Because your steering inputs are not physically made at 200 Hz. If you need to act within milliseconds as in some shooters, then there is an argument to be made for such a refresh rate, although it's splitting hairs at above 144 Hz. But racing quickly isn't primarily about having fast reactions, it's a common misconception.
If you drive by reacting to very recent information on the screen, you are already too late. Racing is about anticipating where the car will be next, not so much about pure reaction speed. It's more about programming your mind to learn the track unconsciously, so you don't have to react late to anything. Whatever driving maneuver you make, you need to make it well in advance as the car isn't instantly reacting like when you move the camera in a shooter. Michael Schumacher for example had poor reactions for a racing driver according to some biographies and interviews I read, which is why he lost out so much at starts, but that was the only moment in a race where his less than good reactions mattered, otherwise he could compensate all that with his excellent feel of the car.
Bottom line, people spend way too much time worrying about equipment when the real gains to be made are almost never on that side, more on improving yourself as a driver.
Thanks for responding, I appreciate the analysis but again what I seek is finding someone that has done deep testing and not just tried 200Hz for 5-10mins but spent time in doing detailed comparisons. Have two systems up and running for immediate A/B comparisons doing their own lap times or general playtime. As when you adjust to using the highest Hz possible after a 30 min gaming session, how does it feel going down to the lower framerates?
A user may not always put much effort into such tests to properly ascertain this and I suspect will do quick one and then another approach with little time put into it.
I'm not aware of any sim channel yet that has focused on this, although some may have covered such at 144Hz. Even then some say 60Hz to 90Hz is more than fine and above this is much less crucial.
I am aware that the industry is currently in this high frame rate buzz and even 360Hz displays being mentioned as coming.
The display manufacturers need a new gimmick as the 4K thing is now becoming affordable and a norm even for consoles. With larger screen TVs dropping greatly in price.
One point to factor, is these displays keep improving, so perspectives formed on older tech may not also relate the same to the newest models? Hardware is reaching the point to make it more possible on various titles. Do we just ignore the idea that people could buy and fully use a 240Hz display and consider them being stupid for wanting to even fully experience what they purchased?
Now the general feedback is that it won't make much if any difference to the vast number of users. I too strongly believe this may be the case, I haven't argued it, yet I want validation from users, not just the theoretical perspectives and another factor may be down to different game engines being used and as stated the views within the sim.
If we approach the scenario that it will be possible in the coming years, then what you and most others are potentially saying is, there's no point having 1080p or 1440p with 200Hz+ refresh because 100-120Hz is a general satisfaction peak. Based on that train of thought, then a higher-res screen like a 4K or more display running at 120-144Hz will be better as visual fidelity is deemed more important over the (even higher) framerate.
Yet not many gamers found the first 4K to be a really big jump neither, especially as limited to about 60Hz, some did enjoy it and some preferred the combination of both with an increase of a 21:9 wider aspect ratio, moderately better res with a balanced 1440p resolution and the 120+ framerate being achieved.
I get the impression people are thinking, dude your stupid you won't listen but let me ask you guys something. How stupid is it to go out and buy triple 1440p monitors and then blow over £1100 alone on a top-end GPU to get 50-70fps or about 50% of the capability of the display on a title like ACC? Would it not be wiser to run with triple 1080p and get much closer to the peak display framerate.
We clearly live in an age that GPU manufacturers will charge a fortune for a performance that falls well short in what it should deliver. Yet some people will always want to combine whats best in specs, regardless if it makes sense.
Look how many people already bought 144Hz displays and are using triple 1080p or triple 1440p configurations. Many will not achieve even close to the peak framerates you guys talk about with the display at native and it appears lots of people are moving to buy 1440p over 1080p with the idea that a future GPU will run these better. Some will be forced to drop their resolution down to 1080p or vastly lower graphical detail to achieve better framerates. So yes we have a community/culture that often will lower refresh rates for visual impact or clarity. With FPS titles this may be the opposite.
I find it a bit amusing to criticize if some people become curious or might want the ability to try a 240Hz experience on a 240Hz display. Basically to use it, for what its intended purpose is. Especially when we have a community that sees it fine to buy into using very demanding multiple display configurations to then use them in a less than optimal way. I think its fair to say that "Immersion" can differ to each individual as to what is more immersive or appealing to them and often the "wow" factor or bragging rights, determines a purchase over if it's really a wise one.
2020 Monitor Options
For me, it appears the newest Samsung G9 SuperUltrawide seems to be trying to bridge this gap allowing the user to achieve a high visual fidelity with 1000 HDR and the more exciting 1000 based curve. I doubt it will be anything like 1ms as rated but it's offering a resolution that's just over the triple 1080p pixel count (but possibly with better game support) and well below the over-demanding triple 1440p pixel count.
Sure it lacks the full visual impact of triples but it can also be used with a lower resolution/game settings like the 2018 model offered (3840x1080) if a higher refresh is demanded. At this resolution, this is not far away from the popular 21:9 1440p pixel count and improving on its visual impact with wider display. So potentially is this going to become the ideal allrounder for aspect ratio, screen fidelity, and high supported framerate with G-Sync and FreeSync support?
Pricewise too it will be cheaper than some triple-monitor 144Hz options.
21:9 Large screen
2560x1440 = 3686400
32:9 49" Samsung (2018)
3840x1080 = 4147200
Triple 1080P
5760x1080 = 6220800
32:9 49" Samsung (2020)
5120x1440 = 7372800
4K
3840x2160 = 8294400
Triple 1440p
7680x1440 = 11059200
