Monitors

[trainmanaustin]

What is everyone using for monitors and what size?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[derekmorton]

I run a 32 inch 4k monitor.

[frliss]

Hi,

I have a 32 inch 1920 x 1080 by AOC. Its a bit old but it served me well over the years.

Fred

[lateagain]

Hi,

I have a 32 inch 1920 x 1080 by AOC. Its a bit old but it served me well over the years.

Fred

The "Optimum" screen size should be judged on the formula "Diagonal Screen Size should be 2/3rds the viewing distance" OR the "Viewing Distance should be 1.5 times the diagonal screen size"

That of course is before you consider the resolution of the image you're viewing. Low image quality will look MUCH worse on a bigger screen. Obvious? Well it always amuses me that they sell 4K and 8K massive screen TV's when there is very little content produced at those resolutions and Standard Definition broadcasts look awful on massive screens

"Yer pay's yer money and yer takes yer choice...."

PS forgot to mention what other uses you'll put the monitor to?

[trainmanaustin]

I run a 32 inch 4k monitor.

What FPS are you seeing and what GPU do you have?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[derekmorton]

I have a 1070ti and fps ranges from 30 to 300.

[trainmanaustin]

I have a 1070ti and fps ranges from 30 to 300.

Ok then the GTX 1660 ti I just put in would keep up.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[EricF]

34" ultrawide 3440x1440 -- Originally ran with a GTX 1080 which handled it just fine; upgraded earlier this year to an RTX 2080 Super. Way overkill for Open Rails, and MSTS will crash unless I lower the desktop resolution before launching it.

[trainmanaustin]

34" ultrawide 3440x1440 -- Originally ran with a GTX 1080 which handled it just fine; upgraded earlier this year to an RTX 2080 Super. Way overkill for Open Rails, and MSTS will crash unless I lower the desktop resolution before launching it.

You running Openrails setting at max settings?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[EricF]

Even for Open Rails, I usually switch to a more "standard" aspect ratio, like 1920x1440 for a less stretched cab view. Other than that, usually 2000m view distance looks good to me. I usually use the Monogame versions, which utilize the GPU a little better. All in all, OR isn't that hard on systems unless you get into extremely high-poly models, which are still a minority.

The setup is more geared to accommodate whatever OR throws its way, and run more modern games at ultra settings. I'll run ETS2/ATS at 400% scaling and other settings maxed-out.

1440P isn't quite 4K. It's not quite as demanding, although an ultrawide monitor still adds more pixels to push compared to a normal 16:9 aspect ratio. An ultrawide monitor is kind of like a big movie screen -- not all films use the whole screen, but the "real estate" is there for when you want to use it. For older games that don't handle ultrawide as well, I can just select a 16:9/16:10/4:3 aspect ratio at 1440p.

[trainmanaustin]

34" ultrawide 3440x1440 -- Originally ran with a GTX 1080 which handled it just fine; upgraded earlier this year to an RTX 2080 Super. Way overkill for Open Rails, and MSTS will crash unless I lower the desktop resolution before launching it.

In your opinnion would you say a 2070 Super would be better suited? According to a couple bottleneck calulators, my I7 7700K will run a 2070 Super with less than a 10% bottleneck while being overclocked 15%.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[trainmanaustin]

Oh I also picked up an Acer 27" 1440P 144hz monitor and the image quality is way nicer that the older 1080P 60hz monitor I was using.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[derekmorton]

Both cards will run OR for many years without any bottlenecks.

There is no better of worse, its down to budget.

[trainmanaustin]

Both cards will run OR for many years without any bottlenecks.

There is no better of worse, its down to budget.

Ok, what I am trying to do is find out if there is anymore room for improvement that can be made in my system to help with FPS. I have one activity on Mullan Pass (Double Empty Grain) at the beginning in Missoula where I have the FPS dip down to 27FPS when viewing the rear of the train but the cab view generates over 90FPS and climbs to 144FPS once I get just out of town.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[qballbandit]

What is it you perceive to see at 27fps that is annoying? I ask because some people, not saying you, simply get hung up on numbers even when there is little to no visual loss of smoothness.
I see 27fps, and I have one hell of a time finding room to complain about anything. Maybe it's just my eyes?
As well, some people will confuse stuttering and lower fps, which can be caused by different hardware components, for different reasons.