What do you race on most in terms of screen format?

[Bram Hengeveld]

On which format are you racing your sims?

 

[X-Vector]

Philips 109E5 19" 4:3 CRT monitor at 1280x960 resolution - it's like driving with horse blinders on.

 

[WALEAD1999]

1280X720P resolution on all simracing games

 

[Garrington Levy]

50" LG QNED816 in 4k 60hz

 

[Pete Conway]

16:10 had it for years and I won't change it for a pathetic letterbox (16:9) no matter ho cheap they are in comparison.
Seriously though I find the the 16:10 (1680: 1050) offers a little more real estate, and when using my son's 16:9 I can feel the difference.
I've tried VR but feel cut off from the world and I don't like it, the same for cans (headphones) I can't use them either.

 

[Kevin Troschinski]

I have strong motion sickness, so VR is no option. I was driving for 15 years on 16:9
After i switched to 21:9 UW i asked myself why i did not do it years earlier. Completly must have.
Tripple would only be an option, if i had additional room for it.

So a ask all simracers - do you a favor and go away from single 16:9 monitor !!! You´l never regret

 

[The11thHour]

Seeing how many single 16x9 users there are answers a ton of questions...

 

[Deleted member 197115]

16:9 is TV and traditional desktop monitor format. Prevalence of those is expected.
Doesn't meant that a lot of users have it actually attached to the rig, I had one, it was not the best suited format for sim-racing esp. when going big, too much unused space at the top, little on sides.

 

[Cote Dazur]

18 % at the moment for VR, I hope that the people believing VR is around 2% are watching the poll results.
For overall gaming VR is not popular, but for SIM racing it is a match made in heaven.
Close to 20% is certainly not a market share to ignore for developers.

 

[Neilski]

16:10 had it for years and I won't change it for a pathetic letterbox (16:9) no matter ho cheap they are in comparison.

Hehe, yeah I know what you mean. I use 16:10 screens in work and have gone to some lengths to hang on to them. However, when I last replaced my home monitor, I eventually gave in and just bought a 16:9 because there were just too few decent 16:10 options out there (and none that met my criteria).

 

[trichens]

Triples as one 5760 x 1080 through Nvidia settings

 

[RasmusP]

16:10 had it for years and I won't change it for a pathetic letterbox (16:9) no matter ho cheap they are in comparison.
Seriously though I find the the 16:10 (1680: 1050) offers a little more real estate

If there would be even a single 165+ Hz 16:10 monitor in the world, I'd buy it.
Sadly, there's none.

It's not about having as many fps. It's about not needing any sync at such high Hz, no matter the fps. It's always smooth enough and the very little tearing is basically invisible.
80-110 fps are my sweetspot where it becomes really smooth without needing insane hardware or lower settings.

And for scrolling through documents, it's really awesome. I have 2x 24", 165 Hz, 16:9 stacked on top of each other (the top monitor upside down for super small bezels).
I can read while the text is moving. Impossible with 60 Hz and still a bit eye straining at 100 Hz.

 

[Neilski]

I can read while the test is moving. Impossible with 60 Hz and still a bit eye straining at 100 Hz.

Yes, I think I may (sadly) finally have "caught the bug" that lets me detect that 60 Hz isn't infinite :-S

 

[RasmusP]

Yes, I think I may (sadly) finally have "caught the bug" that lets me detect that 60 Hz isn't infinite :-S

For me, it was over with 60 Hz when my phone and my everyday Laptop/Tablet both got 120 Hz.
60 Hz at the PC just became stressfully "laggy".
Not for gaming though! The Witcher 3 or similar games are absolutely fine at 60 Hz.
But when you have 20 windows of documents/browser/OneNote open across 3 monitors, it feels so much more efficient with a good mouse, good mousemat and 100+ Hz.

 

[Neilski]

For me, it was over with 60 Hz when my phone and my everyday Laptop/Tablet both got 120 Hz.

Yeah, good point - during the summer I got a phone with 120 Hz refresh rate, so maybe that's what did for me

 

[metalnwood]

16:10 had it for years and I won't change it for a pathetic letterbox (16:9) no matter ho cheap they are in comparison.
Seriously though I find the the 16:10 (1680: 1050) offers a little more real estate, and when using my son's 16:9 I can feel the difference.
I've tried VR but feel cut off from the world and I don't like it, the same for cans (headphones) I can't use them either.

I6:10 is fantastic for laptops and for desktop i much prefer vertical than moving my head left and right all the time. For my destktop I use an lg dualup which is 16:18 and I really like it.

For sim racing isn't the answer just a bigger monitor? There are not a lot of 16:10 monitors around anymore and they are not the cheapest. Most are 24" so why not just get a 27" 16:9 that has the same height and more width? Yes, its 16:9 but it will have the same vertical usable space that you have now, but more width.

 

[jgf]

Old fashioned 23" Acer, 1920x1080. My old eyes would like a 32" if there's still a good 60Hz available.

But I recall that ancient 14" CRT that was the envy of the neighborhood, running at 640x480.

 

[Pete Conway]

I6:10 is fantastic for laptops and for desktop i much prefer vertical than moving my head left and right all the time. For my destktop I use an lg dualup which is 16:18 and I really like it.

For sim racing isn't the answer just a bigger monitor? There are not a lot of 16:10 monitors around anymore and they are not the cheapest. Most are 24" so why not just get a 27" 16:9 that has the same height and more width? Yes, its 16:9 but it will have the same vertical usable space that you have now, but more width.

A bigger 16:9 monitor does not give you what a 16:10 does, it merely gives you a bigger version of the same 16:9 picture, a 16:10 gives that little bit of above and below real estate,
I have a 16:9 laptop and I'd rather use my Desktop at 16:10.

But it's about what you're happy with, I personally would love another monitor, perhaps a 28"-30" (my current 24" is showing it's age) but because the film and game industry was coerced into the 16:9 market (because it's cheaper) most of us just take it, and the price of 16:10 is unlikely to be competitive in the foreseeable future.

 

[RasmusP]

I6:10 is fantastic for laptops and for desktop

I love 3:2 Laptops! It's amazing how good a tiny Laptop can feel with the same height of a bigger one.
Sadly too many people watch Netflix on them instead of working (kidding, lol), so they aren't the mainstream yet.
I've seen some Huawei Laptops with Touch, great resolution and a mobile Ryzen CPU in it. Brilliant Laptops but never in the stores in Germany..

For my destktop I use an lg dualup which is 16:18 and I really like it.

Hehe yeah that's basically my two stacked 16:9 without the bezel

A bigger 16:9 monitor does not give you what a 16:10 does, it merely gives you a bigger version of the same 16:9 picture

If the pixel density is identical and you buy a 16:9 with the same height as the 16:10 equivalent, you simply get usable space on the sides.
When working, I don't have issues with the image becoming "too big", like when gaming on a too big monitor can feel for me, overloading my eyes.
I play quite some games in 16:9 and black borders left+right on my 21:9 monitor.
For simracing, I wouldn't have issues with a 180° monitor that's 2 m in height though haha

 

[metalnwood]

A bigger 16:9 monitor does not give you what a 16:10 does, it merely gives you a bigger version of the same 16:9 picture, a 16:10 gives that little bit of above and below real estate,
I have a 16:9 laptop and I'd rather use my Desktop at 16:10.

But it's about what you're happy with, I personally would love another monitor, perhaps a 28"-30" (my current 24" is showing it's age) but because the film and game industry was coerced into the 16:9 market (because it's cheaper) most of us just take it, and the price of 16:10 is unlikely to be competitive in the foreseeable future.

That is wrong, when the FOV is set correctly a 27" 16:9 that is the same height as a 24" 16:10 will show all of what the 16:10 did vertically, and more to the side.
It does not just scale or your FOV settings are incorrect.