Xtreme Gaming Network
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bird on January 27, 2016, 09:08:51 AM
-
I think these guys heard our pleas! Ultra-wide monitor formats are coming:
Samsung, LG going ultrawide with upcoming 32:9 and 2.4 : 1 displays (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/crazy-ultrawide-329-and-241-displays-will-be-released-by-samsung-and-lg-this-year/)
Most of the current monitors are 16:9 ( ~ 1.7 : 1 )
I think I'll snatch the 49" version when it comes out ;)
I also hope it's curved, otherwise it'll be useless.
-
Yeah man! I think I could get one of those when it happens, off to measure the space and practice my request...
"yes dear, it is only one screen for games, yes I love you to have the old one for yourself... ohh yes I will sell my vintage surfboards to pay for it... " :)
-
Yeah we've started using 21:9 monitors at work, very easy to used to, started thinking it might be good to get one of them for my driving rig at home (being a single monitor user) :P
-
Heh, Bruce, I know exactly what you mean :D
Stan, wait with that 21:9. It's only a 2.3 : 1 ratio.
The 32:9 is the beez neez. (3.5 ratio)
That's the same as 2 x 16:9 monitors side-by-side, which I reckon is about perfect.
-
Yep a 32:9 would be schweet as.
This was the one I was eyeing off. It's all about the radius's man!! This one has a nice n low 2000R baaaaby!! Feel the immersion!!
http://gaming.benq.com/gaming-monitor/xr3501
:-X 8) :-X
-
Yep, I looked at the 21:9 monitors and you really only get another 10cm either side extra screen space when looking at a 27 inch monitor.
The ultra-wide ones I will definitely be interested in though when there are single graphics cards that can run them properly.
I wish specs would more readily detail the width in cm of each monitor. Yes it can be easily worked out with simple math, but I don't want to do it when viewing large numbers of monitors.
-
I still reckon you need the width of triple screens ie 5.3:1 for my 3x1920x1080 monitors. Physical size doesn't necessary give you the resolution width. The triples have 5760 pixel width. So a big monitor with that many pixels would allow Assetto Corsa to use a correct FOV and still see out the side windows. So the perfect screen is curved, large and with about 5000 pixels width.
-
Yep a 32:9 would be schweet as.
This was the one I was eyeing off. It's all about the radius's man!! This one has a nice n low 2000R baaaaby!! Feel the immersion!!
http://gaming.benq.com/gaming-monitor/xr3501
:-X 8) :-X
I've seen a similar one (hands on xp), not ultra-cuved, but....my problem was that it was too short, still (as in not having enough height).
So the actual size of the monitor is very important here - as well as the resolution. 1080 px height will not cut it IMO.
Altho at 35" it's not bad ;)
-
"yes dear, it is only one screen for games, yes I love you to have the old one for yourself... ohh yes I will sell my vintage surfboards to pay for it... " :)
Hmmm so this kind of thing never ends huh? *sigh* I just convinced my wife to let me borrow $1500 from our emergency fund to buy a new gaming PC, with the view of selling my current gaming laptop to cover some of the cost. Let's hope this thing sells!!
-
ISR reviews the BenQ XR3501 Ultra Wide Gaming Monitor
http://youtu.be/8gc5sY_HqrY
-
Hmmm, I'm not so sure now. Watching that video, all it seems to give you is a wider view of the dash.
I'm after something that will allow me to see apex's better, but most importantly give me a good sense of speed.
-
You really need triples for that. Or Oculus.
-
GB, that one is only 21:9.
As I said, wait with that. It's just not wide enough - and now you can see it, too.
I don't think you must have triples, but at least twice the 'regular' 16:9 is a necessity. Hence the 32:9 I reckon is the sweet spot.
-
Oh cool. For some reason I just assumed it was 32:9 :) Thanks for pointing that out.
-
thanks for the info, in waiting mode.