34" Extra wide 1440 or 4K?

[EmJay22]

11 hours ago, LucShep said:

No problem, glad if it helps. 

If you want something between the 32'' and 42'' size, well, then you might be in luck!

ASUS recently revelead the world's first 38'' 4K high-refresh gaming monitor, the ASUS ROG Swift PG38UQ.  And it's available (at 1000$).
It's a 38'' size, 16/9 format, 3840x2160 144Hz VRR display gaming monitor, with IPS panel. It seems to be also RGB sub-pixel layout (so, perfect text clarity).
A bit expensive, but looks like it checks all the right boxes.  

• Newegg:  https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824281268
   
• Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Swift-Gaming-Monitor-PG38UQ/dp/B0BZR81SQG/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=PG38UQ&qid=1702762828&sr=8-3

I didn't even knew about this one.
Heck, this might become now one of the most recommended monitors for DCS folks.

 

Oh heck yes!!  Another remote control to lose!!

I think it will be perfect.  And it should arrive tomorrow! 

 

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, EmJay22 said:

Oh heck yes!!  Another remote control to lose!!

I think it will be perfect.  And it should arrive tomorrow! 

 

Cool, let us know how you like it!

[rob s]

Sorry if it's off topic but why not the lg 45 3440x1440 curved oled monitor that doesn't requierea monstrous GPU ?

[EmJay22]

It arrived last night.. woo hoo...

 

Initial thoughts...

 

When the box arrived I thought maybe it was going to be too big, but after opening it and setting it up, it is as expected based on the dimensions. 

 

Upgrading to this size display and resolution is what I would classify as "game changer" and I would say it is similar to the change made when a user switches to TrackIR

 

The change in details in the cockpit instruments and HUD is really huge. For me, I think it is going to make finding different dials, switches, indicators, etc.. a lot easier. I am still new to DCS.

 

Clearly, bigger is better DOES matter with DCS.  But if you don't have room for a really big monitor, this size is a nice upgrade from a 27" 2k monitor. Basically a 50% increase in "pixel real estate", keeping the same high resolution.

 

If your GPU can drive it, I would recommend it if the $1000 price tag, which I agree is high, is something you can afford. I would assume that other display manufacturers will probably follow suit.

 

Going with a flat screen is something that I thought might be an issue, though I have never tried a curved one for anything.  And with the use of TrackIR, you are basically focused on the middle anyway. There is a need, at least for myself, to increase the distance to the screen. This is something I can do with my setup, probably moving back  about a foot. I am still playing around with this. 

 

So far I have not changed the graphics settings from the "medium" I had them at with the 27" screen and have yet to notice any problems. I have not turned on overlays to see what the actual frame rates are because what matters to me is how I perceive the play.

[Hiob]

 Have fun with it!

Unfortunately, monitor size is like horsepower in a car. Initially an upgrade makes you go "whoohoo", but you get used to it pretty fast and then the need for "moare" kicks right back in. 

[EmJay22]

35 minutes ago, Hiob said:

 Have fun with it!

Unfortunately, monitor size is like horsepower in a car. Initially an upgrade makes you go "whoohoo", but you get used to it pretty fast and then the need for "moare" kicks right back in. 

I can assure you my spouse won't allow that...

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, EmJay22 said:

I can assure you my spouse won't allow that...

My wife thought my 48” screen was crazy but now the trouble is she keeps using my PC while her tiny laptop gathers dust.
The home office of the future! (today)

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

Congrats @EmJay22  Enjoy the new bigger screen.
Beyond the great specs, that P38UQ seems to be really top stuff from what I gather in user feedback.

The "size impact" is perfectly normal within the first week or two of use. After all, from older to new screen you did jump 11 inches in screen size. 
Giving it a little more distance will help initially, but you quicky get used to it, you'll see.  

The thing I'm curious about is the 4K resolution clarity.
My 43'' Toshiba had it already very good at 103PPI (far better than the current 50'' Philips, but it's the price to pay for bigger screen at same native resolution).
But that thing, at 38'' with 116PPI, that must be insanely clear at native resolution (3840x2160), given the considerable large size for a monitor screen.
 

3 hours ago, Hiob said:

 Have fun with it!

Unfortunately, monitor size is like horsepower in a car. Initially an upgrade makes you go "whoohoo", but you get used to it pretty fast and then the need for "moare" kicks right back in. 

Oh yes, that's very true!!

[EmJay22]

19 hours ago, LucShep said:

The thing I'm curious about is the 4K resolution clarity.
My 43'' Toshiba had it already very good at 103PPI (far better than the current 50'' Philips, but it's the price to pay for bigger screen at same native resolution).
But that thing, at 38'' with 116PPI, that must be insanely clear at native resolution (3840x2160), given the considerable large size for a monitor screen.
 

The 4K resolution is very clear and is amazing to me.

Water looks really good.

I have not even had time to play with any of the monitor settings regarding Free Sync, etc nor for the video card.

[SharpeXB]

4K in flight sims is fantastic. You can read every tiny instrument and see all the ground detail and identify aircraft by even reading their markings. 
What’s amazing in the world of video is 4K is a universal standard for TVs movies, console games etc. PC gaming is the only media that hangs onto lower resolution anymore. It’s funny to mention 4K as if it’s “new” when it’s been around for over 10 years everywhere but in PC gaming. 

[kksnowbear]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

4K in flight sims is fantastic. You can read every tiny instrument and see all the ground detail and identify aircraft by even reading their markings. 
What’s amazing in the world of video is 4K is a universal standard for TVs movies, console games etc. PC gaming is the only media that hangs onto lower resolution anymore. It’s funny to mention 4K as if it’s “new” when it’s been around for over 10 years everywhere but in PC gaming. 

There's a perfectly legitimate reason that "PC gaming is the only media that hangs onto lower resolution", and there's nothing really all that amazing about why it's that way.

It's simple: Cost.

It's (comparatively) easy to display 4k when all you're doing is basically 'playing back' what's being delivered...but that's not at all what computers have to do.  The gaming PC must read the 'raw' data from a storage media, move it through the system, calculate tons of results from millions of variables, render the graphical components, add post-processing effects, and so on...

A 4k TV doesn't have to do any of that.  (Consoles can do it, but are often constrained in ways that don't apply to PCs, else they couldn't do it either).

One of my favorite online articles (video) is from about 5 years ago, entitled 4K Gaming Is Dumb (see below).  4K has grown in popularity, certainly - as have other resolutions like 1440p.  However, last I checked - and I think this is still accurate - 1080p was, far and away, more common than any other resolution for gaming (at the time, more so than all others combined).

I build a fair number of machines every year, almost all of them for gamers.  And there are almost none who want 4k systems.  In fact, a lot of them actually don't want anything higher than 1080p because of the performance hit it will involve, unless/until they throw cash at it - which they don't want to do, because it basically doesn't improve their scores on some stupid leaderboard or whatever.

In my shop I have three 4k monitors, a handful of 1080p units, and a couple ultrawides (my own is a G9 32:9 1440).  I understand the difference in quality, and there's no doubt it's a stunning difference.  OLED displays are even more remarkable (I don't own one of those yet)...but therein lies the rub:  Cost.  Cost, cost, cost.  Everyone I have visit my shop and sees the 4k monitor in action will agree it's beautiful.  But almost no one is keen on the cost of the monitor plus the machine it takes to get good performance from the monitor.  Most will go for 1080p to get (much) higher frame rates, and only recently is there some interest in 1440p, in ~10% of the clients.

The thing is, you have to consider the additional cost of the monitor, but (for more significantly) the cost of the hardware that can drive that sort of resolution and still offer decent performance.  It's only been in the past few years we've seen GPUs that are actually capable of delivering 4k at reasonable performance - and, during this exact same period, everyone knows what's happened to the price of these higher-end GPUs.  The combined impact on overall cost can more than double the cost of a system, easily adding more than $1000 to a setup that's already over $1000 to begin with.

Not everyone can afford that.  In fact, based on builds I've done for gamers over at least the past 10 years, I'd have no reservation at all saying that the vast majority is not interested in - and cannot afford - the added cost.

In many ways, that video still applies:

It's easy to show all that

Edited December 20, 2023 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, kksnowbear said:

There's a perfectly legitimate reason that "PC gaming is the only media that hangs onto lower resolution", and there's nothing really all that amazing about why it's that way.

It's simple: Cost.

Sure. 4K gaming is a bit more expensive but it’s very nice. I’ve been using 4K since 2016 so discussing it like it’s new is rather funny. 
Honestly though if I had to choose between Ultra graphics settings, a good 60 fps minimum and 2160p resolution, the resolution would be the last priority. 
But of course you can actually have all three these days. DCS is not very GPU hungry compared to some other games either. 

[kksnowbear]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure. 4K gaming is a bit more expensive but it’s very nice. I’ve been using 4K since 2016 so discussing it like it’s new is rather funny. 
Honestly though if I had to choose between Ultra graphics settings, a good 60 fps minimum and 2160p resolution, the resolution would be the last priority. 
But of course you can actually have all three these days. DCS is not very GPU hungry compared to some other games either. 

Right...but you're clearly among those fortunate enough to be able to afford 4k gaming (and 4k in general for years now).  Again, that's just not the majority - which is why there's nothing remarkable at all about why PC gaming isn't "there yet" in the majority.

And, TBH, most people don't consider it just a "bit more" when cost is doubled, increasing cost by $1000 or more.

"Very nice" doesn't really enter into it when you just cannot afford it. And, at least in my experience, that's the majority of gamers.

You're blessed (me too) and good for us!  But if you wonder why not everyone has the same setup...well, cost.  Same as for cars, houses etc etc. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

In many ways, that video still applies:

PS Linus is a total dummy when he says you can’t see the difference or he needs an eye exam. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

PS Linus is a total dummy when he says you can’t see the difference or he needs an eye exam. 

 

Admittedly I've not watched the whole thing through in a long time...

...but does he actually say that?

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Admittedly I've not watched the whole thing through in a long time...

...but does he actually say that?

Yeah sorta and then he tries to correct himself. Like a typical egghead he goes into a bunch of math about pixels instead of just looking at the screen. My first 4K monitor was 27” and the difference was completely obvious. Apple figured on 5K for a screen that size in order to minimize seeing pixels. He has a bunch of testers who probably need their eyes checked too. The point of these videos is to get people to click on them for entertainment, not necessarily to give out good advice.

Does 4K look really nice? Yes. You don’t need a YouTuber to tell you that.

[kksnowbear]

Yes, but he doesn't actually say you can't see the difference...least I don't think so.

But more importantly, if that's what you're taking from the video then you clearly don't understand the point he's making.  It's not that he's not "just looking at the screen"...he does that, but the video goes into much more detail.

Yes, anyone can look at the screen and say 4k is impressive - I've already acknowledged it, and no one's questioning that.  I own several; they're nice.

But at the end of the day I've built quite a few gaming machines in the past few years, and not one - exactly zero - has been for gaming at 4k.  In fact, of all the ones I've worked on (including at least a few that were for DCS players from this very forum) only one was actually even 1440 (not counting my own, which is currently 5120x1440).

By saying 'typical egghead' I infer you mean that he's attempting to make a more empirical, more organized approach to data collection and measurement, in order to quantify the basis for a conclusion.

This is in contrast to typical fanboy, bragging rights type of anecdotal conclusion like "It looks very nice" without any real substantiation.  Don't let all the facts and figures tell you anything...just look at the screen lol

And anyone who doesn't agree obviously needs their eyes checked.

He's making an extensive effort to take the subjective nature out of his analysis, and to be honest, as an industry professional of over 40 years, I think he does a fairly good job with it.  It isn't just entertaining, it's informative.

You're not fond of the conclusion because it doesn't agree with your own perspective - which is perfectly understandable.  (Funny, every time I bring this up with someone who dropped a ton on a 4k setup, they don't like it very much either......lol).

Earlier you made the comment "PC gaming is the only media that hangs onto lower resolution anymore. It’s funny to mention 4K as if it’s “new” when it’s been around for over 10 years everywhere but in PC gaming"

I'm simply trying to illustrate there are reasons for it being the way it is - perfectly legitimate, valid reasons.  It's not incidental or accidental; factually, it is the way it is for good reason:

As nice as it may look, the overwhelming majority of gamers do not prefer 4k gaming, and/or cannot afford the costs.

It was true then...and it's still true now.

In other words, they're not choosing to "hang onto lower resolution" because they can't see that 4k is impressive.  They're making a choice to 'hang on' to their cash because it's not worth the difference in cost to them.

It's just another perspective.  You know, the kind of thing discussion forums are (supposedly) about.  You spent your money the way you wanted, and so did I.

All good.

(EDIT: It's worth mentioning here that the video is some 5 years old, and factually some things have changed which do alter the conclusion: Mostly, that higher-refresh 4k monitors are widely available now, where part of the problems illustrated in the video revolved around the fact that - at the time - 4k monitors were still almost entirely 60Hz.  And gamers tend to prefer higher refresh rates over higher resolution.  This doesn't change the cost considerations, but it is a more recent difference than what the video examines)

Edited December 21, 2023 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Yes, but he doesn't actually say you can't see the difference...least I don't think so.

He sorta admits later you can see the difference (his testers can) and then goes on about how high refresh rate is better, which is just a matter of opinion and really depends on the game. In a flight sim I’d go for the resolution. Maybe an FPS game would prefer the rate. The idea you wouldn’t see the difference is baloney. They’re looking at 24” monitors too the other whole point about 4K is it makes bigger screens look better. Again better for flight sims. 
Again his videos are made to be entertaining click bait and if there’s any good info there it’s buried by his annoying persona. It’s hard to actually watch the whole thing. Not going to get too many hits on a title like “4K Gaming is Great If You Can Afford It”

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

But at the end of the day I've built quite a few gaming machines in the past few years, and not one - exactly zero - has been for gaming at 4k

 I don’t doubt that. The Steam Hardware survey shows 4% using 2160x3840. And 60% using 1080p. The reasons for this are logical but again the end result is that PC gaming is sorta mired in a resolution that was all “hey wow” 16 years ago. In this game I would suspect that number is much higher. Funny if you look at Apple their iMacs sport 4.K screens now even for the 24” size. No doubt 1080p is the majority for Windows machines since they’re used by businesses too and some average users have not much good use for more. But for any sort of image work, photos etc. the high res is vastly more appealing. The majority of Console gaming is almost certainly in 4K, half of all households in the US have a 4K TV, you can buy one for less than the console itself.
I use my 48” screen for my home office work too and when I go back in to the actual off I’m struck by how awful and tiny the screens are. It makes me want to stay home
 

Edited December 21, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Homelander]

Am 16.12.2023 um 22:46 schrieb LucShep:

No problem, glad if it helps. 

If you want something between the 32'' and 42'' size, well, then you might be in luck!

ASUS recently revelead the world's first 38'' 4K high-refresh gaming monitor, the ASUS ROG Swift PG38UQ.  And it's available (at 1000$).
It's a 38'' size, 16/9 format, 3840x2160 144Hz VRR display gaming monitor, with IPS panel. It seems to be also RGB sub-pixel layout (so, perfect text clarity).
A bit expensive, but looks like it checks all the right boxes.  

• Newegg:  https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824281268
   
• Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Swift-Gaming-Monitor-PG38UQ/dp/B0BZR81SQG/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=PG38UQ&qid=1702762828&sr=8-3

I didn't even knew about this one.
Heck, this might become now one of the most recommended monitors for DCS folks.

 

I have owned the ASUS ROG Swift PG38UQ for four months and am still very happy with the monitor. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Homelander

[firefox121]

2 hours ago, Homelander said:

I have owned the ASUS ROG Swift PG38UQ for four months and am still very happy with the monitor. 

 

I own a  MSIOptix MAG321Curv 4kUHD (3840x2160) and I am Impressed how dcs is shown, the only problem I had was that my gtx 2080ti had not enough power to run at 4k resolution, so I was forced to buy two years ago, the 3080 ti to run DCS at 4k resolution, till now I am impresed with the performance playing flat, and happy enough to run VR with my rebervb g2.

4k monitor at least with 32" is a game changer in terms of visuals, even I discovered that the recycle bin icon is transparent (lol). Personally I don't recommend a ultra WQHD monitor,  the 1440 resolution is not better, even with a high diameter (usually 34') , it allows you to run apps like two 24' or 27' monitors. but if you are not a graphic designer the 4k res is much much more beautiful.

Playing DCS at 4k resolution, at least for me, allows me not to use the msaa x2 or x4 and still have straight lines. Also try to find the highest refresh rate than you can afford, of course, but at my 60hz monitor can play  flat mode at 120 even 160 fps without tearing at full graphics configuration.

Sorry for my english , I am not native speaker, hope it helps you.