SharpeXB

Sure but looking at the GPU temp can be as well. Not just the system wattage but the actual hot air blowing from the case was a thing. Actually that 85c was within the normal range but still… I don’t think the 4090 gets above 50c. Those Titans were the hottest cards I’ve had.

I did actually test the OPs benchmark miz and had no trouble with it. I’m not denying there’s a problem somewhere just that I couldn’t replicate it.

Last I had SLI it was with two Pascal series Titans. They spewed out 85c air and indeed could heat up the room. The 4090 I have is actually quite cool.

Aha! I guess I missed that one. Updating now. Thanks

Will these work with G HUB? Maybe there’s a way to invert it there.

It’s September now

Log attached dcs.log-20240918-232129.zip

And that’s all I have to say, I’m out! This has been discussed enough already

Actually not

Which is too bad because I can still see room for improvement. I’m sitting 48” away from the 48” 4K screen and I can still perceive jaggies using 4xAA. Flight sims are full of straight lines like runways, markings wings and so on that really reveal this stuff. Now an 8K TV itself just seems ridiculous because I don’t know where you’d get a video source for one. Will discs make a comeback? But for sharp computer graphics on an up close screen I ponder what the “retina” limit would be for such a large screen. I think Apple figured on 5K for a 27” iMac Of course it would need to be fed by an RTX9090 graphics card. Agree. Otherwise I can’t see how to improve on such a display. Except make it 8K

And this is how players have been crippled at their spotting ability in DCS because they’re conditioned to think distant aircraft are 2-3x the size they should be.

Right but depending on your preference it still takes a huge ultrawide to give you the same screen height as a 16:9. If the height is your goal then 16:9 is preferable. Also for a given cost 16:9 is probably going to give you a taller screen. I can’t help but see it that way because again due to my age and eyesight the goal is “bigger”

Technically yes for the amount of space it takes up on your desk. It takes a very large ultrawide to equal the same screen height as a 16:9. Effectively the screen height is the “size” from my perspective. The way I see it a 45” ultrawide would take up the same real estate in my office but it’s shorter than the 48” 16:9. Hence the 16:9 is “bigger” to me.

Right. When I say “off” I mean the “off” in the game that reverts the setting back to the 2.8 version. On a 4K monitor those are just about invisible. Practically like no dots at all.

Yeah that’s why I decided against an ultrawide and went with a bigger 16:9. My goal of alleviating eye strain was to have a bigger screen farther away. In that sense an ultrawide isn’t really “bigger” it’s just wider.

Curious why that would be. A typical headset has the same 2000x4000 resolution as a 4K monitor. You can easily see other aircraft on that without using dots Right. I don’t imagine light colored dots appear against dark backgrounds like the water. Rather a shortcoming for that feature.

They don’t take into account so much current technology. But again they’re also the wrong guidelines for a simpit.

Not only are those standards outdated but the office cubicle itself is now a bygone era. Probably half of office workers are at home enjoying all the benefits technology can provide like giant screens and comfy chairs.

Me neither! And I’m not going back to the office unless they give me a 48” screen (they won’t). So I’ll just work from a home cockpit.

How is the bottom edge “nowhere near” the level of your knees? That’s doesn’t compute. Just eyeball the distance from the figures eyebrow to the lap. Close enough. I just cropped it to save space. That wasn’t intentional. All the diagrams are similar enough, I don’t see how that label makes any difference to what I’m pointing out. Some of us are emulating a cockpit here not just using a computer. People have sticks, HOTAS controls, panels, rudder pedals. When you use controls similar to an airplane you start needing the ergonomics of a cockpit, not a computer station. I use mine for sim racing too, there you really need cockpit style ergonomics. If not you really will hurt yourself. Here’s another one with a reference. Enjoy. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=120357

For an office workstation, not a cockpit. And not using the type of large screen that can be very common today. Here’s the standard that’s more relevant for a simpit

Not the distance to your knees in the standing position, when you’re seated. The height of my 48” screen is 24”. That’s the measurement from my lap to my eyebrow. That’s what I’m sketching on those diagrams. Looks pretty odd.

As much as I can figure without drafting it all out that’s about the height of my screen. It’s the distance from my lap to just above the eye. Does that look like what the standard had in mind? Are there standards for sitting in front of a 48” screen? If you place the large screen per the diagram it would end up like this. Doesn’t that seem odd? Are my eyes going to be damaged by looking above the horizontal? Will I hurt myself sitting the same way as in my car?

Without the restriction of bifocals (and a screen that’s probably too close) your eyes can easily look at the top of the screen. Sure. Here’s my opinion of what a 48” screen looks like in that diagram. Not quite what the standards had in mind I suppose.