Samsung 57" UWD Monitor

[Deleted member 197115]

Was playing a lot with DLAA recently and have found that it looks much better, sharper and with less ghosting/aliasing artifacts with DSC (Display Stream Compression) disabled.
It looks like the fact that DSR/DLDSR are not supported with DCS enabled affects the DLAA processing as it might internally rely on some upscaling.
So now you face a dilemma of a better overall picture quality vs higher refresh rate and 10bit color support.
BTW, when running at native (set at the panel) 120hz ghosting is pretty much in the same ballpark as running at 240hz.
Also pay attention to VRR Control setting, use it only if you really have flickering. I swear on older NVidia drivers it was actually helping with stutter at 240hz, but does the opposite on the newer one.
At 120hz it was always causing microstutter.

 

[HoiHman]

240Hz at that pixel count

With newer games like Forza Motorsport 23 my RTX 3090 can't bare manage 60Hz at 5120x1440. That's with ray tracing of.

Just image the videocard we need to drive this monitor at 240hz @7680x2160 ( with raytracing)

It must be a RTX8090 or something like that

 

[Spinelli]

240Hz at that pixel count

With newer games like Forza Motorsport 23 my RTX 3090 can't bare manage 60Hz at 5120x1440. That's with ray tracing of.

Just image the videocard we need to drive this monitor at 240hz @7680x2160 ( with raytracing)

It must be a RTX8090 or something like that

Forza Motorsport 2023 has DLSS so that should really help. I'm guessing it'll soon receive an update for DLSS 3 (frame generation/interpolation) which should massively boost frames even more so on top of the standard DLSS 2. I bet the added latency from DLSS 3 won't be an issue either.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Trading image quality for frame count?

 

[Mr Latte]

With all due respect, anything beyond 120 Hz/fps is diminishing returns for racing titles, so it matters very little if GPUs can't hit 240 Hz/fps.

Ahh but that very much may depend on the view being used. Also with cockpit based views, FOV may also have a contributing factor to that (see video below).

Additionally, lots of people do not just use their simrigs only for racing or use their displays/monitors only with racing titles.

This guy highlights some interesting points on FOV usage which I have not seen any of you guys bring up....

Would you rather use 240Hz or 120Hz on a display that can manage 240Hz with full colour and without DSC? Or stick with a GPU / display combo thats limited to DP1.4 or HDMI 2.1 limitations?

Curious?
For instance, as a scenario, if I do buy the G9 57" model, I can get to experience (older games) at upto the monitors full 240Hz with the 7900-XTX. Something I don't think any video review of the display has looked at as one of the benefits of currently partnering the monitor with the current fastest DP 2.1 option.

Additionally how does the 7900XTX compare to the 4090 in framerates if the 4090 applies native res and the 7900XTX runs @ 1440p. How big of a difference in visual quality is that? Well after all, 2160 is a much larger jump over 1440p than 1440p is over 1080p. So how does the monitors additional increase in PPI and native res alter the users experience?

Would some prefer the increase in framerates? or the increase in resolution or image quality? Interesting point that we see little reviewers cover....

If doing that, how then do the framerates compare? We know the 4090 is the current powerhouse but it amazes me that none of the Sim racing channels actually cover PC/GPU/Monitor tech in such ways or comparisons.

The future with displays based on what VESA (very good article) has showcased with supported resolutions and screen configurations with DP 2.1 ensures that both "high resolutions" and "high refresh rates" can be maintained in "10 bit colour with HDR" support. This will enable monitors to reach a much higher level than current 4K TVs (144Hz) being adopted as PC displays and with improved response times. We are also seeing, HDR picture quality on monitors is becoming more inline with improved quality similar to TVs.

Several brands already have signed up to release DP 2.1 monitors and while some will target professional usage with 8k, 10k full colour options a possibility. Something like the G9 57" will need much more powerful GPU than we currently have.

GPU manufactures KNOW they need to design hardware that is capable of offering what the monitor manufactures and industry bodies like VESA lay out for the future.

They develop and work hand in hand just as we seen with this Samsung 57" model being developed with Samsung/AMD/VESA as the first ever DP2.1 capable GPU and dual 4K display.

So clearly in the direction things are going, with display technologies, the PC industry needs MUCH more powerful GPUs. We may have to wait longer but Nvidia also cannot ignore DP2.1 next time round. At this time, we do not know if the HDMI standard will adopt a competing high bandwidth solution but we cannot rule that out neither.

 

[Mr Latte]

Trading image quality for frame count?

I think thats one of the main key elements....

Additionally, how close do we need a display to be to notice much difference in
5120x1440 Vs 7680x2160 from a gaming perspective? Yes the screen size also plays a factor in this but let me share some thoughts....

Unlike an 8K Vs 4K TV scenario, in that its harder to tell the difference in resolution from typical seating positions. It is said that at least 75" screen size for typical living rooms is needed to show the benefits.

However a monitor is going to be much closer to the users seating position, so will that increase in resolution be more noticeable than the typical scenario with TV usage? Are game graphics good enough to highlight any differences in detailing? Will it be worth the framerate drop and just how much of a drop will that be on various popular titles? All good questions, but its hard to find answers for.

Possibly FSR/DLSS or FMF may become a useful tool to help with GPUs managing to use such resolutions and maintain key framerates of displays?

Screen Positioning?
Regards monitor distances, even though I have used my 49" G9 on the ergotron arm. As its easy to move the screen with this, it gave me an idea.....

One of the ongoing updates my own rig build will offer (which I will showcase some point this year). As it does several things different to the norm or that I have not seen before on other peoples builds. Yet as a creative build in some ways it seeks a wow factor element too.

So I decided that, by applying, what certainly was a rather costly motorised solution...

Using this instead for positioning the monitor. It will enable saved pre-sets for automatically positioning the distance as per usage case/pref and of course looks quite impressive too, when in action.

1) entering / exiting the rig
2) closer position for 16:9 content or 21:9 gaming
3) further back position for general multitasking
4) something in between for sim racing
5) wall positon far away from wheel etc

 

[Spinelli]

Ahh but that very much may depend on the view being used. Also with cockpit based views, FOV may also have a contributing factor to that (see video below).

What does that have to do with 120 or 240 Hz?

 

[Mr Latte]

What does that have to do with 120 or 240 Hz?

The displayed image with whatever is in motion will be smoother in transitions between frames. Combined with improved quality of displays used, could offer a clearer image, less smearing or sense of ghosting.

How much this benefits a particular user may vary or based on the sim/game being used or as pointed out with what view/perspective they play in. For example external view in FM compared to cockpit view. The external views could improve the sense of speed with better image clarity to showcase more the smoother rate of motion than a more static screen mostly filled with static car dash.

My point is, the industry is moving beyond 120Hz / 144Hz displays. More powerful GPU will come and DP 2.1 can handle 1440p at upto 500Hz.

Its likely that in time, 4K / 240Hz could become the new 1440p / 144Hz that so many people own and often with lesser quality 8bit TN/IPS panels.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

It's all cool as long as your fps at or over refresh rate, as in that video of AC running @800fps, (good luck with that ).
If your GPU cannot squeeze more than 80fps, how much better 240hz vs 120hz refresh rate will be.

 

[Spinelli]

The displayed image with whatever is in motion will be smoother in transitions between frames. Combined with improved quality of displays used, could offer a clearer image, less smearing or sense of ghosting.................

LOL, I know about refresh rates, 240 VS 120 Hz, etc. You even liked my post here https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/samsung-57-uwd-monitor.262749/page-7#post-3716911 . My question to you was when you wrote

Ahh but that very much may depend on the view being used. Also with cockpit based views, FOV may also have a contributing factor to that (see video below).

What does the view being used, cockpit based views, and FOV have to do with deciding on 120 or 240 Hz?

This guy highlights some interesting points on FOV usage which I have not seen any of you guys bring up....

This video is a waste of time and doesn't explain or teach anything. He doesn't use a 1:1 - which is fine, use whatever you want - but then goes on for 10 mins about...nothing. Almost as if he's trying to make a case that the 1:1 FOV is wrong or something.

He just says common stuff like how the lower your FOV, the lower the sense of speed, the higher the FOV, the smaller every thing gets, etc. If you have a very low FOV, then you can move the virtual driver's seat so you're sitting in the trunk/boot of the car to gain vision on your sides. If you use a high FOV, move the virtual driver's seat forward so he's magically sitting outside of the car on top of the hood/bonnet, etc.

Of course sense of speed will lessen and peripheral vision will lessen with a 1:1 FOV on his setup, how does he expect to get full peripheral view if he isn't running triples or doesn't have an extremely wide and curved single screen? That's not the 1:1 FOV's problem, lol, that's his setup's problem. He's making it sound like 1:1 FOV is wrong or just a "theory" that some people think is correct or something.

There's only 1 "correct" FOV for a truly 1:1 perspective so that you see, on your screen, what your eyes would be seeing if you were really in that car. That is:
A) 1:1 FOV (not straightforward to achieve or set in-game with curved monitors because FOV calculators give correct vFOV but too narrow hFOV because they don't take curves into account)
B) Placing the tiny point in the game's 3D space where the camera spawns from (ie. seat position, view position, head position, etc.) exactly centre in-between the in-game driver's eyes (X, Y, Z axis obviously)
C) adjusting the camera's pitch (ie. head pitch, head tilt, horizon, etc.) to whatever angle your eyes would normally be - around straight forward - looking straight ahead or pointed very slightly towards the ground far ahead, this can depend on car such as very high cars or a kart where you may be looking slightly more downwards than in an F1 car where you're almost looking straight ahead.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

A) 1:1 FOV (not straightforward to achieve or set in-game with curved monitors because FOV calculators give correct vFOV but too narrow hFOV because they don't take curves into account)

More ultra wide ratio issue than the curve, I think we've discussed that in depth in this very thread. You will see the same exact result on flat ultrawide monitor.

 

[Spinelli]

More ultra wide ratio issue than the curve, I think we've discussed that in depth in this very thread. You will see the same exact result on flat ultrawide monitor.

You may be confusing the stretching/distortion associated with wider & wider aspect ratio monitors (regardless of curve or no curve) with the incorrect hFOV associated with curved monitors (regardless of type of aspect ratio)...Two separate issues.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

You may be confusing the stretching/distortion associated with wider & wider aspect ratio monitors (regardless of curve or no curve) with the incorrect hFOV associated with curved monitors (regardless of type of aspect ratio)...Two separate issues.

Hm, am I the one confusing anything?
You have tried to prove something about that before but it was so convoluted and disconnected from what really supported in any sim that I doubt anyone got your point.

Wide aspect ratio + single projection = pincushion distortion
This is what the real issue is, not curve or anything else. The fix is either multi projection (virtual triple screen) or barrel distortion correction to neutralize pincushion.

 

[Spinelli]

Hm, am I the one confusing anything?
You have tried to prove something about that before but it was so convoluted and disconnected from what really supported in any sim that I doubt anyone got your point.

Wide aspect ratio + single projection = pincushion distortion
This is what the real issue is, not curve or anything else. The fix is either multi projection (virtual triple screen) or barrel distortion correction to neutralize pincushion.

I'll shorten it down:

A) the wider and wider you make an aspect ratio - and therefore hFOV - for any given vFOV, the more stretching/distortion you get. This is regardless or curve / no curve.

B) When using a FOV calculator but you have a curved display, the hFOV the calculator gives you will be wrong. It will be too low because the calculator doesn't take the curve into account (unless the calculator works with curves, I know of 2). The only way to increase a game's hFOV (to make up for the curve) while NOT increasing the vFOV (or else world scaling will shrink and not be 1:1) is if a game has true triple-screen rendering and allows you to enable it in single-screen mode (eg. AC) or if a game as a built-in screen-curve compensator (apparently iRacing).

So, again - even shorter - A is about a game's stretching increasing as aspect ratio increases (curve or no curve, doesn't matter) and B is about trying to add "extra" hFOV to a game for any same given vFOV in order to fully utilize the curve of a monitor...2 separate things.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Got it.
It's just entering that "corrected" for curve FOV is useless unless the sims retains vFOV, otherwise you will get wrong world scale.

This is uncorrected FOV for ACC

vs Triple Screen Projection

vFOV and world scale are the same, but stretching in the first image robbing some hFOV.
Increase hFOV and the world scale will be off, and that means missing brake markers, apexes, etc.

You are saying iRacing has some curve compensation, how does it work exactly, like Projection correction in ACC or as virtual triple screen?

 

[Atak_Kat]

I am just reading a review on this monitor, where it comments:
- hitting 240Hz requires video-card output with DP 2.1. (HDMI 2.1 is limited to 120Hz)
- the article also comments that basically only the AMD RX7000 series has that. While even the 4090 does not
- which (I guess) implies that regardless of specs, the max Hz will be 120, unless you happen to have the AMD RX7000 series cards (or, other cards eventually come on the market with the DP 2.1 port)?

Thanks to anyone who may have better knowledge to fact check that.

 

[Mr Latte]

LOL, I know about refresh rates, 240 VS 120 Hz, etc. You even liked my post here https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/samsung-57-uwd-monitor.262749/page-7#post-3716911 . My question to you was when you wrote What does the view being used, cockpit based views, and FOV have to do with deciding on 120 or 240 Hz?
This video is a waste of time and doesn't explain or teach anything. He doesn't use a 1:1 - which is fine, use whatever you want - but then goes on for 10 mins about...nothing. Almost as if he's trying to make a case that the 1:1 FOV is wrong or something.

He just says common stuff like how the lower your FOV, the lower the sense of speed, the higher the FOV, the smaller every thing gets, etc. If you have a very low FOV, then you can move the virtual driver's seat so you're sitting in the trunk/boot of the car to gain vision on your sides. If you use a high FOV, move the virtual driver's seat forward so he's magically sitting outside of the car on top of the hood/bonnet, etc.

Of course sense of speed will lessen and peripheral vision will lessen with a 1:1 FOV on his setup, how does he expect to get full peripheral view if he isn't running triples or doesn't have an extremely wide and curved single screen? That's not the 1:1 FOV's problem, lol, that's his setup's problem. He's making it sound like 1:1 FOV is wrong or just a "theory" that some people think is correct or something.

There's only 1 "correct" FOV for a truly 1:1 perspective so that you see, on your screen, what your eyes would be seeing if you were really in that car. That is:
A) 1:1 FOV (not straightforward to achieve or set in-game with curved monitors because FOV calculators give correct vFOV but too narrow hFOV because they don't take curves into account)
B) Placing the tiny point in the game's 3D space where the camera spawns from (ie. seat position, view position, head position, etc.) exactly centre in-between the in-game driver's eyes (X, Y, Z axis obviously)
C) adjusting the camera's pitch (ie. head pitch, head tilt, horizon, etc.) to whatever angle your eyes would normally be - around straight forward - looking straight ahead or pointed very slightly towards the ground far ahead, this can depend on car such as very high cars or a kart where you may be looking slightly more downwards than in an F1 car where you're almost looking straight ahead.

Not everyone cares to use settings from calculations. The video highlights why he prefers something different, and I think a lot of people would do similar to have a FOV that shows more of the side window/track and mirrors. Doesn't mean they are trying to fit in triple screen within 32:9.

Any view with more motion over what a cockpit perspective offers, has more potential to highlight what a higher fremantle rate offers. Even then it may not be a massive difference for some but that's the beauty of owning a monitor that can run with 240Hz. The user may have that option to decide if they prefer quality over framerate.

You guys should post your own settings for different titles based on the monitors you have. That way it would be more helpful to others to then compare to what they have been using.

 

[Spinelli]

Got it.
It's just entering that "corrected" for curve FOV is useless unless the sims retains vFOV, otherwise you will get wrong world scale.

Exactly. You're 100% correct. That's why this can only be achieved with some games, games that allow us to manipulate the hFOV independently from the vFOV like, for eg., the multi-monitor tool in AC does. Like you said, hFOV must be increased WITHOUT vFOV also being increased.

Sorry if I over-explained it a few pages back; I have a habit of doing that.

You are saying iRacing has some curve compensation, how does it work exactly, like Projection correction in ACC or as virtual triple screen?

Apparently it does. I have no idea how it works.

This is uncorrected FOV for ACC......
vFOV and world scale are the same, but stretching in the first image robbing some hFOV.
Increase hFOV and the world scale will be off......

Exactly. Whenever you change a FOV in just about any videogame (V or H), the other FOV (V or H) will automatically be changed to maintain the same ratio. This is usually a good thing or else every one would have crazy, wild distorted images in games if they only changed one type of FOV but not the other accordingly. However, for curved screens, this means we cannot adjust for the curve because we need the game to allow us to change 1 type of FOV without the other automatically adjusting. Luckily, we have ways around this problem, such as:

A) multi-monitor feature and allowing it to be used & adjusted with single screen setups (eg. AC, ACC)

B) curve-compensating feature (apparently iRacing)

C) creating a custom resolution so your game/PC thinks your monitor is wider than it really is (eg. 34:9 resolution on a 32:9). This will bring 2 problems though: 1) decreased overall picture quality due to non-native resolution, 2) increased input-lag due to either display or GPU scaling being performed

For an interesting experiment, I will try option C today. If it's not too bad, I may use it with older games like GTR 1/2, GTL, etc.


P.S. An added bonus of the multi-monitor option (and possibly iRacing's curve feature - I don't know) is that it also drastically helps deal with stretching/distortion. This is something option C will not address.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

However, for curved screens, this means we cannot adjust for the curve because we need the game to allow us to change 1 type of FOV without the other automatically adjusting. Luckily, we have ways around this problem, such as:

I am still not 100% with this issue being "curve" specific and not ultra wide aspect ratio + large FOV, flat or curved. I am familiar with this reddit post and spreadsheet calculator for curved monitors.
And this diagram looks right on the money, you supposed to have some extra degrees when bending projection surface, but it is the same as having just slightly wider flat monitor.
So the way it looks like to me that the problem is just wide aspect ratio and associated with it larger fov, curve just making it slightly wider. Solve the first problem, the second will be solved too.
BTW, my quick search shows that iRacing is using triple projection for curve compensation, sorry cannot confirm first hand as wasn't on sub for a very long time.

 

[RasmusP]

103mm at the top, 105mm around thumb grip.

It's me again, going off topic in this thread, sorry!
But I want to keep this in one thread..
Could you upload a picture of the rear side?
I've found out that it's not just about the thickness for me, but rather about how much material there is for the fingers at the back of the wheels.
I took some pictures of my current rims as examples/comparison.
Fake Leather:
Moza ES with 3D printed Magnet/Paddle mod.
A bit thicker for a small round rim, slight "booty".

Rubber:
Fanatec McLaren V2.
Rather thin, but massive "booty" at the rear for the fingers to grab.

Suede:
Runsco/Simraceshop/Cube Controls GT rim. Too good to not buy it. But I'd still like a round one.
Surprisingly little "booty" at the rear but very chunky at the front with big 3D shaped thumb areas. Fits like a glove for my hands.

As usual, pictures with extra lights look very dusty. It's not skin particles. I don't find skin particles on wheels gross though, but maybe someone else does.

Thanks in advance!