1440p monitor size question

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

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 is at or slightly above eye level.

Not workable with a 48” screen. If you’ve never seen one, just cut out a piece of cardboard that’s 24”x 42” and set the top of it where you’re recommending. The bottom of the screen will be at your knee level. Pretty awkward if you ask me, I doubt anyone has their setup like that. 

[kksnowbear]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Pretty awkward if you ask me, I doubt anyone has their setup like that. 

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.

 

Edited September 16, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

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.

You’re talking about standards for computer workstations that use common size smallish monitors.

Lots of people with bigger screens are set up more like this. Are you telling us that the top of these screens should be at eye level?

 

 

[Beirut]

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re talking about standards for computer workstations that use common size smallish monitors.

Lots of people with bigger screens are set up more like this. Are you telling us that the top of these screens should be at eye level?

 

 

 

Can I come over to your house and play? My mom said it was okay.  

[kksnowbear]

41 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re talking about standards for computer workstations that use common size smallish monitors.

Lots of people with bigger screens are set up more like this. Are you telling us that the top of these screens should be at eye level?

 

 

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.

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Can I come over to your house and play? My mom said it was okay.  

I wish I could say that was mine but I just searched for an example of a big screen sim rig which showed the height clearly. 

22 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

As far as your picture goes, that guy and anyone else is perfectly free to set his monitors up any way he wants

Sim players are generally out to replicate “cockpits” even if they aren’t as elaborate as the example above. Sometimes that means having screens that emulate real world view properties, not computer workstations.

 

[kksnowbear]

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.

[SharpeXB]

33 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You'd have to be stupid to think I don't understand the limitations that big monitors present

And you’d have to be stupid to mount a 48” 16:9 screen the way you’re reccomending

[kksnowbear]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And you’d have to be stupid to mount a 48” 16:9 screen the way you’re reccomending

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

Edited September 16, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

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

 

Show me someone with a monitor mounted like that

[kksnowbear]

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...

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Show me someone with a monitor mounted like that

Not up to you.

Still doesn't change what the standards are.

Got those references yet? Nope.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, kksnowbear said:

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...

Someone should tell airplane designers that the windscreen should be down around the knees

Tell this guy is screen is too high!

Dude you just live in your own world and we’ll live in ours. 

[kksnowbear]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Someone should tell airplane designers that the windscreen should be down around the knees

Tell this guy is screen is too high!

Dude you just live in your own world and we’ll live in ours. 

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.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

14 hours ago, Beirut said:

My question is:  Staying at 1440p but going from 27" to 32". Is the picture still very good or will giant visible pixels reach out and slap me? 

I'm all about the eye candy. It must be very sweet.

Thank you. 

13 hours ago, Beirut said:

I saw some 32" 4K OLED screens, like the Odyssey G8. That's a whack o' cash. I'm willing to spend, but that might be out of my snack bracket. About $1600Cdn. with the tax.

That's a chunk.

Yes it is.  Go for the 32'' 1440P monitor.  

32'' 1440P monitor has the exact same PPI and Dot pitch as a 48'' 4K monitor, and a 24'' 1080P monitor.  
These are close to the limit of (so, still good) screen size that those respective resolutions, as native, should be used for a desktop monitor. 

For a 32'' screen, I think 1440P is the resolution that makes most sense because it still looks really good, and 1440P is so much easier to run than 4K.
Yes, 4K is sweet but then (IMHO) it only really makes sense on screens at 38'' or bigger (like the recent Asus PG38UQ), and it's way(!!) more demanding on GPU resources.

All this to say, you need not worry about image quality of 1440P resolution at 32''size.
What you should worry about is specs and panel type. There's a lot of overpriced crap out there.
 

For the panel type, I'd say to go for IPS, and not VA or TN.
Yes, there are great OLED monitors now but they're still too expensive, and are still susceptible to burn-in. (it's inherent to the tech, no way around it yet, regardless of built-in mitigations)

Price to performance, a good IPS panel is the better choice for DCS, because of the image clarity in motion (motion handling) only beaten by OLED (at much higher prices!).
This is very important especially if using head-tracking (TrackIR, etc), and for when you need to focus on something while you are maneuvering (like you would IRL).
You'll notice it, for example, in BFM, or over forests, or simply focusing on objects while in movement. It's in these frequent situations where a good IPS panel just feels so much more natural (no ghosting or motion-blur issues) when compared to VA or TN panels, which can not perform as good in that aspect.

If I'm allowed the suggestion...
I've tested and can recommend the Asus TUF VG32AQL1A, the LG 32GP850, the LG 32GP750 and the Gigabyte M32Q (these are G-Sync + FreeSync compatible).
These are great 32'' 1440P IPS monitors that are good also for flight-sims, and are very reasonably priced (250€ to 400€, depending on the shop, on region, and availability).

There may be other models similarly priced and worth a look, but I honestly don't know of any other (than these mentioned) really worthy at this price point.

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

His screens are all down toward his knees...something you said was stupid.

His windscreen

[kksnowbear]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

His windscreen

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  

 

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

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  

 

I’d like to see a picture of what you think a big screen simpit should look like…

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Yes it is.  Go for the 32'' 1440P monitor.  

32'' 1440P monitor has the exact same PPI and Dot pitch as a 48'' 4K monitor.  
Both are close to the limit of (so, still good) screen size that those resolutions, as native, should be used for a desktop monitor. 

For a 32'' screen, I think 1440P is the resolution that makes most sense because it still looks really good, and 1440P is so much easier to run than 4K.
Yes, 4K is sweet but then (IMHO) it only really makes sense on screens at 38'' or bigger (like the recent Asus PG38UQ), and it's way(!!) more demanding on GPU resources.

All this to say, you need not worry about image quality of 1440P resolution at 32''size.
What you should worry about is specs and panel type. There's a lot of overpriced crap out there.

For the panel type, I'd say to go for IPS, and not VA or TN.
Yes, there are great OLED monitors now but they're still too expensive, and are still susceptible to burn-in. (it's inherent to the tech, no way around it yet, regardless of built-in mitigations)

Price to performance, a good IPS panel is the better choice for DCS, because of the image clarity in motion (motion handling), only beaten by OLED (at much higher prices!).
This is very important especially if using head-tracking (TrackIR, etc), and for when you need to focus on something while you are maneuvering (like you would IRL).
You'll notice it, for example, in BFM, or over forests, or simply focusing on objects while in movement. It's in these frequent situations where a good IPS panel just feels so much more natural (no ghosting or motion-blur issues) when compared to VA or TN panels.

If I'm allowed the suggestion...
I've tested and can recommend the Asus TUF VG32AQL1A, the LG 32GP850, the LG 32GP750 and the Gigabyte M32Q (these are G-Sync + FreeSync compatible).
These are 32'' 1440P IPS monitors that are good also for flight-sims, and are very reasonably priced (250€ to 400€, depending on the shop, on region, and availability).

There may be other models similarly priced and worth a look, but I honestly don't know of any other (than these mentioned) really worthy at this price point.

 

 

Thanks for that.

 

I have the LG 27GP850 now and I'm very happy with it, bought in in 2021, and it cost about the same then as the 32" model does now. The 32" model is "on sale" at about $800 tax in. I thought it would be less, but I'm sure it's very nice.

 

The things we do for DCS. 

[LucShep]

50 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Thanks for that.

I have the LG 27GP850 now and I'm very happy with it, bought in in 2021, and it cost about the same then as the 32" model does now. The 32" model is "on sale" at about $800 tax in. I thought it would be less, but I'm sure it's very nice.

The things we do for DCS. 

I see you're in Canada. 
Look at Newegg.Ca, Amazon.Ca, CAComputers, PCCanada and etc, lots of promotions currently.

$800??  ...how about 689.79$ CAD?   
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/8snypg/lg-32gp850-b-320-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-32gp850-b


And for half of that (or less)?    At such prices, I don't think you can get better than these two...
 

• LG 32GP750-B (very similar but more affordable version of the GP850) at $349.99 CAD
  
  https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/Rcwypg/lg-32gp750-b-315-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-32gp750-b
  
  https://www.newegg.ca/lg-32gp750-b-32-qhd-165-hz-ultragear-ips/p/N82E16824026321
  
   
• Gigabyte GS32Q (very similar but more affordable version of the M32Q) at $259.99 CAD
  
  https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/BkzXsY/gigabyte-gs32q-315-2560-x-1440-170-hz-monitor-gs32q
  
  https://www.newegg.ca/gigabyte-gs32q-32-qhd-165hz-oc-170hz-ss-ips-black/p/N82E16824012069
  
   

Edited September 17, 2024 by LucShep
added links

[Beirut]

32 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I see you're in Canada. 
Look at Newegg.Ca, Amazon.Ca, CAComputers, PCCanada and etc, lots of promotions currently.

$800??  ...how about less than half of that?  
At such prices, I don't think you can get better than these two...
 

• LG 32GP750-B (very similar but more affordable version of the GP850) at $349.99 CAD
  
  https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/Rcwypg/lg-32gp750-b-315-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-32gp750-b
  
  https://www.newegg.ca/lg-32gp750-b-32-qhd-165-hz-ultragear-ips/p/N82E16824026321
  
   
• Gigabyte GS32Q (very similar but more affordable version of the M32Q) at $259.99 CAD
  
  https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/BkzXsY/gigabyte-gs32q-315-2560-x-1440-170-hz-monitor-gs32q
  
  https://www.newegg.ca/gigabyte-gs32q-32-qhd-165hz-oc-170hz-ss-ips-black/p/N82E16824012069
  
   

 

 

The GP750 looks tasty, and Amazon Canada has it at $379. That one is a strong possibility.

 

I stick with Amazon because though they may be the cosmic center of all that is evil, they have given me outstanding! customer service. And my Amazon wallet is already loaded up.

[LucShep]

7 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

The GP750 looks tasty, and Amazon Canada has it at $379. That one is a strong possibility.

 

I stick with Amazon because though they may be the cosmic center of all that is evil, they have given me outstanding! customer service. And my Amazon wallet is already loaded up.

Edited previous post, you probably missed it....

the LG 32GP850-B is available at Amazon.ca for 689.79$ CAD    (hey, at least it's not 800$!)
 
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/8snypg/lg-32gp850-b-320-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-32gp850-b

Could be worth it if you can stretch that much (same thing as you already have, just bigger).
That said, the other two (LG 32GP750-B, Gigabyte GS32Q) are tremendous good choices as 32'' 1440P IPS monitors, especially for that low(er) price.

Edited September 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Beirut]

Just now, LucShep said:

Edited previous post, you probably missed it....

the LG 32GP850-B is available at Amazon for 689.79$ CAD    (hey, at least it's not 800$!)
 
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/8snypg/lg-32gp850-b-320-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-32gp850-b

Could be worth it if you can stretch that much (same thing as you already have, just bigger).
That said, the other two (LG 32GP750-B, Gigabyte GS32Q) are tremendous good choices as 32'' 1440P IPS monitors, especially for that low(er) price.

 

I had the GP850 at $800 because I added in the 15% tax we pay here. Fun stuff, eh?  Once you hit the $500 mark, the tax really starts to play a role.

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

I had the GP850 at $800 because I added in the 15% tax we pay here. Fun stuff, eh?  Once you hit the $500 mark, the tax really starts to play a role.

How so?  ...you pay extra tax once price goes over 500$??  
Here we get same VAT (23%!!!) across everything, regardless of base price.

If it matters, the differences between the LG GP850 and the cheaper LG GP750 are minor, depending on use case.

The GP850 is "nano IPS" (higher brightness and color saturation), the GP750 is not.
The one thing I noticed in the more affordable GP750 -and actually prefered- was that it shown no backlight bleed (so, better).
When I tried both, the only point where the GP850 made sense over the GP750 was for better HDR, because of the higher levels of brightness it can reach (something that I don't personally value, as my PC is on a low-light room). HDR became all the rage in recent years, when people started going to monitors for the new-gen consoles, and AAA PC games started including it (not to mention movies) - if that's not important to you, then I can not say the higher price of the GP850 is justified.

I haven't tested the Gigabyte GS32Q, only the M32Q (which seems to be discontinued now?).
Differences seem to be the lack of speakers, and far simpler monitor box/case and feet/stand (no height adjustment, only tilt) in the Gigabyte GS32Q.
Seems to be the exact same panel in both(?) from what I'm seeing, just without G-Sync (so no Nvidia tax in the price), meaning, FreeSync compatibility only in the GS32Q.
If so, and if lack of G-Sync, of speakers, and of height adjustment is not important, then I'd say the GS32Q is close to unbeatable for the price, because that M32Q image was already pretty darn impressive (at a higher price).

FWIW, a review of the Gigabyte GS32Q from one of those tech yuutubarz:

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Hiob]

5 hours ago, LucShep said:

Yes it is.  Go for the 32'' 1440P monitor.  

32'' 1440P monitor has the exact same PPI and Dot pitch as a 48'' 4K monitor, and a 24'' 1080P monitor.  
These are close to the limit of (so, still good) screen size that those respective resolutions, as native, should be used for a desktop monitor. 

For a 32'' screen, I think 1440P is the resolution that makes most sense because it still looks really good, and 1440P is so much easier to run than 4K.
Yes, 4K is sweet but then (IMHO) it only really makes sense on screens at 38'' or bigger (like the recent Asus PG38UQ), and it's way(!!) more demanding on GPU resources.

All this to say, you need not worry about image quality of 1440P resolution at 32''size.
What you should worry about is specs and panel type. There's a lot of overpriced crap out there.
 

For the panel type, I'd say to go for IPS, and not VA or TN.
Yes, there are great OLED monitors now but they're still too expensive, and are still susceptible to burn-in. (it's inherent to the tech, no way around it yet, regardless of built-in mitigations)

Price to performance, a good IPS panel is the better choice for DCS, because of the image clarity in motion (motion handling) only beaten by OLED (at much higher prices!).
This is very important especially if using head-tracking (TrackIR, etc), and for when you need to focus on something while you are maneuvering (like you would IRL).
You'll notice it, for example, in BFM, or over forests, or simply focusing on objects while in movement. It's in these frequent situations where a good IPS panel just feels so much more natural (no ghosting or motion-blur issues) when compared to VA or TN panels, which can not perform as good in that aspect.

If I'm allowed the suggestion...
I've tested and can recommend the Asus TUF VG32AQL1A, the LG 32GP850, the LG 32GP750 and the Gigabyte M32Q (these are G-Sync + FreeSync compatible).
These are great 32'' 1440P IPS monitors that are good also for flight-sims, and are very reasonably priced (250€ to 400€, depending on the shop, on region, and availability).

There may be other models similarly priced and worth a look, but I honestly don't know of any other (than these mentioned) really worthy at this price point.

 

 

Whilst I 100% approve and support this post I have to add from my personal experience -

I‘m using the LG OLED TV now for almost three years. It hasn’t got the slightest hint of burn in so far. I‘m using it in a rather dim environment though and it never was set to peak brightness. I don’t use HDR or anything like that and I use a black screensaver which I enable immediately when leaving the desk.

That‘s just an anecdote of course.

Nevertheless, I couldn’t go back from OLED (or from the screen size)…..

[LucShep]

5 hours ago, Hiob said:

Whilst I 100% approve and support this post I have to add from my personal experience -

I‘m using the LG OLED TV now for almost three years. It hasn’t got the slightest hint of burn in so far. I‘m using it in a rather dim environment though and it never was set to peak brightness. I don’t use HDR or anything like that and I use a black screensaver which I enable immediately when leaving the desk.

That‘s just an anecdote of course.

Nevertheless, I couldn’t go back from OLED (or from the screen size)…..

I would probably not go back to LED as well, because the image from OLED is that good (needs to be seen to understand how good it really is).
And yes, I too use a big screen (50'') and can't go back to regular (smaller) monitor sizes - it's something you get used to and then feel impossible to "downgrade".

But, the thing with OLED is that degradation will always happen, sooner or later, depending if it's on intensive or light use, and how (and if) mitigations are used (short compensation cycle, etc) to go around the unskippable burn-in. It's something that adopters of the tech just learn to accept.
You really need to baby an OLED monitor in ways that you won't ever need for LED monitors, and always have a shorter life regardless. That's on top of a much heftier price tag.

RTINGS has some pretty revealing articles about burn-in and degradation of TVs (OLED, and LED as well), and are on a ongoing two year test.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/longevity-results-after-10-months

So far this is what they say about monitors, as recently as this month and with results coming soon:

Quote

Monitors

OLED monitors have become increasingly popular, and many of you were wondering how they compare to TVs as far as burn-in is concerned. After all, monitors are often used to display some static elements, from the desktop taskbar to the UI elements of a web browser. OLED monitors are subjected to brutal conditions and seem even more likely to have burn-in because of it. But how does this translate to real-world usage? Have monitor manufacturers implemented additional burn-in prevention measures to try to reduce the possibility of burn-in? To try to answer these questions and more, we added the Dell Alienware AW3423DWF, the Samsung Odyssey OLED G8/G85SB S34BG85 (say that three times fast), and the LG 27GR95QE-B to our two-year test.
 

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by LucShep