I'm looking to upgrade my monitor and have always been bothered by how hard it is to see airports, on a 24" monitor.

 

I seem to recall when flying Cessnas years ago that the runway looked bigger on downwind in real life during a curcuit. 

 

So, can the size of the real outside world be realistically reproduced?  If so, what size montior would it require?

I'm on 21" monitor, 1680x1050, and honestly it is okay. The biggest problem for me is the 1050p resolution and the text on displays that are hard to read. I would be very happy to get 24" 1080p, seriously.

I have a 46" HDTV monitor and it's pretty close.  I think 55" might be a bit closer (I tried one) but I found it so large as to be annoying.

Does'nt it depend also on how close you sit to it?

 

I have a 40" but it's 4K so I can sit fairly close, I find it very imersive, to a point that it can, at times, make me feel airsick!

 

Good wishes

Phil

Im using a BenQ W1080ST @ full HD 1080p for a few days now it is about 6 feet away from the wall and it is almost like life size -i guess its a bit bigger.

I've never looked too closely at this, but I can say that runways and airport buildings look pretty realistic when flying a commercial airliner, but change to a GA aircraft and there is some type of perspective change that occurs beyond what I'd expect.

 

I can also say that for some reason, airliners at 1/4 mile or more look a lot smaller than they do in real life, especially when airborne.  This is has also bothered me, as it makes it difficult to spot other traffic because they always look A LOT smaller than one would/should expect. There is no solution for this other than turning on the Aircraft labels, which I loathe doing.

 

Along with the size of other aircraft is the lighting (almost all lighting whether it's on a aircraft or static), which gets larger as you get further from it.  This was purposely designed this way in ESP.

 

I don't know if P3D addresses any of these issues, but it would certainly be nice if they did.

 

 

I can also say that for some reason, airliners at 1/4 mile or more look a lot smaller than they do in real life, especially when airborne. This is has also bothered me, as it makes it difficult to spot other traffic because they always look A LOT smaller than one would/should expect. There is no solution for this other than turning on the Aircraft labels, which I loathe doing.

 

Very, very true.  I do opt for the labels.  Be really nice to see that fixed.

 

 

 

Along with the size of other aircraft is the lighting (almost all lighting whether it's on a aircraft or static), which gets larger as you get further from it. This was purposely designed this way in ESP.

 

I often wondered why lights were so big.  I thought the devs wanted to emphasize it.  Even with them set at the smallest level in Orbx, I want them smaller. 

I'm building my 1st cockpit.  When you're sitting directly in front, maybe 5-6' away, 46" seems to be the sweet spot between immersion and price.

Hi,

 

Apologies for kind of hijacking this thread.

 

I've been using three 22" monitors, each 1680x1024, via Matrox Triplehead Digital.  Today my middle monitor has failed.  My viewing distance is 36 inches.

Resolution of 1680x1024 seems to be off the market, and all three monitors need to have the same resolution.

 

Do I now buy three new identical monitors, to replace what I've got, or should I go for a single large monitor/TV to give me a satisfactory new view?  I can't change my viewing distance.

 

Some advice would be really great!

 

Jim

 

 

Do I now buy three new identical monitors, to replace what I've got, or should I go for a single large monitor/TV to give me a satisfactory new view?  I can't change my viewing distance.

 

Sorry to hear about the dead monitor.  Over the years, I've tried a lot of different configs.  At this stage, I want to spend more time flying and less time editing config files and dealing with aspect issues.

 

It's not a perfect solution, but I chose to go with a 1080p low-lag HDTV (1920x1080).  Prices are very low and the immersion is much better, in my opinion.  I went with a 48", about 5-6' away.  At 3', I'd try going to a store and look at 32-36".

 

Just my opinions as I'm researching too.

The same thing happened to me - I had 3 monitors and one went dead.  Replaced them with a 40" 4K monitor running at 2440 x 1600 and I would never go back.  I can sit close to the monitor, very immersive, and get better fps than I had with the old ones.

(I'm running a i7-4970K @ 4.5 with a gtx 780)

 

Lon Duncombe

BTW, cost of the LG 4k 40" was only $700.  

My estimate is that a 80-100" screen would make most VR cockpit feel close to life-sized on screen. You need to sit at a distance roughly 2/3 of the screen size to let the screen nearly fill up your view field. Sitting this close also makes 4K resolution a necessity. 

 

Alternatively, there is Oculus Rift VR display that could let you totally immersed in a word of exactly 1:1 life size. The major problem with Oculus VR isn't the display itself, it's that there is no hardware to run FSX/P3D at high fps with good visual quality. VR is insanely demanding on the hardware/software performance, way more than the running 4K resolution.

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks for the input.  I'm tempted to go for the TV solution, because it should eliminate the stretching of the view over three narrow screens with two bezels.  The stretching can be annoying, although the wide outside view from the VC is good.

 

I'm worried about trying to run a monitor at 2440x1600.  It's a lot more pixels than 3840x1024, which taxes my system at the moment.  Probably 1920x1080 would be the wiser choice.  With a big effort I could probably increase my viewing distance to 5 feet.  I do have TIR, although I've never tried it in P3D, which is my current sim.

 

This is a bad time for the monitor to go dead, cost wise, for I've just upgraded to an i7-4790k on an Asus Ranger VII Z97 board.  I already had a GTX970 card.  I haven't tried yet, to overclock the 4790, and only tested the new setup with P3D yesterday.  I guess that's what finally killed the monitor.  The 4790 was working almost flat out, while the 970 was just coasting along.

 

I see a 49" LG 49LB550V which would cost only around £40 more than three new 22 inchers.

 

I'm on the fence right now.  :unsure:

 

Jim

 

 

 

There is barely any difference in total pixels between 2440x1600 and 3840x1024

Im using a BenQ W1080ST @ full HD 1080p for a few days now it is about 6 feet away from the wall and it is almost like life size -i guess its a bit bigger.

+1

I find it to be a good flight deck solution