Taking the plunge into triples...

[Spinelli]

I've seen vids where 100Hz is shown to be a significant advantage over 60Hz on FPS games. Also a vid where a guy claims to show that he can see the difference in 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz on FPS games. But I'd like to see empirical evidence that 144Hz is shown to be of some benefit in racing sims. Lots of people say it's smoother,etc, but I haven't yet seen it tested in any way.

I'm not saying that you can't see the difference, because I've never tried 144Hz monitors. I've recently dropped from 120Hz single to 60Hz triples and the refresh rate has not really been a factor in my enjoyment of sim racing so far. I had quite bad screen tearing at first, but I fixed that with Riva Tuner.

So, for clarity, please can somebody point me to a link that will convince me that I would benefit significantly from 144Hz monitors. I'm honestly not saying that there's no benefit, just that I personally haven't seen it yet. When added to the cost of a machine to run triples at 144Hz and the cost of the monitors themselves, I just wonder about how practical 144Hz triples really are at this point in time? I'm not poking a wasp nest just for fun, I just would genuinely like to see good evidence that there is a tangible benefit.

100, 120, 144, 165, etc. Hz is way smoother than 60 Hz. Have you ever played old console games that were at 30 fps? The jump to 60 is massive. The jump to 100+ fps/hz is huge too. You don't need empirical evidence. It's like asking for emperical evidence that a blue car and a red car are different; you literally just look with your eyes and see the difference. When I put my monitor back to 60 Hz, the mouse looked like it was glitched when I moved it around the desktop (it was always like that at 60 Hz, I just never noticed).

A cool way to experiment is if using something like GSync or FreeSync with a fps limiter. Load up a game and move the mouse around in the menu with the fps limiter set to 60 fps, then adjust the fps limiter to 120 fps (or whatever the max refresh rate of your monitor is) and move the mouse around again - huge difference in fluidity.

I admit, the difference is probably not as great as going from 30 fps/hz to 60 but it's still a big difference.

Oh, and 100+ fps/hz will help lower input lag. Having said that, the overall design of the monitor has a way bigger impact on input lag than fps/hz (you can have 2 different 120 hz monitors with a huge difference in input lag between them).

To me, personally, it's more a visual/beauty/immersion thing than a gameplay advantage thing - well, I guess it's both but I personally notice the visual side of it much more than I notice any pure gameplay performance advantage. I'm pretty sure I can get the same laptimes at 60 fps/hz as I can at 100+ but things look so much more fluid at 100+. However, other people (especially in the first-person shooter crowd) swear that it improves their performance. Actually, there are videos that have tests which show people performing better with 100+ fps/hz. At the absolute worst, your performance will stay the same.


In terms of pure gameplay performance, here are 2 cool videos:

In terms of pure visuals, the same guy also did a test where he played the same game 5 times and had to guess if it was set to 60 fps/hz or 120 and he was 100% correct (5 out of 5).

 

[Denis Betty]

100, 120, 144, 165, etc. Hz is way smoother than 60 Hz. Have you ever played old console games that were at 30 fps? The jump to 60 is massive. The jump to 100+ fps/hz is huge too. You don't need empirical evidence. It's like asking for emperical evidence that a blue car and a red car are different; you literally just look with your eyes and see the difference. When I put my monitor back to 60 Hz, the mouse looked like it was glitched when I moved it around the desktop (it was always like that at 60 Hz, I just never noticed).

A cool way to experiment is if using something like GSync or FreeSync with a fps limiter. Load up a game and move the mouse around in the menu with the fps limiter set to 60 fps, then adjust the fps limiter to 120 fps (or whatever the max refresh rate of your monitor is) and move the mouse around again - huge difference in fluidity.

I admit, the difference is probably not as great as going from 30 fps/hz to 60 but it's still a big difference.

Oh, and 100+ fps/hz will help lower input lag. Having said that, the overall design of the monitor has a way bigger impact on input lag than fps/hz (you can have 2 different 120 hz monitors with a huge difference in input lag between them).

To me, personally, it's more a visual/beauty/immersion thing than a gameplay advantage thing - well, I guess it's both but I personally notice the visual side of it much more than I notice any pure gameplay performance advantage. I'm pretty sure I can get the same laptimes at 60 fps/hz as I can at 100+ but things look so much more fluid at 100+. However, other people (especially in the first-person shooter crowd) swear that it improves their performance. Actually, there are videos that have tests which show people performing better with 100+ fps/hz. At the absolute worst, your performance will stay the same.


In terms of pure gameplay performance, here are 2 cool videos:

In terms of pure visuals, the same guy also did a test where he played the same game 5 times and had to guess if it was set to 60 fps/hz or 120 and he was 100% correct (5 out of 5).

Well, we're not going to agree on the empirical evidence point. Taking somebody's word for it is IMO not scientific. I'm not saying it's not smoother, I think that's pretty much accepted. I'd still like to see it tested across all refresh rates though.

I'm also pretty happy that its noticable in game from 60 to 100Hz. Like I said, if I could get up to date 100Hz monitors, at a lower price than 144, I'd be tempted. Most of the people who post that the have 144Hz triples, give frame rates around 100(ish, this is an arbitrary figure), so I'm guessing the increased fluidity of 144Hz is not worth lowering in game graphics settings, to those individuals?

Like I've said twice already, when I'm racing, I'm not really bothered by the drop from 120Hz single. Ok, occasionally I notice slight choppiness, but I've changed other settings and added 2 sceeens. I'm now running at frame rates perilously close to my refresh rate and using V-Synch, so it's not comparing apples with apples.

The point if all this, is that I'm tempted to go 75Hz Freesyncn. But I know that 100Hz is what I really want. Hence the need for empircal evidence. I just hate the way that everything is funneling me toward 144Hz and full PC upgrade. That's to much money for me ATM.

 

[Emery]

The point if all this, is that I'm tempted to go 75Hz Freesyncn. But I know that 100Hz is what I really want. Hence the need for empircal evidence. I just hate the way that everything is funneling me toward 144Hz and full PC upgrade. That's to much money for me ATM.

Monitors should last a relatively long time, so buying the right ones from the beginning tends to be more cost effective than upgrading later. That's not to say 75 Hz Freesync is a poor choice, just that it is a financial decision rather than a technical one. So buy the best monitors you can for the lifespan you expect.

CPUs are hardly improving at all; their life cycle is 6-8 years now before there's even a hint that it's time to upgrade. GPUs, with our gaming software, are pushing the life cycle to needing an upgrade every 2-3 years. Monitors, though? The only things pushing their lifecycle are size and quality. Try not to be on the bleeding edge of your wallet, but shop for quality when it comes to monitors.

 

[Denis Betty]

Ok so, I can't really afford it, but if I did wanna upgrade to better monitors, with smaller bezels, free synch and a higher refresh rate than my current mons (60Hz)... Well ok, I don't envisage a time (in the next 4 - 5 years) when I'll have a PC capable of running triple 1080p's at 144Hz, but I do get the future proofing argument... and before anybody says it, I just don't accept that I need higher res than 1080 - I have NEVER, noticed a single pixel, mid race, at 1080p on 27" mons, right in front of my face. No offence, but I'm just not having that.

So, considering all of the above... just hypothetically.... could somebody well read and well versed in monitor tech please advise me on the pros and cons of THESE monitors at (what seems to me, to be) at comparatively reasonable price.

Sorry to be an awkward, balshy, uninformed, needy old fart.

Cheers.

 

[Spinelli]

Well, we're not going to agree on the empirical evidence point. Taking somebody's word for it is IMO not scientific. I'm not saying it's not smoother, I think that's pretty much accepted. I'd still like to see it tested across all refresh rates though.

I'm also pretty happy that its noticable in game from 60 to 100Hz. Like I said, if I could get up to date 100Hz monitors, at a lower price than 144, I'd be tempted. Most of the people who post that the have 144Hz triples, give frame rates around 100(ish, this is an arbitrary figure), so I'm guessing the increased fluidity of 144Hz is not worth lowering in game graphics settings, to those individuals?

Like I've said twice already, when I'm racing, I'm not really bothered by the drop from 120Hz single. Ok, occasionally I notice slight choppiness, but I've changed other settings and added 2 sceeens. I'm now running at frame rates perilously close to my refresh rate and using V-Synch, so it's not comparing apples with apples.

The point if all this, is that I'm tempted to go 75Hz Freesyncn. But I know that 100Hz is what I really want. Hence the need for empircal evidence. I just hate the way that everything is funneling me toward 144Hz and full PC upgrade. That's to much money for me ATM.

Emperical evidence of what? What are you looking for that those videos I posted or mentioned are not showing, explaining, or proving?

 

[Denis Betty]

Emperical evidence of what? What are you looking for that those videos I posted or mentioned are not showing, explaining, or proving?

Easy fella, I wasn't having a go at you. I'd already seen the 2nd vid, as I'd alluded to in an earlier post. I watched the 1st one, which quantitatively demonstrates a competitive advantage in FPS games, but (from a strict scientific angle), for me, doesn't show an advantage in sim racing, between 100Hz and 240Hz.

I accept that 100Hz is noticeably smoother than 60Hz. I have experience of 120Hz sim racing, so I've made my mind up on that, without feeling the need for a scientific (or psuedo-scientific) study. But for me, the evidence (for example, in the 2nd vid) becomes less compelling, that increases in refresh rates above 100Hz provide any significant benefit. I'm not denying that benefits exist, I'm just questioning the perceived wisdom that we should all strive to achieve the highest refresh rates, without factoring in the law of diminishing returns. I'm not even saying that the law of diminishing returns is definitely a factor here, I'm just asking for evidence, one way or the other. If nobody chimes in with empirical evidence, that's fine. It doesn't mean that it's not worth buying a 144Hz monitor (or 3), it just means (for me) that the jury is still out.

My intention was not to offend anybody. Reasoned argument should not (IMO) be about winning or losing. It should, in fact, be more about moving toward a consensus of opinion. For me, that should be evidence based. Personally, I (honestly, hand on heart) feel we should question everything - every "fact" we see claimed, etc, etc.

I've just posted a question about 144Hz monitors (above). If I could buy 100Hz Freesynch monitors somewhere, for significantly less money than the 350 quid each that most 144Hz monitors seem to cost (based on the evidence I've seen so far), I would probably go down the 100Hz route. However, I've just seen the monitors I linked to 2 posts above, so I ask the question - are they any good? Where's the catch?

That's it, that's all I have to say. I've just tried to explain myself as clearly as I can without causing offence.

Cheers

 

[Emery]

So, considering all of the above... just hypothetically.... could somebody well read and well versed in monitor tech please advise me on the pros and cons of THESE monitors at (what seems to me, to be) at comparatively reasonable price.

Not much seemed out of whack:
- TN panel (people have different preferences; I happen to prefer IPS)
- reviewer noted quirky joystick for adjusting monitor (power switch?)
- reviewer also noted build quality was not as high as they expected

 

[Denis Betty]

Not much seemed out of whack:
- TN panel (people have different preferences; I happen to prefer IPS)
- reviewer noted quirky joystick for adjusting monitor (power switch?)
- reviewer also noted build quality was not as high as they expected

Thanks.
Yes I read the reviews, but only 2 on that site.
I thought at first that TN had poor viewing angle, but I now think I was getting confused with TFT? The spec'd viewing angle is 160V & 170H, so no worries there. Tell you what, I can't sleep, so I'm gonna do something a bit... out there. I'm gonna Google some stuff and see if I can learn something.

 

[pattikins]

... and before anybody says it, I just don't accept that I need higher res than 1080 - I have NEVER, noticed a single pixel, mid race, at 1080p on 27" mons, right in front of my face. No offence, but I'm just not having that...

As I see it, the argument about the difference between 1080p vs 1440p isn't necessarily about pixel density - changes to viewing distance & screen size can have a similar impact. For me, if the aim of buying 3 monitors is to see more of the environment, then 1440p wins hands down - about 2/3s more.

After a quick look I found several 1440p 144hz monitors below £300 - here, here & curved (31.5").

AC @ 1080p on a 1440p monitor:

 

[Denis Betty]

If you change your viewing distance/screen size, you are meant to need a different FoV. With correct FoV @ the screens as close as I can stand them, I don't see pixels (unless I'm looking for them I guess).
Forgive me, I don't understand your point. How does higher res at same screen size and distance allow me to see more of the environment. Sorry, I know I'm thick, please bear with me.

 

[pattikins]

If you change your viewing distance/screen size, you are meant to need a different FoV. With correct FoV @ the screens as close as I can stand them, I don't see pixels (unless I'm looking for them I guess).
Forgive me, I don't understand your point. How does higher res at same screen size and distance allow me to see more of the environment. Sorry, I know I'm thick, please bear with me.

You're probably right. It's been a few years since I had triples. Maybe my memory is playing tricks with me. I just remember being able to see more of the car when I switched from three 1920x1080 setup to one where the centre screen was 2560. Sorry.

 

[Denis Betty]

Ha ha, now neither of us is very sure on this.

Anyway, in post #24, I did say,

I don't envisage a time (in the next 4 - 5 years) when I'll have a PC capable of running triple 1080p's at 144Hz, but I do get the future proofing argument... and before anybody says it

, so 1440 isn't really a goer for me.

 

[Denis Betty]

Ha ha, now neither of us is very sure on this.

Anyway, in post #24, I did say,
, so 1440 isn't really a goer for me.

Although, some of the 1440 screens are actually cheaper than the cheapest sensible 1080 option????
Do all of these 1440 screens have the capacity to run on a 1080 signal from the graphics card?

 

[pattikins]

Although, some of the 1440 screens are actually cheaper than the cheapest sensible 1080 option????
Do all of these 1440 screens have the capacity to run on a 1080 signal from the graphics card?

Personally yes. I've just had a quick look @ a couple of games @ 1080p on my 1440p monitor & they looked fine. As I've already given erroneous advice I would suggest looking @ the respective monitors user-manual. I'll get you started. The 1440p iiyama monitor supports 1080p @ 144hz, but you will need 3 displayport outputs on your graphics card - last page.

 

[Kieran527]

Is there a given monitor distance from eye to say what size is best for the better FOV?
I cant seem to find anything that tells me if my monitors are going to be 80cm away from my eye, what size screen should I go with.
I find information on setting FOV, but no guides to give realistic FOV guides.

Our normal eye sight gives us say circa 170 degree FOV, but the chances of replicating that on triples is slim, so what should we be aiming for as a target?

I know i can get a better FOV with 32" screens at 80cm from eye distance, but would 27" screens give a more representative view of what you see in the car.

Don't really know if im making sense from what I've said above, but im stuck between 27" and 32" screens. I know my distance to screens will be 80cm, and i think it suits 32" better, but I dont want everything to be unrealistically large.

Any measurements and photos people can take of their rig set ups could be helpful with your opinions on what you see with your set up

 

[Denis Betty]

THIS guys seems knowledgeable. The only bit I don't like, is his insistence on angles which are close to 90 degrees. I'm talking about the internal angle between the viewing surfaces of the front monitor and the side one. I have mine at around 135 (I'm guessing because I have no way to measure this angle) because I feel that lower value angles mean that I don't really see half of the side screens. It would also make it a ball ache getting in and out of my rig.

Also, (as we have ascertained earlier in this thread) 1080p 32s at that viewing distance may also have visible pixels, which for some people, is unacceptable. So it might be worth trying to drive with a single 32 at that distance, before you buy.

 

[Kieran527]

Thanks Denis, I’ll have a read.
I’m not too sensitive to seeing pixels, so that wouldn’t bother me too much, I would just like to know if 32 or 27 would give the more realistic size and fov.
That’s also part of my problem, I don’t have access to trying a 32” screen, so when I take the decision to purchase 27 or 32 it’ll be blind and I’ll be taking a bit of a punt, which is why I’m lingering on my decision and trying to square away all my doubts before buying

 

[alfye20]

Problem with 32" displays is that the center horizon must be at your eyes level so its mandatory to put them far away or at the back of the wheel, loosing too much desktop view.
If not, we are wasting a good ammount of pixes showing the roof or the sky

 

[Kieran527]

if i want my eyes in line with the centre of the screen, due to my seating position I need the screens behind the wheel base, so 32" would suit better than 27"
To place the screen right behind the wheel, my seating position would be higher against the wheel than I feel comfortable with, when were meant to be sat in a race car for immersion purposes