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

[metalnwood]

If you had a 27" 16:9 in the same position as your 24" 16:10 this is what the picture would look like - the image scale would be the same, you would see a bit more to the sides. The monitor height would be more or less the same, in fact the 27" would be 1.3cm taller.

The center opaque part is the 24.

 

[gamer19]

minority
16:10

 

[Orra]

16:10, i have a 1440x900@hz monitor, as i have the wheel close to it, it's pretty comfortable and immersive in a dark room, especially Le Mans races at night !

 

[jgf]

Sadly too many people watch Netflix on them instead

Oh I tire of these people in film forums complaining of how unimpressive old films are ...when they have never seen them in a true Cinerama theatre. Viewing "2001" or "A Fistful of Dollars" in that theatre and viewing it on a laptop, much less a "smart" phone, is like attending a symphony concert in person or listening to it on an old transistor radio.

 

[Vitamia]

3 X 32" @5780 px @144hz @ 53° + VESARO Chassis 4 Bolts Dbox+ Black Big Box Thermaltake= 7 m²

Bulky, too bulky, I had to find a dedicated room. Complicated, too complicated to maintain. I don't do Sim Racing, I set up my Sim Racing devices: screens, secondary displays via Simhub, button boxes, steering wheels, haptic feedback... Then I review the best mods and... finally! Finally, I'm ready. One turn in a poorly tuned thing and I'm already hearing "Honey, the game's about to start. You don't want to miss the Pats' next loss. Especially the first one without Belichick". My wife has more sense of humor than all this stuff, that's something. It must be said that the last time we saw Brady was at Le Mans. Sometimes I dream of the first NFS or GT on PS1 or even GP2, 3 or 4, we had fun. Now I secretly reign over this heap of cables, boxes, screens, motors and bolts. And what can we say about our caste, which is literally in awe of an ugly, incredibly boring simulation software that's over fifteen years old and dares, as the only known example, to charge for access to items you've already bought?
In short, I'm a sim racer.

 

[Wrath85_ita]

i use 34" 3440x1440 144Hz and pico 4 VR headset, but i use the monitor most of the time because i can't play for long in vr.

 

[pepucho]

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.

This week in S397 discord a MSG staff guy told that we VR users were around 5% (answering another person talking about how important is not to have VR from day 1). Made me feel pretty dissapointed because: 1.- you can choose million of answers but that. 2.- Even if we are a 5%, we are probably the 5% buying all the DLC launched on rf2 because its VR is working fine. But looks like 5% is not enough

2 years on VR here. For me it's game-changing.

 

[Cote Dazur]

This week in S397 discord a MSG staff guy told that we VR users were around 5% (answering another person talking about how important is not to have VR from day 1). Made me feel pretty dissapointed because: 1.- you can choose million of answers but that. 2.- Even if we are a 5%, we are probably the 5% buying all the DLC launched on rf2 because its VR is working fine. But looks like 5% is not enough

2 years on VR here. For me it's game-changing.

It is sad that MSG staff do not know better, sad for them, as I have already so much (too much?) great content I can spend my time on in VR, that if a title does not have it, well, that is that , not for me.
Not sure how many in the 20% of player think like me, but if I was a developer, I would not take a chunk out of my potential market.
How difficult can it be to implement VR, even GTR2 has VR, plus MSG uses RF2 engine, which has VR, so?????
Yes, to me too VR back then and still today is a game changer, see everything in 3D & 100% scale, hard to go back to 2D and weird/compromised FOV.
Also feel so lucky, that I am 100% comfortable wearing the goggles for long time periods, much more comfortable than my track day helmet for sure LOL.

 

[RaceNut]

While I do love the immersive qualities that VR offers, I also get tired of having the HMD strapped to my head and having compromised visual quality. I also have some vision issues that make using VR more challenging without custom lenses. So, VR is reserved for very special occasions when I want maximum immersion but, willing to accept some trade-offs.

The rest of the time, I rely on triple 32" curved monitors running at 120Hz (2k res) for both work and play. The extra screen space is great for working in various programs, and the clarity and smoothness makes playing any game on curved monitors more immersive than my old flat panels.

I've yet to address the bezel issue but, am finding they are not as bothersome as I had anticipated. Overall, my current monitors are working out really well. I feel blessed to have the option to use VR on occasion, and the mix of the two allows me to appreciate both viewing options for their own unique qualities.

 

[eclip2]

35" 21:9 3440x1440p 100hz and I regret I didn't buy 32:9.

 

[Fleskebacon]

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.

For me, G-sync was the real game changer. I can't play without it anymore. Even 150 fps on a 165 Hz monitor doesn't look half as smooth as G-sync at any framerate above 80.

 

[Neilski]

G-sync was the real game changer

I look forward to trying it one day; I can totally see how it ought to make things much better.

 

[gamer19]

16:10, i have a 1440x900@hz monitor, as i have the wheel close to it, it's pretty comfortable and immersive in a dark room, especially Le Mans races at night !

1440x900 is monitor resolution, not refresh rate

so.... we still waiting how many Hz does your monitor actually have

 

[RasmusP]

For me, G-sync was the real game changer. I can't play without it anymore. Even 150 fps on a 165 Hz monitor doesn't look half as smooth as G-sync at any framerate above 80.

Yeah my 21:9 is 100 Hz (120 Hz) 3440x1440 with genuine gsync module inside.
It's phenomenal, but in all games, every few seconds, there's a tiny tiny microstutter that isn't there with vsync.
But I won't use vsync due to the input lag (I activate it, but keep the fps limited below the Hz).

At 165+ Hz, 80 fps looks very close to 80 fps + gsync for me. It's not exactly the same, but close enough.
My two 24" 1080p monitors have 165 Hz and I play some games like Gothic 2 on the bottom one of the two.

It's very important to disable fullscreen optimizations in the properties of the game exe though. Otherwise you'll get the Desktop Window Manager (dwn) applying its triple buffered vsync in many cases.
I didn't know that for a long time and there are soooo many misunderstandings on the Internet because of this.
One goes like "if you have 60 Hz, limit your fps at 60 and disable vsync"
And one reply will be "I get terrible tearing that way, how the heck are you enjoying this?"
Next reply: "tearing? There's no tearing!".

And both are right... The confusing thing is that DWM's triple buffered vsync won't limit the fps at your monitor's Hz.
So you're seeing 200 fps at 60 Hz, but you get no tearing and only a bit of input lag.

If you're running 80 fps at 165 Hz without gsync, without vsync, but didn't disable the fullscreen optimizations, you light get unevenly paced frames due to the dwm vsync.
Disable the fullscreen optimazions and you'll see some very very mild tearing every now and then, like a slightly flickering leaf etc.
But it will be smoother than with the dwm vsync interfering.

If you're wondering how I analysed this:
Not a great photo.. Both monitors extend vertically. It's just full width with black background image.

My two 24" monitors. ACC in borderless, which works fine with gsync (the window gets pushed above the visible area of your monitor, so in my case onto my upper monitor, lol).
Then dragged the window upwards so I could see part of the tree lines on both monitors.
Bottom one has gsync active, top one has 165 Hz with no sync at all, no dwm nothing.

I watched this for 5 laps and apart from some very mild tearing every now and then, I noticed nothing

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Yeah my 21:9 is 100 Hz (120 Hz) 3440x1440 with genuine gsync module inside.
It's phenomenal, but in all games, every few seconds, there's a tiny tiny microstutter that isn't there with vsync.

For me it happens if fps go over refresh rate. Typically it is recommended to have VSync enabled with GSync in driver and off in game, this way it acts more like fps limiter, or just have VSync off altogether and have fps limiter at 3-5 fps below refresh rate.
Some games like R3E do not recognize that VSync limiter and require explicit cap on fps.
But you have been around long enough to know all these tricks, may be it's something else like what Samsung had in G9 when they had to add that VRR control in monitor settings that smoothes thing with DSC but causing microstutter at no DSC 120hz mode.

 

[RasmusP]

Yeah it's a bit weird.. But all 3 monitors have the same very tiny microstutter. 1x genuine gsync module, 2x gsync compatible certified.
It's not bad, I use gsync all the time as you say: gsync+vsync+limiter.
But when I disable all limiters and let the fps sit in the vsync with the nice and massive input lag that comes with it, the tiny microstutters are completely gone and it's 101% silky smooth.

And although I love gsync and there aren't many 21:9 (or similar) monitors with 165 Hz or more, it's a lot less annoying to play on my 165 Hz monitor without any sync.
With gsync, it either disengages, when the game becomes "borderless" due to the volume overlay, a pop-up etc.
Or it disengages, when you alt-tab out and go back in, because the game isn't in true fullscreen anymore without pressing alt+enter etc.

Or you set gsync to be also active for windowed applications, then you start the fun adventure of having spotify, content manager, office etc. to trigger gsync but at 0-10 fps, meaning your mouse cursor will stutter like crazy and all that fun.

So I'm having gsync active for windowed applications and quite a long list in the nvidia control panel with apps set to "Monitor Technology" -> "Fixed Refresh".

WHY is there no setting to disable gsync globally and activate it for specific applications?
I have more profiles to disable it, than applications where I actually use it...

Anyway:
About games not behaving like they should:
There's also a little crux that I can't find a real explanation on, but it's mentioned by blur busters:
When using gsync without vsync, you might get single frames being ready within a shorter time than the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.
Like 100 Hz = 10 ms per frame, you have between 50-80 fps (20 ms to 12.5 ms) and everything is fine. But then one of the frames is ready to be displayed within 8 ms. In this case, you'll get tearing for a single frame.
Vsync holds back that frame until the 10 ms are over and only then displays that frame.

My question: Does a limiter restrict this to happen too? I guess it depends on how the limiter is limiting.
If you restrict the CPU from starting the next frame before 10 ms have past, then it seems impossible to get a frame ready in a shorter period of time.
But if frame 1 takes 15 ms to be done and the next frame starts after 10 ms, but only takes 12 ms to be done, then the second frame is ready after only 8 ms have past.

That's why in-game limiters often show such varying frame times. They often restrict the next frame to start.

So it's all quite a mess

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Interesting, I also have Low latency On, may be that helps as well but I have not experienced any of that microstutters, except that wrong DSC/VRR control combo.

 

[jgf]

but if I was a developer, I would not take a chunk out of my potential market.

They do it all the time, in the name of "progress" or "this is the wave of the future".

Many people deplore the marketing paradigm of Steam and will not purchse from them, but Steam prospers without them. A mandatory "phone home" requirement is heinous and unacceptable to many, but more and more software comes with it.

 

[mcroshaw]

While I do love the immersive qualities that VR offers, I also get tired of having the HMD strapped to my head and having compromised visual quality. I also have some vision issues that make using VR more challenging without custom lenses. So, VR is reserved for very special occasions when I want maximum immersion but, willing to accept some trade-offs.

The rest of the time, I rely on triple 32" curved monitors running at 120Hz (2k res) for both work and play. The extra screen space is great for working in various programs, and the clarity and smoothness makes playing any game on curved monitors more immersive than my old flat panels.

I've yet to address the bezel issue but, am finding they are not as bothersome as I had anticipated. Overall, my current monitors are working out really well. I feel blessed to have the option to use VR on occasion, and the mix of the two allows me to appreciate both viewing options for their own unique I qualities.

I don't feel I'm getting compromised visual quality. But that is with a Pimax Crystal and 4090, which basically means I'm getting close to 4k beamed into my eyeballs. It can get uncomfortable in the summer though, so I hope tech like Big Screen Beyond keeps improving.

 

[BigDukeSixx]

On which format are you racing your sims?

Quest 3 all the way. The immersion is incredible.