kksnowbear

I'm glad at least someone sees that there is a clear distinction between the standards and personal preference (for whatever reason). BTW if you look above in this thread, I did specifically discuss the "down view" desks. And guess what? These are still being made and sold today. I might argue the point about SA, though. Even the biggest of screens doesn't actually come close to 'reality' in terms of overall SA. Anyone who's ever actually flown a real plane (as I have) can absolutely attest to that. Many of the planes featured in combat sims have bubble canopies in real life, with practically unrestricted vision in the entire upper hemisphere of a pilot's perspective. You're not gonna duplicate that with a single large screen or even multiple monitors/ultrawides. (And that's coming from someone who had a 100" retractable electric HD screen at one point. Just gonna wait to be asked about how high it was mounted lol) Having a bigger screen is more immersive, but it's still limited in terms of SA. What we (typically) do to compensate for this is head tracking. You can move your head a little and see a much greater 'arc' than your head turned. Among other things, this is precisely because of the screen "viewport" area being (much) smaller than reality - even if you have a larger monitor. With head tracking, I can darn well 'see' up, down and all around, with fairly small head movements. I don't need an actual screen that's big as a wall to *see* what's in that space in the sim. And that's something which, as I said, many of us do (and for the same reason). Even those with huge monitors. Why? Because it works just as I'm describing, that's why. People who have even gigantic monitors still cannot 'see' anything outside the area their monitor shows without moving their head. If I have the same resolution display and game view settings as they do, I can set things up to see the same stuff they can, even if my monitor's nowhere near as big - and regardless of the height of my monitor. Is a bigger screen more immersive? Sure. But is it necessary? Nope. The head tracking compensates (at least in large measure). (And before anyone goes off on it, I fully understand that movement tracking is the biggest reason head tracking is such a "game changer"). But it's still absolutely true to say that it works as well as it does because it's non-linear. Anyone play at 1:1 head movement/'real world' view displacement? Nope. And they wouldn't, because the tracking mechanism (as it is now) will lose the sensors - and they'd lose the ability to 'turn a little, see a lot'. Hopefully that addresses the SA aspect of it. I measured the top of my G9 earlier. It's right at my eye line while I'm sitting, at about 21" off the desktop, and the bottom sits about 7" off my desktop. That means I could *easily* have a monitor 24" on the vertical, with my eye line just below the top of the monitor, and not have to tilt my head back to see clearly (and for the record, still well above my knees). I'm not disadvantaged as far as SA goes, because (given the same head tracking sensitivity) my view changes as much as others' does. If I set my centering properly, I can see as far up as they can without tilting my head (assuming I had a 16:9 monitor, though I don't ATM). I could also easily wall mount an even bigger monitor, gain desktop space, and still be consistent with the standards. As I said above, that's essentially what I plan to do, just time and laziness that I haven't already done it. And, to be perfectly clear: I'm actually considering a 55" 16:9 monitor to replace the G9. I'm interested in the extra vertical view, but (and here's the key) it *still* needs to be mounted closer to the standards of having my eye line nearer the top, rather than in the middle of the screen. And yes, it's entirely possible, *with* the desk (and *more* space on it). To be accurate, I could go to a 55" 16:9 and only then would the bottom edge of the monitor be anywhere near my knees lol...the Samsung 55" Ark measures 27.7 on the vertical, which is right at eyes-to-knees when I'm sitting at my PC normally. I'd be no worse off from a gaming/SA standpoint because of head tracking/compensation, and I'd still be better off from a physical standpoint. Something else that's being repeatedly ignored here is the point I made about people who wear multifocal lenses. This is a well-known factor in the monitor height standards, and (of course) there are variants of the standards that deal with it specifically. As it happens *I* wear multifocal lenses. And if I were to line the center of a large screen up with my eye line, you know what I'd see if I look up *without* tilting my head? Nothing. Well, OK, a big bright blob without much detail. Certainly not the 'hun in the sun', that's my point. See, as I already described (for anyone who bothered reading instead of just posting stupid argument): When someone wears multifocal lenses, they have to look *down* to have clear vision of an object that's within a short distance of their eyes (i.e., a monitor). That's just the way things work as we age (presbyopia...it's quite real, and effects pretty much *everyone* - not just those who had glasses their whole lives). Short range vision goes to hell because your eye lens gets more rigid and can't flex to focus as well. There is a reason for age limits on military pilots (with a very few and exceptionally rare special cases). I'd even go a step further and say that, considering the costs involved, there are probably more people pursuing high-end flight sims who also wear multifocal lenses than those who do not. I can tell you from first hand experience that while the computers I've built over the years were for people of a range of ages, the vast majority of the expensive units were for people over 50, and who also wore some type of multifocal lenses. But, as I've said many times: None of this changes what the standards are. Laws are still laws, doesn't matter who obeys or breaks them. (And before anyone goes there, I am NOT saying the standards are laws). PS: I think/hope perhaps you're joking, but if not: No, I don' t think the PC in the picture was put there just for the picture. Plenty of people have RGB lighting, yet still wanna put a PC in the floor simply because that's where there's space (rather than create space in the interest of best practices, as I indicated). I, of course, advise against it, but 'you can lead a horse to water'. Some of my more wise customers have actually invested in bigger desks or small side tables, or even built platforms - because they're smarter than throwing money at a computer just to abuse it by leaving it in the floor.

Bottom line: The standards are still what they are, regardless of how any of us mounts a monitor. It would further appear that the body of actual experts disagree with your opinion. And in spite of multiple offers for you to present the references that back up your opinions, you've failed to do so. So I think we're done here

His screens are all down toward his knees...something you said was stupid. So you tell 'em. BTW I'm sure this comes as a shock to you, but flying a real airplane is not the same thing as a computer sim. You ever fly a plane? I have, more than once. And I probably have more time on real USN simulators than some people do flying DCS.

Incidentally the standards I'm aware of aren't based on type or size of display, whether gaming or not, or immersion etc. They're based on physiology of the human body. And that doesn't change just because you spent more on a bigger monitor. So unless all the beings you're thinking of don't actually have human bodies...well... Not up to you. Still doesn't change what the standards are. Got those references yet? Nope.

Your opinion. Nothing else. As I said before, not up to you, sport.

LMAO BTW...as far as that picture goes, I can assure you as a 40+ year maintenance professional, that the person has put the machine in perhaps the worst location possible (the floor). No, I absolutely would not recommend this as an example of good installation. As usual, it would appear you confuse buying a lot of pretty and/or expensive hardware with actually understanding "best practices". (And, of course, you still have no reference that distinguishes types/uses of monitors as it applies to placement.) So there's that.

As I already said, I am not aware of any authoritative source that distinguishes between types of monitor or use. And I've repeatedly invited any references, as well as stated I'd welcome the enlightenment. Nothing. I personally believe that's because there's no such thing, but again, by all means: Present your references. As far as your picture goes, that guy and anyone else is perfectly free to set his monitors up any way he wants. As are you, as am I - a point I've acknowledged consistently. But none of that changes the standards. If he/you/I choose to deviate from the standards for our own purposes...it doesn't change the standards. It's like a 1000 cars on a road. All are different makes/models, colors, years, different tires, gas brands/octanes...etc so forth and do on... The speed limit is still what is posted. The standards are what the standards are. You'd have to be stupid to think I don't understand the limitations that big monitors present, particularly since I already said I have a 49" curved G9. They ain't small. But it doesn't change the standard. If you/he/I elect to deviate (and how much), that's a matter of personal preference. The standards still are what they are. Unless, of course, you have some authoritative reference that says otherwise. By all means.

Yup, but I ain't asking you - and neither did the actual experts who created the standards. It's just not up to you, period. Phrases like "If you ask me" and "I doubt..." indicate you are expressing your opinion, which is fine - but you're trying to insist it's treated as fact, which it's just not. It's your own opinion, nothing more. I'm referring to standards that lots and lots of people are aware of, that are published by experts and widely accepted industry best practices, and available all over the internet. And when you were given repeated chances to show the data, facts and standards that support your opinions? Nothing. Because there aren't any.

I still didn't make the stupid comment. Stop putting words in my mouth. Regardless of knees (which no one but you said anything about), that doesn't (in any way) change the fact that the best practice is top of the monitor at or slightly above eye level. You're trying awfully hard to make it complicated but it's just not. It doesn't matter what you did with your desk and monitor. it doesn't matter what you think nobody's gonna do. It doesn't matter how high a desk or table is. The standards are the standards, period. You want all this other crap to change that, but it just doesn't. Unless you have the references you've been asked for repeatedly that show otherwise. No? Didn't think so.

Nope. Didn't say anything about knees. That stupid comment was not made by me. References?

It remains I never said it, so stop putting words in my mouth. References?

First of all, I didn't say anything stupid about knee height, that was all you. Stop putting words in my mouth. You don't control what everyone else does, so it's a complete, absolute and total lie to say "Nobody's" gonna do anything. If I wanna put my monitor on top of a skateboard hanging from the ceiling it's my call. Simply ain't up to you, sport. *Still* doesn't change the fact that the most widely endorsed standards for monitor placement indicate eye level should be at or near the top edge of the monitor. Speaking of widely endorsed standards...get those references that show otherwise yet? Naaah, I suppose not. Pretty sure they don't exist, after all.

Yeah, OLEDs ain't cheap as a rule. But I have seen/heard of some that seemed more reasonable. I guess it's more about timing and location. They are, however, visually very impressive IMHO. So the higher price is (at least somewhat) to be expected. Definitely the way to go to take your time, do the legwork, read reviews, watch sales.

"Easy" is not at issue. Straw man. It's not required, at all. In any way. And that makes the rest of your argument totally and completely irrelevant. It's obvious that you want the two things to be irretrievably attached, but they're just not, and that's the way it is. I have no hangup about desks. Personal attacks again? Debate the point, not the person. Whether putting your monitor on a desktop makes sense is absolutely a matter of personal choice. You seem to be unable to grasp that. No references at all, then? Great.

Again, nobody (but you) is trying to make it sound as if you can't have a desk. Straw man. Please stop. The point is that placing a monitor on a desk is in no way required, so your continued observations involving desktop heights just don't apply. At all. Period. If everyone was required to have a desk and required to have their monitor on the desk, maybe. But that's not the reality. If you choose to do it that way, that's your choice. But you're doing it to yourself, and no one else is bound by your choice. Wall mounting doesn't need to change the dimensions of the monitor. Only the placement of the monitor relative to eyes. You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that. Sorry but it's not that complicated, really. So...you have none of the references then? Perfect.

Sure is. But that doesn't change the fact that desktop monitor placement is not required - which is what I actually said. That's called "straw man" btw...nobody claimed you can't have a desk, so you're arguing a point no one else even mentioned. Nothing anywhere says you can't have a perfectly usable desk and still have a monitor mounted someplace else. In fact if you get the monitor off the desk, you'll get more desk space. (The companies I mentioned who sell monitor mounts, they understand that.) Desks and chair heights vary, as I said. Again, no law saying they have to be certain heights. So, I guess you don't have any references I asked about then? Okie dokie.

Yup. Great personal preference. Excellent for you! The intent of the design, though, is arguable at best. For one, they don't know and cannot control individual seat height. And even though there are typical desk heights, not all horizontal work surfaces are the same. I've used tables of many different heights. Lots of desks now are built for standing or even analogue height adjustment. Also, the length of the human torso varies. In boot camp, we had a guy who was very short standing up but close to everyone else sitting down because his torso wasn't proportional to his overall height. So that would also affect where a person's eyes are. I think it's probably much more likely the design simply settled on a number that is somewhere in the middle of all that. But - if it's the design intent - I'm sure your monitor came with documentation that addresses all this. Can you share that? Is there a download link? Desktop placement is not a requirement. Plenty of outfits selling monitor stands and wall mounts prove that. And it remains that the best height for a monitor is such that your natural gaze falls at or just below the top of the monitor, not in the middle. This is consistently repeated in all sorts of studies, and I'm unaware of any authoritative source that says anything to the contrary. That said, as I mentioned above, I would welcome the enlightenment if someone can present some reference that cites other specifications.

Absolutely. Think outside the...desktop

Yes, but again, there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be on a desktop. If someone chooses to do that, fine - but that's due to personal preference, not because it's "impossible". It's not even really difficult - much less "impossible" - to have larger monitors at the (widely recognized) proper height. It only becomes "impossible" if one insists it has to be on a desktop - which is not a law anywhere that I know of. It's a self-imposed limitation. Nothing more.

Absolutely Of course, there are reasonable limits to anything...but insisting a desk has to be against a wall, or that a monitor has to sit on the desk, or you can't have the bottom of a monitor below desktop level...these are all just 'artificial and imaginary' limitations that have little or no basis in fact or reality. Not that I really subscribed to it (necessarily), but I can clearly remember when it was a thing to have a glass desktop, with the monitor beneath, so the user could look down through the desktop to the monitor. Supposedly ergonomic, though to be accurate I don't know if it panned out at all or what became if it. But it was definitely a thing. Seemed a little extreme to me TBH

Were the two software utilities installed/running since you got the system as well? Or did you install them after the fact? I take it your GPU is a Zotac model? (Firestorm) What does it indicate your GPU fans are actually doing? What does Armory Crate say about your other fan speeds? Have you set or changed the fans at all in Firestorm? The fans could be just set too high in that utility - I don't actually use it so hard to say but it should be fairly easy to find out how it's set up. The Zotac website might be a good place to start. Incidentally: Since this is a pre-built system, part of what you paid for is support. Should still be under warranty. You should contact the builder and let them earn what you paid them, particularly since it's been like that since delivery. They're obligated. If you don't get support from them, you paid for something you're not using.

To my knowledge, there is no authoritative source that distinguishes between the two use cases. The guidelines exist because of using a monitor for protracted periods, regardless of what type usage - again, to my knowledge. I trust you have a reference? I'd be thrilled to see that, and welcome the enlightenment. (PS: Also, while moving your head around might help with fatigue, etc, it still doesn't change the fact that people who wear multi-focal lenses have to look through the bottom of their glasses for objects in the near range. Forces the user to tilt their head back. Higher the monitor, worse it gets. This is also among the reasons your eyes should be at the top of the monitor or near. FWIW it's not at all impossible to mount even large monitors to help with this (within reasonable limits, of course), and still be able to use a desktop as well. In fact, it's precisely what I intend to do (as closely as possible). I already have the mounts, and my desk is away from the wall. Just time and laziness has kept me from doing it. I have a Samsung Odyssey G9 49" monitor, for reference)

Why not? It's not as absurd as it might sound TBH. And you get back some desk real estate. Plus you have more flexibility in mounting the monitor at a better position with respect to both TrackIR (if you use it) and also optimal display height (which is always with your gaze at or just below the top edge of the monitor - not the middle). It's also much better for anyone who wears eyeglasses with multi-focal lenses, since the reading/close range of such lenses is always at the bottom. Mounting the monitor higher forces you to tilt your head back more, which has long since been identified as a major cause of fatigue, soreness and long-term injury. For some reason I can't figure out, some people here have implied (if not insisted) the desk is of no use if it's not against a wall.

Not sure what the budget might be, but I do see a couple 32" 4k OLED monitors with (what appear to be) reasonable features at Amazon (US) in the $800-1000 range. https://www.amazon.com/MSI-MAG-321UP-QD-OLED-Adaptive-Synch/dp/B0D9HY3JH2?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-Compatible-Glare-Free-Warranty-LS32DG802SNXZA/dp/B0D1DSXW17?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER I didn't look very hard, though, and I can't really comment on how good they are...best bet with monitors in particular is study, study, study. Read reviews. Also at least here in the states, things will hopefully be a little cheaper in a couple months (holidays). It often pays to wait. Best o' luck

Yessir...that's up there. But I think what Hiob was saying (maybe; not to speak for him) was to consider 1440p OLED. The idea being (again, not to speak for others) to 'make up' for the bigger pictures with what is a decidedly superior image overall. Truth be told I don't research monitors a lot, but there are websites that can help.