important than having the game maintaining fps above the refresh rate.
3. Reducing blur. However there are two display panel components that are more important in this regard than refresh rate: GtG response time and Mean Persistence Response Time (MPRT) (https://blurbusters.com/blur-buster...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/). MPRT is closely tied to the pixel motion rate which, for simracing without head mounted tracking, the peak occurs while doing tight radius U-turns and you don't need 144 Hz refresh to see clearly in that situation. With head mounted tracking (TrackIR, VR), the peak pixel motion rate is significantly higher because it's tied to how fast you turn your head.
4. Reducing flicker, but that was more of a problem with CRTs than our current flat-panel displays. Texture flicker, on the other hand, is a software problem, so no device is going to be able to fix that.

Yep, good points. It's not just about the Hz, it became a number used in marketing since it's easier to relate to than GTG pixel response or input lag from monitor circuits. Regarding the ping part I'd point out, it's actually not such a big latency adder in sims. Sims don't recalculate the position of your own car based on the server, the synchronization is one-directional, unlike with online shooters where lag will actually cause your own player to physically move position.

I have actually overclocked my monitor and compared the results several years ago when I used to race at high level in various league races. My monitor was 60 Hz so it could only overclock to around 75 Hz. However, this is a relatively large percentual improvement and more noticeable to bare eye than going past 144 Hz. Comparing back to back, I could tell a difference in smoothness between 60 and 75 Hz in races, but had I kept a break and returned back a couple of hours later, I doubt I'd be able to tell which was which. Lap times were no better on either. Actually I noticed a bigger difference in smoothness when I capped my FPS to 120 instead of 60 (both on 60 Hz refresh rate). So based on my tests, higher FPS is the first thing to target before worrying about monitor refresh rate, you will still notice benefits even on a lower refresh rate monitor.

 

[Emery]

Regarding the ping part I'd point out, it's actually not such a big latency adder in sims. Sims don't recalculate the position of your own car based on the server, the synchronization is one-directional, unlike with online shooters where lag will actually cause your own player to physically move position.

Player won't move, but opponents do, which affects your own reactions. Most common effect noticed from ping is "I can never brake as late as anyone else" and that's because the prediction algorithms can't predict amount of brake an opponent uses, thus it's delayed by ping and your own computer has to compensate opponent position which appears on your own screen as an opponent that always outbrakes you.

 

[Terry Rock]

This is a topic I am following closely...for different reasons.
As I get older, I seem to be slowly losing the ability to pick out apices on a regular monitor.
I seem to be driving more and more from track familiarization.
Will possibly be looking in the next few days to go to a slightly larger one from the current 24" 1080P 60 Hz panel.
Which do you guys like more...higher resolution on a bigger panel or higher refresh rate on a bigger panel?

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

I would say higher refresh rates! But I guess it also depend on what size display you talk about?
Got a 34" UW, 2560 x 1080, 144 hz . Did try out a 43" 4K TV also.
Both are nice but 4K is a lot of pixels in modern sims. And didn't do much for the older sims.

Newer felt the 34" had low resolution, maybe the only advantage to getting older you do not need a super high resolution display anymore, just bigger.
The nice thing about the 144hz display is that there are no stutter and no screen tearing.

 

[Fennario]

As I get older, I seem to be slowly losing the ability to pick out apices on a regular monitor... Which do you guys like more...higher resolution on a bigger panel or higher refresh rate on a bigger panel?

Would move from 24" to 27" panel(s) incorporating higher resolution and increased refresh + a trip to the optometrist for an eye check and a proper pair of Zeiss prescription glasses (inc. anti-glare/computer screen coatings).

 

[Emery]

Will possibly be looking in the next few days to go to a slightly larger one from the current 24" 1080P 60 Hz panel.
Which do you guys like more...higher resolution on a bigger panel or higher refresh rate on a bigger panel?

24" has always been too small to use a realistic FOV. You're a good candidate for a high refresh rate 1440p 27" or ultrawide 34-35" if you haven't found VR to be feasible.

 

[Interslice]

I had 60hz on 1080p then went to 144hz 1080p and was amazed. Then went to 120hz 1440p and was even more amazed. I tried a 240hz 1080p but the 1080p is just...no. The difference however in refresh rates is very noticable from 60hz up to 144hz. BUT from 144hz to 240hz ...I could not tell the difference in any game be it FPS or racing.
The 240hz 1080p is for the hardcore FPS boys doing tournements imo.

Now running triple 1440p 144hz and I only get 75fps in ACC so not making most use of it YET but with gsync it´s smooth as butter. I was planning to up the cpu and gpu when they release new bits later this year and also get 144fps in acc.

What monitor do you have?

Mine is a dell 1440p 144hz freesync compatible. I find it needs to be at 90 before i would start to call it smooth as butter! It's ok from 80 up but anything below especially in acc is really juddery.

Maybe its different settings you are using??

 

[egzplicit]

What monitor do you have?

Mine is a dell 1440p 144hz freesync compatible

What model?

 

[Interslice]

What model?

Dell 27 Gaming Monitor | S2719DGF -
69cm(27") Black

 

[Mr Latte]

 

[jamescarruthers]

This is silly. You could do the same test at 1000Hz and film it at that fps... and you'd see the difference.

 

[Mr Latte]

This is silly. You could do the same test at 1000Hz and film it at that fps... and you'd see the difference.

Its not silly at all, it illustrates a smoother image and the user gives his own feedback on the experience.

I'd rather have views based on actual testing and comparisons but clearly it's a thing that some people notice easier or more than others and some notice little differences. We have displays coming to support higher-res that is now better than previous display tech and if the user has a GPU that can offer higher frames, then its at least an option for the owner to determine what res or framerate they want to experience.

Its not a bad thing to have the choice is it?

 

[Fennario]

No, it's silly. Go look at them in person. Watching a youtube video which purports to show the differences is not valid given that it has been recorded, compressed, streamed and replayed over whatever sync rate monitor you are currently viewing it on.

 

[Mr Latte]

No, it's silly. Go look at them in person. Watching a youtube video which purports to show the differences is not valid given that it has been recorded, compressed, streamed and replayed over whatever sync rate monitor you are currently viewing it on.

Yeah we get all that, err but you miss the point...

He's attempting to visually illustrate the differences with the limitations in place that you mention.

Ohh gees, give me strength....
The guys not saying or expecting people viewing the videos to experience what a person may experience when physically comparing themselves. Most people watching will understand that. He even comments on that as well.

Its only a visuall illustration but with his own comments/views and experiences he had also included.
Frankly, I applaud seeing such videos and covering different game titles for even more in-depth studies.

Some people here, have not tried the latest monitors coming to the market. The Samsung G7 is the worlds first 1440p model with improved 1ms *(listed specs) for supporting higher framerates of upto 240Hz and offers HDR 600.

So then is it okay with you guys criticizing, If some of us are interested in user views based on testing/comparing monitors including these new 2020 monitors and not based on your own perspectives or experiences with only the monitors you own or have previously tried?

Id rather hold off to see several reviews and even opinions of monitor experts' from sites like TFT Central if indeed they see many benefits or improvements over past monitors. I get it some are saying its all only marketing but lets see shall we how the 2020 crop of monitors perform with the incoming GPUs. Its possible i-racing fans will be able to enjoy 240Hz on these new displays. If they buy the tech do you think they will settle with 120-144Hz?

We are reaching the point some titles can be enjoyed well beyond the 144Hz marker, new or supposedly improved displays are arriving so guys deal with it.

 

[Dan Costa]

Bellow 240hz there are decent sized gaps of information not reaching your eyes. Do those gaps and higher input latency matter as much on racing as they do on competitive shooters? I would say not as much.

For people who say they can't tell the difference above 100hz, they do. They just don't know what to look for. They can say is that it doesn't bother them and that's fine.

 

[jamescarruthers]

The guy in the video says things like "you can clearly see in the video" referring to his own slow-motion video. I could make the same video at 600Hz, 1200Hz, 1440Hz and 2400Hz, shoot it at 2400fps, and I could show you the exact same thing... 600Hz would look rubbish compared to 2400Hz. It's like showing audio waveforms at 96kHz versus 44.1Hz and saying "you can hear the difference, just look at that"

If you're asking "can you see any difference beyond 60Hz" then there are plenty of reviews/YouTube etc on that subject — most seem to say that unless you're playing an FPS you won't benefit much beyond 90-100Hz — sim-racing it's even less. This will remain the same even if/when we have 50,000Hz monitors. The limiting factor is human eyesight not the technology.