Standard or Ultra-Wide Monitor for sims

Get the Samsung 49” ultra ultra wide.. it’s expensive but so good... it looks like you’re willing to spend the cash and you won’t be disappointed with this monitor.. you get drivers side mirror and rear view mirror on most sims.. not like the standard ultrawides..
otherwise just get a standard 16:9. I have the 35 LG ultra wide as well and it doesn’t really give much more screen room than a standard monitor..

I think anything above 1080p is a waste of money if you’re only gaming/racing on it..

I highly recommend the AOC AGON 32” curved 144hz monitor if you go standard..

Best of luck
 

pabletux

Premium
Hi,
I got the Lg 38UC99-W, is a 38" curved with 3840x1600 res. At the moment of my purshase, this was only 150€ cheaper than the 49" Samsung, it was not for the money, but RES. 3840x1600 is so, so much better than a 3840x1080 on a 49" screen. I´m very very happy.
 

Attachments

  • 20180603_192815.jpg
    20180603_192815.jpg
    777.9 KB · Views: 3,610
  • 20180603_192938.jpg
    20180603_192938.jpg
    750.9 KB · Views: 3,043
Hi,
I got the Lg 38UC99-W, is a 38" curved with 3840x1600 res. At the moment of my purshase, this was only 150€ cheaper than the 49" Samsung, it was not for the money, but RES. 3840x1600 is so, so much better than a 3840x1080 on a 49" screen. I´m very very happy.
Yeah... but no..

You can’t compare 21:9 aspect to 32:9..

For gaming.. you won’t even notice the extra vertical resolution of 1600.. but I guarantee you’ll notice the extra screen real estate of the Samsung when it comes to in-game FOV..
 

pabletux

Premium
Yeah, sure, for inmersion I´m sure it will be a WOW, but it depents on what you want, I prefer 109.47 DPI instead of 81.41 DPI. And for me is balanced, is not 34, and is not 49. Size and Res, is just right for me :) will not pay 1.200€ for a 1080p vertical res in 2018, that´s the only reason why the Samsung was not chosen :(
 
I got the LG 34UC79G. It is 2560 X 1080.
Would be nice with a slightly higher Res but the 144 hz refresh rate are a a huge difference.
For sim racing UW are the way to go but so is +100 hz refresh rate if you like me tend to spend a few hours at the time on the monitor.
I say +100 hz as I do not see or feel much if any difference between 100 and 144hz.
 

Mr Latte

Premium
3,436
2,056
The current monitor situation is about to get much more interesting in the latter part of this year. We will be seeing more 4K based 120/144Hz models coming and also more Super Ultrawide.

Samsungs Super Ultrawide is no doubt a brilliant gaming monitor but with good productivity purposes too. It looks awesome for sim/rig purposes and requires less GPU horsepower than the current crop of nice 21" 1440p based displays. So it can help maintain higher refresh rates yet bring high immersion. It is ideal for those that may not own the highest GPU models but appeal to those who put refresh rates higher than pixel density. Having the bonus and appeal of a huge 49" peripheral image, is also a major draw for many.


More Super Ultrawide Are Coming

Their are now several alternative versions of this appearing this year from Asus / MSI. Samsung themselves have just released a 2nd new version (LC49J890DKUXENA) This is much cheaper as it removes the Freesync and with some other hardware changes to the other original 49" Super Ultrawide. It is marketed as a business model but is still 49" 144Hz with low latency for approx £800. The original in the UK is selling for £1000 if shopping around.

Samsung have new panels coming in Super Ultrawide, that fix the main issue some people had with the 49"ers 1080p vertical limitation. Just as the current 49" model enables what is to having (2x 27" 1080p) monitors in one curved display. We will be seeing soon, Super Ultrawide 49" (2x 27" 1440p) based models.

Offering:
  • 49" 5120×1440 pixels
  • 1800R curvature
  • 5000:1 contrast ratio
  • 178-degree viewing angle
  • 600 nits peak brightness.
  • 120Hz reffresh


Due to this, I would consider holding off spending the best part of a grand now on a 21:9 1440p based model. We need GPU that can make use of the resolution/pixels ratio and sustain higher than 60Hz. While 3440x1400 seems the ideal balance of pixel density and demands with higher refresh for those seeking more pixel density. I find these upcoming models may be superb with whatever new GPU we have coming in the pipeline.

GPU Demands are relevant to what you own, how much higher refresh you can maintain as to what should influence each buyer. I would agree to obtain 90-100Hz is a sweet spot, if above 60Hz is desired.

We see that 4K is a huge demand above the sim racing ultimate of old using triple 1920x1080p based displays. Or the impressive large-scale 21:9 3840x 2560 models. The current 1440 based Ultrawide are what has been leading the way in sales. Offering a good reduction in GPU demands below these. Therefore making them ideal for a higher refresh.

Yet the upcoming 1440p based Super Ultrawide appear to bridge the gap between these. Focused on a balance of increased immersions with the much wider display ratio, 1800R and still sustaining a good pixel density to GPU load requirement.

General Examples:
  • 4K 16:9 = 3840 x 2160 = 8.29 mp
  • New Gen 2 / Super Ultrawide 49" = 5120×1440 = 7.37 mp
  • New Gen 2 / Super Ultrawide 43" = 3840x1200 = 4.60 mp
  • Triple Screen 16:9 1080p = 5760 x 1080 = 6.22 mp
  • Ultrawide 38" = 3840 x 2560 = 6.14 mp
  • Ultrawide 34" = 3440 x 1440 = 4.95 mp
  • Super Ultra wide 49" = 3840 x 1080 = 4.15 mp
  • Ultrawide 29" = 2560 x 1080 = 2.76 mp
  • 16:9 1080p = 1920 x 1080 = 2.07 mp

Interesting Article HERE on new Samsung displays coming in 2018.
 
Last edited:
Ultrawides is so small due to the size measured diagonally so I wonder if I would not be better off with 1080p vertical lines also with samsungs 49". But then I would rather see 150 fps then 100 despite running some arcade titles locked at 60 and having a gsync monitor :)

I am not in the market yet though my ultrawide hopefully have some years left and simracing is 100 % VR. Triples or 32:9 ultrawides don´t come close the immersion in those sizes anyway. There is some curved triple projector setups that may compete in immersion but I don´t believe they would fully match VR either :)
 

Mr Latte

Premium
3,436
2,056
Ultrawides is so small due to the size measured diagonally so I wonder if I would not be better off with 1080p vertical lines also with samsungs 49". But then I would rather see 150 fps then 100 despite running some arcade titles locked at 60 and having a gsync monitor :)

I am not in the market yet though my ultrawide hopefully have some years left and simracing is 100 % VR. Triples or 32:9 ultrawides don´t come close the immersion in those sizes anyway. There is some curved triple projector setups that may compete in immersion but I don´t believe they would fully match VR either :)


I think many would like both VR and the benefits a 32:9 display can bring.
Depends on the user, some have a rig solely for racing, others use their rig also as their main PC usage.

Many games or racing based titles do not support VR. So if the user even enjoys some, casual gaming be it FPS or something like Forza Horizon 4. Well I reckon it will look rather sweet on a 32:9 display but also as you mention have VR as an option in what it is supported on.
 
So, @Durge Driven, did you get a monitor yet?

Go ultrawide if single monitor. 1440 vertical resolution is good choice; higher res is waste of pixels for <40" 16:9. Remember that the 34" ultrawides are merely a 27" 16:9 monitor with extra side real estate, so realistic vFOV is only "acceptable" rather than "good" (32" 16:9) or "superb" (40+" 16:9).
 
Last edited:

Paul Glover

RaceDepartment Social Media Manager & Podcast Host
Staff
Premium
4,483
2,727
Kent, UK
I think many would like both VR and the benefits a 32:9 display can bring.
Depends on the user, some have a rig solely for racing, others use their rig also as their main PC usage.

Many games or racing based titles do not support VR. So if the user even enjoys some, casual gaming be it FPS or something like Forza Horizon 4. Well I reckon it will look rather sweet on a 32:9 display but also as you mention have VR as an option in what it is supported on.

I use my widescreen for other games, VR for Racing. I cannot race without VR, yes I have become a snob! #notsorry
 

Durge Driven

Premium
2,606
1,611
Sydney, AUSTRALIA
So, @Durge Driven, did you get a monitor yet?

Go ultrawide if single monitor. 1440 vertical resolution is good choice; higher res is waste of pixels for <40" 16:9. Remember that the 34" ultrawides are merely a 27" 16:9 monitor with extra side real estate, so realistic vFOV is only "acceptable" rather than "good" (32" 16:9) or "superb" (40+" 16:9).

No mate I decided to wait till after I get new GPU

Yes, I realized 1080 vertical would be puny for GTX1180

I think I resigned to spending more then the LG's I linked

I do like pixel pack though ....the 16:9 was .3 something and UW was only .2 something

P.S.

1 thing worries me about uw is watching movies or TV mkv not for uw

1 thing worries me about 16:9 is the wasted space for just looking at car roof and your feet p

Thing worries me most is real wheel to cockpit ratio , whats the best size and distance etc

Oh other thing worries me is how much they put into stands and silly lights

I am using custom stand bolted to table it turns any which way I move 90 degrees to watch F1 from bed, etc no monitor stand turns that much.

When I get new monitor I will drill table again put stand further back to suit virtual wheel position
 
Last edited:
1 thing worries me about uw is watching movies or TV mkv not for uw
1 thing worries me about 16:9 is the wasted space for just looking at car roof and your feet p
LOL… I don't know if those can be reconciled or not!

My target for a realistic vFOV range is being able to read the center console instruments in a Cobra and the rearview mirror in a Stockcar. Horizontal target, for an ultrawide, is to see at least one of the side mirrors (something which might not be possible on the LMP cars as they're barely visible with triple monitors).
 

Mr Latte

Premium
3,436
2,056
Have any 1080p 16:9 screen owners tried 32:9 ratio by setting a 1920x540P screen res.
Thoughts on this or how FOV etc could be applied to make it look okay.
 
Have any 1080p 16:9 screen owners tried 32:9 ratio by setting a 1920x540P screen res.
Thoughts on this or how FOV etc could be applied to make it look okay.

That's interesting not sure... I'm running a 34" Ultrawide LG but prior to that had a Vizio 32" 1080p that I ran at 1920x900p if I remember correctly it looked much better, giving that fake widescreen look.
I do know the change to 21:9 has been awesome and much easier on my eyes.
 

Mr Latte

Premium
3,436
2,056
I get 32:9 aspect no problems in AC doing this by halving the vertical to double the ratio.
While it lets me see what such a display will show, I do notice stretching for the vertical / depth scaling. Most notable with cars panning into the screen.

Not sure if their was some settings for a fix or way to utilise the FOV (tested in AC) to improve or correct the display. Possibly even part of the issue down to my actual TV in how its handling this.
 

Tardy Tony

Premium
312
103
Surrey, UK
Been umming and ahhhing about a new monitor for ages. To be honest the superwide/ultra wdes do not impress that much when I see the cost. But, I needed to replace my diddy little 24" so I ran out of patience and ordered the cheapest half decent curved WQHD 144hz I could find, namely the Acer XZ32 (144hz is essential!) and the cheapest new 1080 (MSI Armor) I could find to replace my old Asus VG24 and MSI 970. I use TrackIR so I just need a more expansive 16:9, the super/ultra wides would be too shallow in height or too expensive for just simming for me.
 
Top