1440p monitor size question

[kksnowbear]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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?

You're trying to denigrate the standards, which have long since been established by recognized experts.

So they're all wrong and you're right? That's laughable.

I gave dimensions before that put a 48" monitor on my desktop, eyes level at top of monitor, and bottom edge nowhere near my knees.  Your opinion on that matter has conclusively been shown to be misguided.

The diagram you're using is one scenario, not every situation.  It's not intended to be; in fact I believe it was clearly labeled for bifocal lenses before you conveniently omitted that.  There's also no scale whatsoever, so it can't be used for any reliable measurements.

I've already said several times what you want is to argue.  You have no authorititive references to support your opinions, and no actual expertise of your own.

If anyone wants to actually try to benefit from attempting to properly follow standards defined by recognized experts as best for human physiology, they can contact me privately or make a genuine, sincere comment here.

Just no point continuing to argue with someone who just wants to argue, not learn or improve anything/help anyone.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I gave dimensions before that put a 48" monitor on my desktop, eyes level at top of monitor, and bottom edge nowhere near my knees.

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. 

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

standards defined by recognized experts as best for human physiology

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
 

[kksnowbear]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

LMAO...Seriously?  I stated very clearly I was sitting.  Helps if you can read.

No scale in the diagram = impossible to use it for reliable measurements.  Sorry.

Diagram labeled as Bifocal lenses before you changed it.

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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 aware of any reference which states monitor placement differs between types of usage.  We covered this.

Got one? No.

M'kay then.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Here’s the standard that’s more relevant for a simpit

Opinion.  And no recognized expertise behind it.

Don't see "monitor", "desk", "computer" or "gaming" in that drawing at all.  Fairly obvious it's not applicable to computer users.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

59 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I stated very clearly I was sitting.

How is the bottom edge “nowhere near” the level of your knees? That’s doesn’t compute. 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

No scale in the diagram = impossible to use it for reliable measurements.

Just eyeball the distance from the figures eyebrow to the lap. Close enough. 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Diagram labeled as Bifocal lenses before you changed it.

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. 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Don't see "monitor", "desk", "computer" or "gaming" in that drawing at all.  Fairly obvious it's not applicable to computer users

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. 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Opinion.  And no recognized expertise behind it.

Here’s another one with a reference. Enjoy. 
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=120357

[LucShep]

@SharpeXB and @kksnowbear you two need a room...  it always gets weird everytime you guys go with the back-and-forth comments. 

Personally, I dont give a hoot about the experts and the "standards".  I know exactly what I like and what works for me.
There's no way to convince me to go back to a simple desk monitor of "regular size". It'd be the same as telling you to swap your "regular size" monitor for a tablet screen!

For over fitfteen years that I've been using both monitors and TVs, back to back, smaller screens (below 27'') and bigger screens (32'' and way above that), for PC use, both for gaming and office work. I always ended favoring the latter.
I personally feel that anything less than 40'' is just too small, 42'' and 43'' being very acceptable, and 48'' being the ideal size. (couldn't afford an OLED, the alternative was a 50'' 4K TV)
Have had 55'' (curved) and also tried 65'' (flat), that I agree becomes too big (scale in game versus FOV gets messed up for me, but YMMV).

Benefits go beyond the obvious immersion benefit for gaming/simming, provided by the much more realistic scale (close to 1:1) of objects and the cockpit, be it car or aircraft. 
If it's a big size quality panel, at the propper distance from you and with head-tracking, then IMO only VR can beat it... (but that's a world of pain, at various levels  LOL)

How you can use that real estate for your regular "non gaming use", of daily multitasking, is one other major benefit with a bigger screen.
The multitasking advantages are real, and the benefits for production/work are imediate.
I split my big screen in various windows (usually 4, sometimes 8, it depends) which, pretty much, translates to various office screens. (I need at least three monitors if I'm at the office!)

If someone tells me he/she is viewing this forum thread on his/her browser at FULL SCREEN with a 42'' or bigger screen panel, then I'd have to say it... you're not getting the point of a big screen!

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, LucShep said:

There's no way to convince me to go back to a simple desk monitor of "regular size". It'd be the same as telling you to swap your "regular size" monitor for a tablet screen!

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.

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Personally, I dont give a hoot about the experts and the "standards".  I know exactly what I like and what works for me.
There's no way to convince me to go back to a simple desk monitor of "regular size". It'd be the same as telling you to swap your "regular size" monitor for a tablet screen!

Nobody's trying to convince anyone to go to a smaller screen.

People are perfectly free to do whatever they wish with their monitors. I believe I acknowledged that already.

But that doesn't change the fact that standards do exist. IMO it's childish and ill advised for someone to dismiss recognized expertise just because they don't understand it...but hey, I get that it does happen, and of course you're free to do so if you please. Your call, not mine. 

The standards will still exist regardless of whether any individual is smart enough to take advantage of the potential for improvement.  Always naysayers in any crowd, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong.

What's wrong is acting like it's impossible, when it's already been shown that it's not.  Doesn't help those who aren't gonna do it anyway, and hurts those who might want to try.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Nobody's trying to convince anyone to go to a smaller screen.

People are perfectly free to do whatever they wish with their monitors. I believe I acknowledged that already.

But that doesn't change the fact that standards do exist. IMO it's childish and ill advised for someone to dismiss recognized expertise just because they don't understand it...but hey, I get that it does happen, and of course you're free to do so if you please. Your call, not mine. 

The standards will still exist regardless of whether any individual is smart enough to take advantage of the potential for improvement.  Always naysayers in any crowd, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong.

What's wrong is acting like it's impossible, when it's already been shown that it's not.

 

Those "standards" are stuck in the mid 1990s, when the big brick CRTs on top of the horizontal PC case, with a tiny 13'' or 15'' screen, was the norm in offices, also at home.

These days multi-monitor setups (three and four screens) are completely normal at office work, for necessary multi-tasking.
Alt+Tab'ing windows is no longer an option. I have to use at least three 24'' screens when I'm at the office, there's simply no other way to get the (huge ammounts of) work done.

The only way to have that same comodity and practicality at home (working from distance), while at same time getting the benefit of immersion for gaming/simming hobbies, is with a big screen.  In this scenario, it becomes a real case of "have your cake and eat it too".   

While this isn't yet fully across everyone's personal use, it is becoming the norm. Simply put, the old "standards" no longer apply.

• Example 1. check this video at the 9.09 time point.
  The guy is using a 55'' and comparing it to a quad 27'' monitor setup.
   

 

• Example 2. check how this guy splits the screen into various windows (he's using a 48'').
  See what I mean? ...how the heck can one do that in a (tiny) 27'' single screen without being literally face planted on it, to read things?
   

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, LucShep said:

While this isn't yet fully across everyone's personal use, it is becoming the norm. Simply put, the old "standards" no longer apply.

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.

[kksnowbear]

I wasn't aware those standards were all so old. Of course, you have a reference showing the standards are outdated?  Please share.  Typically only happens when a new standard supplants the older one...so you're saying there is no current standard, is that right?  I appreciate your clarification.

I'm not sure I see the connection you seem to be making between size of the monitors, and what the standards maintain is optimal placement.

The human gaze falls naturally just below the eye line.  That's just evolution and physiology.  In order to look up, muscles are used, which over time can develop fatigue, soreness, and even long-term, permanent health problems (Of course, decades ago no one ever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome, but it's quite real I can promise you...and quite painful).

Having a monitor higher than eye level forces you to tilt your head back, using the neck muscles as I described.

So, how does any of this factual data "expire" because monitors got bigger?

If anything, it's all the more relevant as people face the trade-off between what's good for work (and fun) vs what's best for their bodies.

It's not a new choice, and tbh a troubling number of people choose poorly where their bodies are concerned.  I get it, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong for attempting to improve the impact on the human body.  I have a fairly large monitor too, but I put effort into proper placement, and it wasn't hard at all.

BTW you'll have to do a little better than a guy in a YouTube video being more of an authority than a few decades of human physiology studies.  Not sure why people are considered "experts" based on YouTube channels these days.

Also I've installed and worked with monitor arrays that would put what's in that video to shame (I have also consulted/contracted on security system installs off and on for ~35 years now) ... but that still doesn't change what the standards say. 

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not only are those standards outdated...

Cool! So you have a reference that shows the standards are all outdated too?

Excellent. I look forward to seeing that.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Cool! So you have a reference that shows the standards are all outdated too?

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

[kksnowbear]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

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

They're the correct standards for computer monitor placement - unless you can show something that proves your opinion.  You haven't yet.

So you don't have a reference showing the standards are all outdated? OK, then.

[kksnowbear]

Tell ya what fellas, it's been a load of fun but you two can have it.

I'll repeat my invitation to share (applicable and authoritative) data one last time here, as well as my offer to discuss it further in private, with anyone actually interested in learning about the subject.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

I wasn't aware those standards were all so old. Of course, you have a reference showing the standards are outdated?  Please share.  Typically only happens when a new standard supplants the older one...so youre saying there is no current standard, is that right?  I appreciate your clarification.

I'm not sure I see the connection you seem to be making between size of the monitors, and what the standards maintain is optimal placement.

The human gaze falls naturally just below the eye line.  That's just evolution and physiology.  In order to look up, muscles are used, which over time can develop fatigue, soreness, and even long-term, permanent health problems (Of course, decades ago no one ever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome, but it's quite real I can promise you...and quite painful).

Having a monitor higher than eye level forces you to tilt your head back, using the neck muscles as I described.

So, how does any of this factual data "expire" because monitors got bigger?

If anything, it's all the more relevant as people face the trade-off between what's good for work (and fun) vs what's best for their bodies.

It's not a new choice, and tbh a troubling number of people choose poorly where their bodies are concerned.  I get it, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong for attempting to improve the impact on the human body.  I have a fairly large monitor too, but I put effort into proper placement, and it wasn't hard at all.

BTW you'll have to do a little better than a guy in a YouTube video being more of an authority than a few decades of human physiology studies.  Not sure why people are considered "experts" based on YouTube channels these days.

Also I've installed and worked with monitor arrays that would put what's in that video to shame (I have also consulted/contracted on security system installs off and on for ~35 years now) ... but that still doesn't change what the standards say. 

Cool! So you have a reference that shows the standards are all outdated too?

Excellent. I look forward to seeing that.

 

Share what?   Common sense?  

What I'm saying is that there is no "standard" that can be applied for all cases.

What you imply can not be applied to each and every case. Practicality and compromise is what defines what you do with your own space, for the purpose(s).
Insist with it as you may, I'll simply ignore it - been there, done that, every solution was tested for myself.

I believe you mention having a Samsung G9 49'', right?   That's basically the same as two 27'' 1440P monitors side by side, in a 1000R curvature.

With the kind of work I do (and so many others, surely), with that monitor, I ended up having more neck strain than with a 55'' 16:9, from being constantly forced to look left to right. Actually much worse because, in adition, I'd always end up getting closer and hunched over towards it, missing the vertical space of a big 16:9 screen.
That doesn't happen with a 42'' to 50'' 16:9 screen (not for me anyway).

And that's for both work AND gaming/simming. 
With the agravation that 32:9 ultrawide looks wrong in a flight sim - which looks perfect with 16:9, more so if it's a bigger screen for the desired 1:1 scale for objects and cockpit.

How do I know? ...I had one for three months, before going back to a TV (a 4K 55'' curved NU8500).  
It had been recomended by a "so called friend" with the same argument of "neck strain and posture" benefits, same ones that you too seem to believe is a "standard" that everyone should follow. A huge waste of time and money in my case (was an overpriced POS, in my experience).

The problem with your case is - everyone is different, and everyone is not doing the same exact thing, or at the same distance from the screen, or looking for the same end-use.
I have no problem in "looking up" (for years now) and have no posture and neck issues, spending 10+ hours per working day multitasking in front of a (biiiiig) screen.
 

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[Hiob]

4 hours ago, LucShep said:

@SharpeXB and @kksnowbear you two need a room...  it always gets weird everytime you guys go with the back-and-forth comments. 

Personally, I dont give a hoot about the experts and the "standards".  I know exactly what I like and what works for me.
There's no way to convince me to go back to a simple desk monitor of "regular size". It'd be the same as telling you to swap your "regular size" monitor for a tablet screen!

For over fitfteen years that I've been using both monitors and TVs, back to back, smaller screens (below 27'') and bigger screens (32'' and way above that), for PC use, both for gaming and office work. I always ended favoring the latter.
I personally feel that anything less than 40'' is just too small, 42'' and 43'' being very acceptable, and 48'' being the ideal size. (couldn't afford an OLED, the alternative was a 50'' 4K TV)
Have had 55'' (curved) and also tried 65'' (flat), that I agree becomes too big (scale in game versus FOV gets messed up for me, but YMMV).

Benefits go beyond the obvious immersion benefit for gaming/simming, provided by the much more realistic scale (close to 1:1) of objects and the cockpit, be it car or aircraft. 
If it's a big size quality panel, at the propper distance from you and with head-tracking, then IMO only VR can beat it... (but that's a world of pain, at various levels  LOL)

How you can use that real estate for your regular "non gaming use", of daily multitasking, is one other major benefit with a bigger screen.
The multitasking advantages are real, and the benefits for production/work are imediate.
I split my big screen in various windows (usually 4, sometimes 8, it depends) which, pretty much, translates to various office screens. (I need at least three monitors if I'm at the office!)

If someone tells me he/she is viewing this forum thread on his/her browser at FULL SCREEN with a 42'' or bigger screen panel, then I'd have to say it... you're not getting the point of a big screen!

 

That‘s why I know longer engage in discussions with either of the two…..

But I couldn’t agree more to your post. That is exactly how I feel about monitors for office and gaming. Except in the office instead of a dual 27“ setup like most of my colleagues sport, I use an ultrawide (21:9) because of the layout, size and orientation of my desk it fits better. A little less real estate but nicer without the bevels in the middle. At home, I couldn’t go back from my 48“. I was thinking (shortly) about downsizing when 42“ OLED TVs became available, but especially with flight-sims, I love the real life sized instruments, I can read without squinting my eyes or lean forward…..

Edited September 18, 2024 by Hiob

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

With the agravation that 32:9 ultrawide looks wrong in a flight sim - which looks perfect with 16:9, more so if it's a bigger screen for the desired 1:1 scale for objects and cockpit.
 

 

My feelings exactly. With ultrawide you don’t really gain anything in regards to size of gauges etc. and especially for things like dogfighting the vertical real estate is much more useful to me. I tried it, but no way I go back to the slit view.

[BIGNEWY]

@kksnowbear and @SharpeXB please take a break, it is ok to have different opinions, just treat each other with respect, if you can not please do not post here. 

thank you 

[Beirut]

5 hours ago, Hiob said:

My feelings exactly. With ultrawide you don’t really gain anything in regards to size of gauges etc. and especially for things like dogfighting the vertical real estate is much more useful to me. I tried it, but no way I go back to the slit view.

 

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me. 

 

As for the off to the side view, I admit I like looking at the landscape. 

[Hiob]

28 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me. 

 

As for the off to the side view, I admit I like looking at the landscape. 

Basically you have a choice. Gain peripheral view or vertical. Both would be nice, but a triple screen 48" OLED setup would definitely bust my budget and probably melt my GPU...... 

For my personal taste, 16:9 fits the (my) needs better. Simply put - other than in cars, in aircraft the vertical is very important. Admittedly there are benefits to a wide FOV, e.g. in formation flying and such..... 

It's a tradeoff.

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Beirut said:

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me. 

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. 

[Deezle]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me.

No.

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Deezle said:

No.

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. 

Edited September 18, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Deezle]

26 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

 

What matters is what you see on it, and at proper FOVs, you get a wider picture that's just as tall.