Thanks for watching! Yeah the difference is quite significant. Situational awareness and sensation of speed both get a big boost with more FOV. Whether it's worth the time, cost and hassle of changing from your setup is now your decision :)
i understand. i went from a single 16/9 to a 21/9 to triple 16/9. So never had 32/9. But i love my triples because you can really see when someone is besides you for an attack. But must also say, 1 49 superultrawide is also not a bad experience. Its still way better then just 1 normal screen. I think the best thing you can get is 3 42inch 4k oled panels. No motion problems and all the screenspace you want. But not to extreme like some youtubes have triple 65inch. Thats to big. For me triple 27 it is for now because i don't have much space left. XD
Update: I did upgrade to triple 32"s shortly after my comment. Night and day difference! If you've got the space for it, do it! Costed me less than my G9 costed.
Very interesting topic, Doc! You've convinced me to go triples in the near future. I was initially planning on getting a 21:9 (34") monitor, but, like you said, I was having an unrealistic expectation of FOV. This clears up quite a lot of stuff!
Having had single, triple and super ultra wide.. i can now say nothing beats VR for simracing. That and a 3DOF rig and you have fully immersed race that nothing can beat.
I'd love to give VR a proper try. I have a PSVR and really enjoyed Dirt Rally, but haven't used VR for any racing since then. Please write to your favourite headset brands and encourage them to send me a headset to test!
i've used about 6 different HMD's for now my daily driver is the pimax crystal just because of the amazing clarity an visuals. In overall feeling my HTC vive Pro was the best.@@DrAlanQuan
Tried rift S and quest 3, get ton of issue even with a pretty decent computer. lose tracking or freeze in the middle of a corner ... Sold them and got triple for almost the same price
hmmm honestly i never had any problem with my HTC vive or vive pro....nor do i have this problem with my crystal ( btw the vive's worked with a RTX2080) i do agree the setup takes time . However a decent 3 monitor takes a while to . But once that is setup it should be for ever. @@dylanfriedrich5722
I have owned the 49 inch for about 5 months now and I could not be happier. I probably would have gone triples but just do not have the space the 49 is a tight fit but as I said I personally could not be happier, Yes racing side by side is not as easy as with triples but it's still leagues apart from the single 27" I started on and it is a lot more user friendly in terms of setup, Great video showing the differences btw, But to anyone who doesn't have room for triples the 49 is a great option imo
Hi Andy I completely agree and I'm so glad you brought this to the comments. I don't think a single 49" super ultrawide is a bad choice - it is compact but maximises FOV for its compactness, it looks awesome, it's a simpler task to assemble and wire. It suits your needs, just as it doesn't suit my needs. I just hope that people will have a fair understanding of what to expect FOV-wise with this type of monitor before spending their money and I think my videos accomplish that!
49” with Track IR is better than Vr for me 💯. Never tried triples, but with 49” I can run every game maxed out pretty much with 2070super. I know with triples I would have to upgrade pc as I’m used to nice graphics. TrackIR has zero performance hit and lets you look into the apex which gives a very realistic feeling as well as checking sides. This was a great video btw.
I choose the single 49“ to save electrical energy. The system uses about 300 watts less power (monitors and gpu) compared to tripple. Energy costs are really high here in Germany…
@@alex.germany power consumption is an interesting aspect I didn't consider for this topic - but I have actually been measuring power consumption of all my equipment in the last few weeks and think it's a fascinating topic
@@DrAlanQuan Yes. I measure my equipment since about two years. And my sim rig allone (including all periphery) draws about 600 kWh just this year. I just startr the sim rig for 2 to 3 hours per day in average. This means that the whole system requires around 650 watts when I use it. My main computer - that runs usually 15 h to 16 h per day - used about the same power because it's most of the time idle, has a smaller monitor etc...
Hi, I appreciate the content! I am in process of setting up triple 32's after several happy years with an MSI 34 in ultra wide. The ultrawide replaceed a single 27 inch I chose Samsung 32in 1440p 166Hz G5's. They're still in boxes as am awaiting delivery of the triple support brackets for my rig. For the past year'ish, I've been using VR more and more, (which is amazing), but still wanted ease and comfort of triples. July summer sales finally made the three monitor expense come down to an acceptable price point. Thanks for sharing your work and making it easy to compare and discuss the different configurations.
Hi Rick, thank you for sharing your comment! How do you feel about your monitor progression - it sounds like you've bought and moved on from quite a few setups in your time! I think the triple 32s are endgame level purchases and will be very satisfying to install and fine tune. Also the satisfaction of knowing you'll never, ever need to upgrade screens again. I'm actually going to film a follow up to this video today - I will be filming a Samsung 57 and doing FOV comparisons on that but you and I both know the triple 32s are going to come out on top :) I'm thinking about getting a Quest 3 for my first taste of VR (since PSVR 1 anyway). I know triples have a lot of advantages but I'd like to experience what modern VR can do
@@DrAlanQuan Wow! I had a really long essay written, chronicalling my evolution from couch sitting 55 inch TV monitor gamer to triple 34 in rig using sim-racer. And then somehow I mis-hit a key and POOF - all gone. 🙂Oh well... The gist is, I feel good about my evolution. My choices for monitors suited my needs as I grew first in understanding what FOV and peripheral vision meant to my racing skill, and then to needing and wanting more peripheral visability. My desire was always to get as much peripheral vision as I could afford to help me be as safe and effective a driver as I could be. I am a still a relative noob at this. Size and spec wise I think I did a good thing with this most recent purchase. A few years down the road I might, maybe, have to upgrade to OLED something or others, as you do from time to time. 🙂 But yeah, I think I'm good for awhile. Appreciate your comments. Sidenote: A tool I found really useful and you might want to check out and comment on on the channel, is TrackIR 5 head tracker. www.trackir.com/ While it soesn't change your FOV, it does give you easier access to what's off screen to left or right. I started using trackIR5, with the 27in and continued thru to this day on the 34in monitor. I found it relatively inexpensive and very helpful for letting me move my head in a very natural way to look left or right to give you some side vision. It's not VR. As for VR: I bought my wife and I Quest 3's in February of this year. Love it! Would like to hear how you get on with it. For PC interface I am only using a bit of software called Virtual Desktop, and Steam VR for PC games like AC, ACC, Automobolista 2. I am planning to download Open XR or Open VR to make a go in iRacing. Take care. looking forward to the deep dive into size. Rick
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you've not adjusted the FOV relative to the horizontal and aspect ratio (easily seen in the video) so you're 35 ultra wide (horizontal pixels 3x3440) shows less information in the FoV than your 32" 16:9 monitors (horizontal pixels 3x2560). That just isn't factual if the FoV is adjusted for the horizontal and aspect as the 35" ultra wide setup has more pixels to work with on the horizontal, and therefore will show MORE information in a properly adjusted field of view. A monitor has amount of horizontal pixels to work with. The Samsung 57" super ultra wide for example has 7680 pixels on the horizontal, and you're 3x 32" monitors have 2560 pixels on the horizontal, so they have the same 7680 pixels on the horizontal to work with as the Samsung super ultra wide. If FoV is adjusted relative to the horizontal and aspect for both setups, you'd get the exact same information displayed for the FoV on both, at least as far as the horizontal is concerned. The 57" would have more on the vertical though which while nice in some ways, would require more GPU power to drive, so it's give and take. If however someone had triple 1080p monitors, regardless of the fact it's a triple monitor setup, they still would have only 5760 pixels to work with on the horizontal, so once the FoV calc is adjusted for the size and aspect of the monitor(s) to reflect the correct FoV, they would display LESS in their FoV than the 57" super ultra wide, despite it being a triple monitor setup. Hope that makes sense ... It was an interesting video all the same, just not entirely accurate in what you were trying to demonstrate :)
Hi Cryptic Dingo, thanks for commenting! In my opinion, you have a mix of correct and incorrect points and I'll try to address them. You are right, my triple 35"s show less than the triple 32"s when they should show more - IF the driver head position is the same for both setups. However, the driver eye to screen distance for the 32"s is quite short (within arms reach) and the eye to screen distance for the 35"s is much longer. The reason for this is the 32"s are my own personal setup tuned for my preferences, and the 35"s are exactly as configured when delivered by RaceKraft - and they have theirs set up for many customers to easily get in and out of the cockpits in their sim centre. The net result is the screens are further away, so show less. Think of a small window in a cafe - if you're far away from it, you can't see much out of it, but if you get up real nice and close you can see almost everything outside - this is the effect that distance from the eyes has. Should I have corrected the FOV settings to match the same driver distance? For a pure scientific comparison, yes I should have. But I was just filming a comparison of 3 cockpit setups that I had running side by side - all 3 were working well in their own way, and I started filming. Several eagle eyed viewers including yourself asked about the 35s showing less than the 32s which is great - it shows you are watching but also applying your knowledge and asking questions when things don't appear to match up - I love that! Now onto your topic about resolution - I am absolutely confident about this, but please let me know your thoughts. Resolution has nothing to do with FOV, what matters is SCREEN SIZE. Let's take my 32"s as comparison - they have 2560x1440 resolution - so does my 6" phone. If I had the 6" phones set up as triples, at the same distance from my eyes as the 32"s would I have the same FOV? Absolutely not, the phone screens are tiny, even though they have the same resolution - and if they are my window into viewing the world, I'll see barely anything. If I have 3 projectors, each 1920x1080, but projecting triple 100" screens I could make an ENORMOUS game world with huge FOV even though the resolution is smaller. BTW the triple 35"s actually have a resolution of 2560x1080, so they have the exact same horizontal resolution as my triple 32"s - but again it's not about resolution, it's about screen size - and the 35"s are WIDER than my 32s, so they should show more FOV but only if the eye to screen distance is the same. As for the 57" - again we can ignore the resolution, but the issue with the 57" is that it doesn't wrap around you like triples do, so it will not show as much FOV. The screen just isn't in the correct space around the driver's head to show someone driving alongside them. FOV is not about resolution. It's about screen size AND distance from eye to screen. Resolution just makes things look clearer. Thanks so much for your comment, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my reply :)
@@DrAlanQuan Thanks for taking the time to respond. Just based on what I could see I took a stab the 35's had more than your 32's on the horizontal, I knew yours were 2560, so made the assumption they would be 3440 on the horizontal. Re your iPhone 6" screen example. If you adjust the viewing distance to accomodate for the physical size and had them angled to cover the same viewable angular range, then yes, 100% they would have the same FoV. You probably wouldn't want to sit there with iPhones rigged up as monitors right up in your face, but you could, and you'd have the same information displayed (resolution) in the same angular range (fov). Those 3 x 1080p 100in projectors you mentioned, regardless of if you set them up to the same FoV, they would show so little observable/useable information (due to lack of pixel size/density - low resolution relative to physical size) that you wouldn't really have a game world to play in. But as you rightly point out, FoV isn't about resolution! It is about what is observable within a given angular range. Perhaps I was a little fixated on thinking about how much information could be displayed on a given screen regardless of physical size. Why? Because having useable information within the FoV is kind of important. There is a reason they don't make 100" 260p OLED displays right 🤪 So, perhaps when we talk about FoV, triple screen setups vs super ultra wides, we need to address more than just the FoV alone. It's about getting usable/actionable information about the observable 'world' so we can make the best decisions based on that information, like the car coming alongside you. The 3 iPhones (though capable), or the 100in 1080p screens (also capable for FoV but not for providing useable information due to resolution, or lack thereof) are both examples of why we need to talk about these things with more context than just FoV or resolution alone. As for the 57" super ultra wide... that doesn't wrap around as much as your setup, so you're right 100% right, it wouldn't have the same FoV as the 32's because of how much more you bring those around (angular range). That said, technically, it is capable of displaying the same information as the 3x 32's (because of the resolution), just the FoV would be a little off/condensed. One could argue the information would be more usable as it more easily observed (less head turning - peripheral vision is only so good). Still, I concede that point to you Sir 😎. That said, I'd rather the single massive screen and tweak the FoV to give me just enough 'view', but without condensing information from the larger FoV (trips) too much into the slightly smaller FoV (super ultra wide). Side note: I really enjoyed watching your video and chatting with you about it. It certainly made me think, and if your video gets people thinking about these things, then one could say it did what it set out to do. Keep up the good work! 👍
Yeah it's quite hypnotic to watch the the different perspectives all playing out in real time. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for commenting! I appreciate your appreciation!
Very nice video. I like how you clearly showed the difference in game, that's real life scenarios. I missed the ultrawide 45 LG oled and the new Samsung 56", but hey, there's too much to ask, you did amazing
Haha thank you, I've received so many comments suggesting/telling me to test the Samsung 57" and I'm just like, it's THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS I don't make big purchasing decisions like that easily haha RaceKraft actually have the triple LG OLED setup so it's not impossible to film those. I raced in them, they work really well. FOV-wise it's not much different to triple 32s - it's big, wide and tall. But the colours are lovely and the deep curve is quite spectacular. That big Samsung though, it's so expensive and it is 'just' a single monitor after all and unless Samsung sends me one to assess, I don't think I'll come across one to test.
@@DrAlanQuan yeah, it’s too expensive. They definitely should send you a review unit, it’s on their best interest. If it does well, they have a selling point and a justification for the absurd price. Another common option is for people to go with a big 65” TV, this can show how much they gain(or lose) with a ultrawide and a triples set. Anyway, thanks again !
that would not be recommended. you would have to set the resolution ingame as for 3 49"s to work, and you will only view half of the rendered image on laterals. and of course the GPU will most likely not cope with such high resolution.
Thanks! I've come across a lot of people who are under the impression that super ultrawides are almost as good as triples - probably people who bought super ultrawides themselves and have justification bias. But the truth is the racing experience isn't even close - and if I can save a new buyer some regret and some money by making this video, I think I've helped to make the world a better place ❤️
Thanks for the video sir. I ran triples until VR happened and I haven't gone back since. Rift, Quest 2, HP Reverb and now Quest 3. Using on my race rig and also my flight sim. Now with mixed reality coming into play, things are progressing rapidly. Cheers!
I'm curious, why the upgrade path between those three headsets? I'm very new to VR, trying to learn as much as I can before possibly picking something up in the new year
@@DrAlanQuan It's just the progression of technolgy and better headsets coming out through the years. HTC Vive and Oculus Rift came out in 2016. Since then optics have improved and prices have come down. There are advantages and disadvantages going either way with flat screens or VR. You have a lot of studying to do. But luckily there are tons of videos and opinions out there. In short, if you want pure immersion then VR is the way to go. If you want to know more about the history and progression of VR then look up a chap named Palmer Luckey. Cheers!
@@DrAlanQuan i think pico 4 would be a great entry for you, they use the new kind of pancake lenses and dont have the bloat that comes with using a quest. Its only 200 to 250 bucks used in europe at least, a great deal for any kind of VR and especially sim racing.
@@Maebbie I'm going to add a used Quest Pro (if you can git it at a good price) to the mix. It has eye tracking so you can use Dynamic foveated rendering for open xr compatible titles for huge performance gain. The only thing I don't like about VR is that for someone like me who's always trying to get the best picture/fps, it's really expensive!! The best thing right now would be to wait until the end of 2024 because there are several new HMD's that will probably come out.
@DrAlanQuan Since I am starting from Scratch I will still go with an Ultrawide, my pc is still a workstation/gaming station that is not 100% dedicated to sim racing. I do not have the luxury of putting in triples yet. Great analysis. Thank you, new sub! @@DrAlanQuan
I'm enjoying this Discussion - Thank you for posting this content! On this topic, I believe it's fair to mention the use of triple screens varies depending on use. In my opinion, it depends on the type of vehicle and track you're currently racing. This importance ranges from being extremely crucial to somewhat negligible, and it's not a linear relationship at all. As an example, it seems to be more important in Open Wheel Scenarios, but in Dirt Street Stocks, or even NASCAR the left side monitor has limited benefits compared to an Super Ultrawide view. Personally, I feel like the best configuration is a Super Ultrawide flanked by 2- 27" 1000r monitors.
Hi Flannelguy, thanks for taking the time to comment! I agree with a lot of what you say, think open wheelers definitely benefit the most - tin tops with their roofs and doors really block off a lot of the visibility and hence benefits of the side monitors - but I still enjoy triple monitors for all sorts of racing. Your ideal monitor setup sounds fine to me, I just wouldn't know how to effectively set them up in software. 3 monitors of the same shape and size keeps things simple for me! Hope to see you more in the comments :)
@@DrAlanQuan Thank you! I look forward to more of your content. I'm also interested to see if curved monitors add any utility at all to sim racing...I see many from the FPS gaming crowd that absolutely dislike the 1000r curve, but it seems that it could be beneficial for sim racing. I'd be interested to see content that either confirms or denies that.
Great video.. Nice comparison between the 3 variant types.. I for one use triples and it is most definitely the way to go.. The only issue I must point out is; the way most folks are using triples. They are using it in the wrong way.. They use it in a "semi" ultra wide configuration.. Also the screen size in 32 is not ideal IMO.. What you want to achieve in triples is full immersion. You want a 250 - 270 FOV with plenty of vertical.. The way to achieve that is by using larger screens; 48 inches minimum. 55s are the sweet spot. I use triple 65s, since I used both race and flight sims.. Just my 2 cents.. If you get the chance please feature these setups in a future video 👍.
Wow I would love to sit in your rig! One thing I've come to learn after reading all the comments it's everybody has different needs, and what I strongly feel fulfills all my requirements just doesn't suit others. Still, I create my videos to share my experience and hopefully help others, and also to meet people like you who can broaden my horizons :) Your rig sounds like an amazing 'ultimate' setup, and I'd love to build one for laughs but the cost and space and computing requirements to run it make the endeavour just a bit more expensive than I can justify at this time. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@DrAlanQuan You have a valid point around cost... For me why gaming monitors at 65 inches is not effective... The direction I have taken was leveraging LGs 4K TVs... For what you would get for a single Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 you could get 3 LG screens in that price point.. 4K, 120, VRR, HDCP, HDR, in sub 10 milliseconds is decent...👍
@@rmoore6471I briefly looked into that, just for curiosity, but I turned away when I kept seeing these 120Hz screens were only taking 60Hz inputs Probably not a huge deal, I haven't found myself to be fussy with frame rates but I worry that there's quality left on the table if I choose a monitor with a limited frame rate
@@DrAlanQuan - I can personally say for sure since I have both LG C1 in 48 inches and LG C3s in 65 inches... All the HDMI inputs reflect 120hz in windows in Nvidia Control Panel under PC - Video settings..
49s are still good screens so I'm sure you are enjoying benefits there, but for racing I much prefer triples and it's not even remotely close. Thanks for the comment!
@@DrAlanQuan the issue of the necessity of high cpu & gpu power remains for me. I've heard that (in my case) 33% increase in pixels leads to ~33% in FPS loss. I'd fall far below the 90 FPS mark, which to me is the minimum for sim racing. And lowering the graphics quality would kill more immersion, than the triples would add. But for the future you definitely inspired me to upgrade as soon as the components for that become more affordable :) I'd say GTX 3060 ti is simply not enough for full hd triples on mid to high graphics settings in iRacing.
@@wwvvww573 do you need mid-high iracing graphics? When I was doing my graphics testing I really didn't mind low settings at all, but with my 3070 I found I was able to run triple 1440s with ease, with settings I liked, at 120+fps. A 3060Ti isn't far behind, and if you're getting triple 1080s that's even less pixels to drive. But that was before rain and admittedly I haven't done a lot of driving in iracing since the rain update so maybe performance has changed
Thanks for the insightful videos. I always link your original video when people ask what to choose between ultrawides/triples, will link this from now on.
That's so lovely, thank you! The first time I saw someone link my video as a reference was extremely flattering. I'm glad it's a useful resource for you!
Hi Alan based on your video I went 3x27” curved WQHD as opposed to the single 49” and very glad I went that direction. The extra FOV is worth it. Cost wise was about the same if including a stand for the triples.
I'm so glad you're happy with your decision! Even though I like triples myself the intent of my videos was to demonstrate what to expect from each monitor form factor so that expectations are set appropriately. Super ultrawides are positioned as premium, expensive monitors and they're very cool but don't provide the racing experience I want. I know they suit others' preferences and that's good, but this is one of the situations where the usual rule of more expensive = better doesn't necessarily apply
This is great content, very informative and clear up lots of confusion between triples and super ultrawide. I am glad that I have cancelled my Samsung 57 and went for triple 32s instead, definitely one of the best investments I have made for my rig.
Personal opinion based on how I see things physically. I would prefer the 35in ultrawides as I'm used to using them for gaming. I have 32in monitors, but I don't use them for gaming. That locked in feel, for me, makes things more immersive, and I don't have to move my head and eyes as much as things are in a more natural field of view. Loved the video.
Thanks for sharing your view (literally! Haha). The locked in feeling contributing to immersion is certainly a different perspective on the matter I hadn't considered. This is exactly why I produce videos - to have conversations with other hobbyists and learn to enjoy aspects of the hobby I hadn't considered, or to enjoy them in new ways. I'm glad you took the time to add a comment, I hope to see more with time:)
I'm so glad i did happen to choose for triples back when i built my rig, especially after seeing this, i knew triples would have a better fov but this makes it so so clear, the difference is way bigger then i had imagined. The ease of only having to deal with 1 monitor almost made me buy a 49". But after everything is set up, having to deal with 3 isn't that bad anyway. Awesome video, thank a lot. Greetings from a felllow iracing f3 lover.
Hi Colin, definitely a good thing that you went with triples! Yes they take up more space and aligning them is not easy, but the FOV difference is staggering. Still, every setup has is advantages and a lot of people love their single screen rigs - no judgement from me! Love that F3 :)
That's awesome! Glad you're enjoying the move. I am curious - you already had triple 32s which are, at the very least, a good setup. Yet, you chose to buy the 57 which is not a cheap monitor at all - what motivated you to look into and then purchase an alternative monitor setup?
Triple 16:9s is definitely the way to go. It provides the best immersion due to the excellent horizontal and vertical field of view. You could argue there are advantages to larger monitors than 32". But 16:9 is the sweet spot.
I very much agree! Vertical field of view is very much appreciated. I was surprised since I though all I needed was peripheral vision, but just for general comfort and wellbeing that extra vertical real estate is lovely
The issue is the bezels, no matter how much better the fov is the bezels just kill the Immersion for me. I've tried every setup you can imagine and the bezels are just too much to deal with. Even when lined up perfectly they will always be off slightly depending on which section you have chosen to line up. The biggest issue is when taking tight turns the bezel can be right in the middle of the turn which is a massive annoyance. A single ultrawide with radar and mirrors is the sweet spot for me. What we really need are massive curved ultrawides that wrap around you but can't see that type of monitor ever being released due to the very niche market.
Hi Jonny, it's a very personal thing and unfortunate that the bezels are so bothersome for you because aside from the bezels, triples are a great and cost effective option. I personally found the bezels to drive me crazy if the screens are further away - if the screens are moved closer to me the bezels move outboard and are quickly forgotten. I did find the Asus bezel free kit to help A TON when the bezels were super visible. Have you tried VR? A lot of commenters suggest it but I haven't given it a good go yet
@DrAlanQuan yea I race in VR sometimes but it's not ideal either for comfort reasons mainly. Once the headsets get lighter and the fov increases they could be a game changer but right now a big screen / ultrawide is my first go to for a smooth comfortable experience. Wanted to mention other big plus with one monitor is the higher fps as I like to have at least 120 to reduce input delay and frame times.
Thank you! I recently had someone suggest the 49-in Odyssey. I think they were just justifying their purchase. It looks stretched and distorted. I'd rather have pixels beyond my field of view.. and you're only going to do that with three monitors. With as far as Sim rigs have come in the past two decades, you would think by now someone would have offered a affordable seamless triple monitor system. Our dealership put a television in the showroom that's 20x35 ft. It's a pile of tiny screens all together, and you can't tell where one stops and another one starts. Three slightly curved seamless screens world be nice
Those LED panels are great! They provide some real wow factor, but the only ones I've seen have had pretty poor resolution - so at the distances I have my monitors I'll gladly take the bezel. I'd love to see some game changing display tech. A lot of people say VR, which I'm hoping to give a serious go this year I think the 49" monitor is fine, it's certainly usable - if just gives less situational awareness than triples, period. That's a deal-breaker for some, and no biggie for others.
@@DrAlanQuan with as much money as people are investing in riggs, that game-changing display Tech has to be on the way. I recently learned that the field of view in the VR is actually quite narrow. Which explains all of the excessive looking around. I thought they were doing it to show its realism. The fact is, in a real car you want to move your head as little as possible. Under stressful situations, and for the inexperienced, you can sometimes have a tendency to turn the direction your head goes. That's why they tried to improve the field of view in helmets, so you can glance.. as the post to swinging your head left and right. I'm old, and I'm getting to where I have to hold things at arm's length to see detail. The inability for your eyes to focus is the cause of headaches in VR. I'm old, and I've made a lot of mistakes with money. $500 for something that I can't use for 3 or 4 hours straight, isn't worth it to me. My eyes can focus on three monitors, and I don't need to see my lap or the headliner LOL. It's amazing the extent we have to go to for realism, when our eyes seldom Veer more than a few inches from Center
Great video!!! I have both the 49" wide and 32" triples plus VR. The max FOV is a great thing. PS that "Triple 32" in the top right needs the bezel corrected resolution selected.
Haha good catch. I had bezel delete kits installed on the triple 32s but I pulled them off because they kept falling off when I was moving the rigs around with all my other testing in the studio. Forgot to adjust the bezel settings before filming this 😂 Thanks for commenting, pleasure to have you here :)
I was think about buying those bezels kits but my family walks by my monitors and pushes them inward sometimes by accident as it is located in the bonus room. I wonder if my 49" wide sees a little more as it is the Samgsung Odyssey 49" 1000R curved at 5120 x 1440p (I'm not sure)@@DrAlanQuan
@@BakerRacing the bezel delete kits work great on 27" screens but on 32s they need extenders, and that's the weakest link and where they come apart if you knock them a bit. As for the 1000R screen yes I would expect another few degrees FOV but in the real world I doubt anybody would notice the difference.
Ultrawides are marketing monsters. Basically, they are 55 inch TVs cut in half vertically. Their only advantage for FOV is the slight curve, otherwise you might as well use a 55 inch TV from LG with 120Hz and 1ms GtG response times. They are "ultrawide" or "half as tall", it's all a question of how you look at them. I personally use one at the desk because it allows you to be more productive, but for sim racing I moved to the 55 inch OLED, way better experience. Eventually, triple screens.
I like your take on the topic. I only briefly looked at TVs and, at least the ones I looked into, the 120Hz displays are driven by an HDMI input that only handles 60Hz input I currently use 165Hz displays (rendered at 90fps) and worry that a 60Hz input would be limiting. Probably overthinking it.
@@DrAlanQuan There are 120Hz ones, I bought an LG OLED BX in 2020, they were the first to support 4K120. They are pricey, but maybe in the 3 years since then there's even more choices at a cheaper price. But good point that people need to check the HDMI output to not be left with 60Hz
I'm really glad you experienced a worthwhile upgrade! I would love to test the Samsung 57" and if you could put in a good word with Samsung to send me one I would be extremely grateful! I have no doubt the 57" is a good product, but the cost is significant and definitely a barrier for me. Thank you for watching and commenting!
I prefer VR, generally. I get the 110 degree FOV with my particular headset, and the ability to look around, which is really what does it for me. The depth also helps me personally when aiming the car and judging my braking points!
I use Triple 49s. I would never want to use anything different. You dont need height when you have a real gauge cluster. My rig frame is actually a race car chassis. The Monitors act only as windows.
Speaking from a point of reality....the 49" is the most realistic especially on dirt. In car you can see very little to anything at all behind the A pillar because of the seat and helmet. I would adjust the in game FOV just enough to see the drivers side mirror and that would be about as good as it would get in reality. I race asphalt late models and my spotter only calls to the door on the inside but to the front 1/4 on the outside. A lot of people think I am odd for this but learn to see with your ears. More often than not you can hear them beside you.
Hi Hayden, cool perspective. I definitely agree with the sound cues - I have to admit I am not a 100% stickler for realism. The 1:1 projection of the game world in the monitors is a big plus. Besides that I would say I want my setup to provide competitive advantage rather than strict realism - more FOV (ignore restrictions of seat and helmet), adjust audio levels (boost tyre noise, suppress engine sound, etc) to help me race safely and competitively - my enjoyment comes from the battle, rather than the struggle 😂 I'm really glad you shared your view though, it makes a lot of sense! 👍
Something that should be pointed out is that the fov heavily depends on the seating position. From what i can tell with the video especially with the 49" setup the screen is quiet far away because of the very agressiv formular style seating position and the screen itself has a very suddle curve. With a more GT style seating position and a more aggressive curve the visibility to the sides gets greatly improved, altougth its never going to be as good as having more screen realestate ^^
Hi there, yes eye to screen distance makes a big difference. Not enough of a difference to make up for the geometric limitations of a single screen vs triple though. Also I like the screen to be fully at arm's distance from me - in a formula position that's roughly just on top of the wheelbase, in a GT position that's a good 6 inches further away from the wheelbase - any closer than that and it really strains my eyes to focus on the screen. So for me, doesn't matter if I'm formula or GT - distance to screen is the same, FOV is the same
Thanks! Some things need to be seen to be believed 😂 I'm very lucky to actually have the monitors all next to each other to compare - not many of us get this luxury so I try to pass on everything I learn!
Very interesting and informative, i have been using a single 32 curved monitor for a while and live it... was thinking going wide didnt see the point of triples ...but this gave me new insight and now i think this is my next upgarde! 👍
Good stuff! If you're going to upgrade, at least make the improvement with your time, effort and money - that's my philosophy and it sounds like it might match up to yours. Have fun!
Awesome video, such an important decision when putting together a setup. Random Question - Where do you purchase your monitor mounts and all those nice accessories hanging off them from?
Hi :) so for the three rigs: Triple 35 - RaceKraft monitor mount with RaceKraft keyboard tray 49 - Simrigs Exodus integrated monitor mount (no accessories mounted) Triple 32 - Trak Racer monitor mount with my own 3D printed keyboard tray
Wauw! Fantastic comparison. I've never seen the differenceses that clearly compared! Interesting how the actual Ultrawide 49" made less viewable at the extremeties to the sides, compared to the simulated Ultrawide 49". Also noticed that the side monitors of the triple 32" seemed to warp the nearby car more so than then widescreen 35" sidemonitors did. Was all FOV the same, for all setups, both in person and simulated?
Excellent observation. One of the other commenters noticed in the dirt street stocks scenario that the hands in the 49" were oversized which makes me suspect I might have had the FOV setting slightly too tight - with that corrected it would probably still end up being a bit tighter than my simulation though. Also a very sharp observation about the angle of the side monitors. The triple 32s are my own and have a fairly deep angle. The triple 35s are straight off the RaceKraft sim centre floor (they trailered it fully assembled to my studio) and have a shallower side screen angle probably to make it easier for customers to get in and out of the cockpit. I know with my triple 32s is a bit tight at times and my belly hits the monitors sometimes when getting in and out! The 3 PCs and their respective monitors were all set up recently to have an accurate, 1:1 projection from the driver's eye into the game world. I might have been off by a degree here or there but it's pretty close - so the actual FOV number in software is different for all 3 monitors, but the outlook from the driver's eye is the same for all of them. Thanks for your kind words and I look forward to seeing you in the next video's comments!
@@DrAlanQuan Thank you so much for the thorough run down! Yeah I think the slight "warping" on the 32" triples setup could just be do to the narrower angle between the screens of the setup compared to the 35" triples. I think the different angles are maybe visible in the video. Al though that might just be confirmation bias, now that I've know this. Nice that you took the time to calibrate all the setups correct FOV, and a few degress difference isn't the deciding factor it would seem. The video highlights way more impactful differences between the different setups. I have'nt been able to save up to a solid alu-rig just yet, but I'm getting closer month by month now, and the content you add to this community is just pure gold to someone like me. Massive thank you. I'll definitely be adding to your view count, though I'm usually a rare commenter. Looking forward to more great & passionate videos. Cheers!
I prefer triple 32 inch because of the extra vertical space that it provides. This makes a very noticeable difference. I would be so happy if ultrawides had more vertical real estate.
I agree completely. When I did the simulation for my older video I thought the lesser height of a 27" or 35" ultrawide would be fine since it just eliminates sky. Then I raced on the triple 35s and thought they were ok. Then I went back to triple 32s and it was like OH MY GOD I feel so light and free
One thing I don't really understand is why do people have their monitors so high compared to your normal horizontal eyesight. This means you will get a bad neck and strain your eyes. I've tried it out at a mates house and different events, I just can't get why people have it setup like this
Hi Martin, I have the monitors at this height because I'm always rolling the rigs and monitors around my studio - and since some rigs are higher than others, I set the monitors to be able to roll over the higher one. If you look at my rig tour video I have the monitor much lower - that was before I had multiple cockpits to manage in the studio 👍
Exactly that’s what I think everytime I see people’s screens! I have mine set as low as possible so the monitors centerline is directly at the height of my eyes. Everything else is undrivable for me!
@@rolux4853same here. I also don’t get when people put their monitors so far away like behind the wheelbase or even behind the pedals. You get so much more usable FOV if you drop your screen down on top of the steering shaft.
For static view obviously triples are heads above other setups (except VR). Just that historically and due budget limitations (and in some cases space for rig limits) single screen still is most common picture output, hence since long various workarounds to limited vision are implemented to reduce awareness issues/limitations in race with such. Voice spotter like crewchief, in-game virtual radar, look-with-steer, bound buttons for side-glance view, head tracking with TrackIR and so on ..
Yes agreed to everything you've said. I also want to point out I've never had to mess with any of those things you listed because I have triples and enjoy the natural peripheral vision they provide. It's like I paid for the premium display configuration to save me effort in overcoming the shortcomings of a single monitor. Equally, since I have no experience with these techniques I don't even think of them to discuss. A good reminder of what's out there. Thank you!
Nice vid, just bear in mind the loss of frame rates with triples. It is approx at least a 20% drop across triples. I have both and sometimes it is noticeable.all said I still prefer my triple 32” setup for the higher and wider fov.👍
Since I barely race, I mostly hotlap or drive togue, a 49" would probably be fine for me, as its mostly about being able to set the pov sort of correctly but still seeing enough. And for when I race, I do use an overlay to show the relative position of other cars. VR would be another very interesting comparison here.
Yeah, the side monitors are king if situational awareness of adjacent vehicles is important. A 49" works just fine for looking forwards, spotting apices, general driving duties. VR comes up A LOT in the comments. I'm hoping 2024 is the year I give it a good go
Great analysis! One note, with the addition of Samsung’s new 57” monitor, curious to get your thoughts. Triples are still going to get better FOV overall but the 57” gets a solid FOV. The challenge around triples is space and general management.
Yes absolutely - wiring and general bulk are two serious considerations with a triple monitor. I haven't had the Samsung 57" in my hands but I did the math with another commenter in my other fov video. My triple 32s are roughly like one very wide, very deeply curved screen which is 660mm from centre of screen to edge of screen The Samsung 57" is a curved screen with depth of 251mm (roughly) This means the triple 32s reach 400m further out towards my ears than the Samsung 57" which is A LOT. I think it's a geometric limitation of single monitors. I'm sure the Samsung 57" is a serious piece of hardware. Nice panel specs, nice height. But it's damn expensive and by my assessment not especially well suited to simracing. But please contact Samsung and ask them to send me one! I would love to test it and share my findings with the world!
Great comparison vid alan, ive been using 49 ultrawide for a long time and very rarely have to flick my look left and look right for what i cant see...few mates of mine have triples and they couldnt answer me for how many times they look at the side screens haha
Hi Boothy thanks for watching. I agree the 49 is perfectly serviceable as a driving monitor. As for how often I myself look at the side screens - often enough that I want them to be there. In F3s there's not so much side by side racing but it's awesome when it's there - but dirt street stocks! They're awesome fun and it's side by side racing 90% of the time and your side monitors are just full of cars the entire time. It's an awesome break from road racing, and there's driving skills specific to that discipline that are really satisfying to learn. Thanks for commenting and merry Christmas!
@@DrAlanQuan yeh I race a heap of dirt sprintcars and midgets mate, dirt is very under rated I put out a vid recently in the midget had some mega racing...merry Xmas to u too Alan hopefully see ya in a boosted race next year 🤙🥃
Great video. I would have loved to see how drift racing is compared. I would assume since you’re putting the car doors close to each other it would make a big difference. Tough choice for me.
More FOV is better since you're literally looking out the side windows so much. Not a tough choice - triple 32s 👍 haha Thanks for the comment! If I do a follow up video on this topic I'll try to include drift scenarios :)
This is the best and most informative comparison I have seen on this subject yet. Will be re-purposing my super ultrawide and going with triples. However, I am curious about your thoughts on the triples vs one of the newer VR headsets which have dramatically improved clarity?
Hi, thank you for your kind words! I'm so glad you found the video useful/informative. When I made my initial video there were a couple of videos on the topic but each of them had certain issues that made it difficult to discern any useful conclusion from. It was really fun to test out the different configurations, race in them, and make the video - plus all the discussion/debate that comes in the comments too! I have very little experience with VR and am hoping to give VR a proper go later this year. Years ago I played GT Sport and Dirt Rally on the PSVR and there was enormous potential there, I'm sure it's a crazy amount of fun now that the tech is getting better and better. Had you felt your super ultrawide was limiting you before this video?
@@DrAlanQuan yes I absolutely did feel limited. I was a bit shocked at how little peripheral vision I had on my Samsung crg49 when racing side by side with others. I was quite disappointed and it didn’t inspire much confidence when fighting for position with others. Your video demonstrated my issues very well. I figured with the ultra wide and the curve I would get the best of both worlds, immersion like triples and almost as good FOV. I was very wrong as it turns out, but it was a necessary compromise considering the lack of space I had. I found myself racing in VR a lot because of it, but that has its own drawbacks as you will find out later this year. I hope you make some content on your experience! Just got a great deal on 3 x 32” 1440p IPS panels and am super excited to mount them and drive. Thanks for your reply!
I dont have space for triples atm, but a g9 is a good compromise, much better than a single 32" normal screen. If i had the space i would do triples tho
I will check it after finishing this video. But I hope you have a video comparing also VR x monitors, because your content is so good. Thanks for this material.
This comes up a lot, and VR is definitely a big aspect of the simracing scene that I have next to no experience with. I'm hoping I can change this in 2024! Thank you for your kind encouragement❤️
Just as a little addative. A super ultra wide isnt the best full stop, but i have a sturdy wooden rig with a miata chair for my DD wheel setup that i slide infront of my desk when simracing. When NOT simracing i use the superultrawide normally on my desk. I LOVE it for that. a 3 monitor setup could never. if the setup Is PURELY sim please do 3 monitors. its probably cheaper too. if its a multi use setup you could consider it!
Your setup sounds great! I like your take on the topic. Each setup has its strengths. FOV is not a strength of the 49", but it is versatile, compact and looks good. But I am an FOV fiend and I don't mind having this mechanical behemoth in my room if it can give me what I need!
Any chance you can link the video? I'm having difficulty visualising how adding a single monitor to the 57" makes it equivalent to triples Also, what were you using before you started using the 57?
@DrAlanQuan the 57 is already two monitors equivalent so you add one and you have 3 monitor equivalent. I had a 34". th-cam.com/video/t2Bu-ZbRDak/w-d-xo.htmlsi=a47f6b7Vsj2FKPi6
great video - any suggestions of games/sims that are made for triples? Assetto Corsa, iRacing and RaceRoom seem like the lonely few. Also I heard one version of MS FlightSim did it properly - is it the lastest one? Please don't suggest EA WRC / Dirt or other games that just stretch some garbage onto the side screens.
Hi Will. iRacing is the most problem free piece of software for running triples that I have used, hands down. It was so easy and good, it was the only gaming software I used (not counting stuff like simhub) for nearly 3 years. I had a busy professional life and limited time to race - and iRacing was a consistently reliable and enjoyable experience. I have a bit more time these days but I spend it all making content instead of racing haha so I don't have anything to add to the discussion. Hopefully I can strike a better balance in the new year. I will happily take your suggestions!
There’s also the 57” curved monitor from Samsung. Still not wide enough for my flight sim cockpit. Three 34 inch 4K monitors is my preference. I have seriously considered the 57” though. It would make life a lot easier as far as GPU’s are considered. Just miss the peripheral vision in X-Plane 11.
That’s why we have the 4090. I’m holding out for a one screen solution with three 4K panels. My 4090 can handle that today. Few years down the road with 5090 and 6090 cards it should be even easier. At a cost of course.@@DrAlanQuan
@Alan Quan Great comparison, enjoyed it very much. Super if we could add the 57 inch Super Ultrawide to this comparison. At the moment I have 49 inches, for 3 monitors I have no room. Ideally I will fit a 57 inch there and I wonder if I will gain much and if it is worth swapping the 49 for a 57 inch. The price is scary for a 57 inch , but I am thinking about it a lot.
The price for the 57" is indeed scary. Based on my simulation and measurements, I think the 57" will be marginally better than the 49", and still significant more restrictive than the triple monitors. Whether that is worth the $3000AUD is really up to the individual. I would really like for Samsung to step up to the plate and send me a 57" to test. I would do a good job telling the world all about it!
great comparision.... good content !! I joined the party I am running 3 46inches here and also very happy with it i hope you make some more vids like this thx
The cost of running triple 32 in 1440 with high refresh rate, 1 ms response, and an IPS panel is so high. It’s not the hardware, you can get those for under $400 a piece - but it’s the GPU card you need to run 1440. A modest ($1500) CPU and GPU build can run triples in 1080p w/ 27inch monitors at 180 hz and 180 fps all day w no issue. To run triple 1440’s you need a 4070 super or 4070ti just to hit 110-115fps. So triple monitors in 1440 has to come with huge upgrade changes to CPU and GPU hardware and around (2500-3500) and you still wont get the fps and refresh rate aligned at 180 for smoothest game play. (Edit) Single 49in in 1440 can easily be ran at over 120/130 with 4070 super or 4070ti.
Fair points, there is a cost factor to consider. That said I'm running a 3070 and powering my triple 1440s just fine - settings are moderate, I think it looks pretty enough. One thing I've seen over the years is as new GPUs come out, people's expectations of GPU requirements also go up even if the game hasn't changed. Why was a 3070 fine for iRacing triple 1440s 2 years ago but all of a sudden now it isn't? I personally think the benefits of the 32 inch monitors over the 27s are tangible and worth any small additional cost needed to get there
I think 32 is the sweet spot for sure so I agree with you. From all the chip research Ive done and forum research 3080 seems to be the minimum standard for running 1440 triples. The problem is you still wont get ver 115 fps on triples with a 3080 (most people around 90-100) and then you have an fps not synced with a nice monitor that can refresh at 180. So you have 3 fancy monitors but they aren’t being utilized fully in terms or refresh rate but you wont get full benefit of 1440 with anything under 4080 for a fps over 120/140 that you can d at night, rain, heavy circuit, will full 1440 clarity.@@DrAlanQuan
Ah ok I think I understand where you're coming from now. I think your goal of maximising fps on these fancy high refresh rate screens is what's setting your very high expectations. I'll happily race at 80fps, I personally don't care that it's less than half what my monitors are capable of - the extra thousands bucks or so it takes to push the extra frames - that's not good value to me since I can't perceive the difference anyway.
Yeah before the iRacing rain update I was able to run consistently 90fps minimum, but typically between 110-120 - so I locked the frame rate at 90 I haven't done much running in the rain or the newer circuits so not sure what the current performance is like - life's been busy! Good discussion, thanks for joining me :)
I really enjoyed this virtualization. I always wondered how my 49" view compared to triples. I was hoping the 49" you used was a 1000R curve, but it looks like you had the 1800R curved 49", which is what mine is. I am curious how much more you could see between the 49" 1800R vs 1000R. Perhaps you could include that in a later video comparing those two vs the new 57" samsung ultrawide. That would be awesome to see!
If I get the opportunity, I will produce an updated comparison - the 57" has been requested many, many times already in the comments I've sat in front of the 57" and it's ok. There's only so much a single screen can accomplish. I am quite confident in saying that for racing door to door, it's triples or VR at the top, and everything else doesn't even come close. I'm also happy to be proven wrong and I'm hoping Samsung will step up and allow me to demonstrate what the 57" is capable of
I have a Samsung 49" which is great for sim racing. If you want to keep track of someone coming up on your side, I recommend using Track IR. With Track IR I can slightly move my head to the side and see the opponent while still being able to still see the track ahead.
I've not used Track IR but it gets mentioned a lot. Without first hand experience I can't comment much on it, but it seems counter intuitive to have the screen perspective shift when your head moves - like of I move my head left 5 degrees the whole image shifts 10 degrees or something like that. I feel like i'd get dizzy - has that been an issue for you?
@@DrAlanQuan For flight sims its decent, for sim racing its awkward at best. You have to turn your head while still keeping your eyes center....awkward.
Thank you - my aim is to keep the monitor at roughly one full arm's reach from my seating position. In a full formula position it's right behind the steering wheel, very close, since I'm deeply reclined and my shoulders moved backwards away from the wheel. In an upright GT position it's a solid 15-20cm behind the wheel. Any closer than that and it's uncomfortable for me to focus my eyes at such a short distance. Hope this helps!
You neglected to mention the 49" super ultrawide does give nearly full view of the mirrors in the formula car which do provide a lot of information as to where the opponent car is.
Hi there thanks for commenting! I didn't mention that because that has not been my experience. Just like in real life there is a blind spot wedge between what you can see forward in the monitor, and rearward in the side mirrors - but turning your head (or using peripheral vision) to see the side monitors will show the car Have a look at the video again - when the car is fully alongside in the triples, it is neither in the super ultrawide nor the mirrors, at least in some circumstances. I also never look in my side mirrors in iRacing... I guess I've had the luxury of side monitors that I never needed to resort to the in game mirrors
I don't understand why mix resolutions aren't supported by any game or graphic card drivers. Having an ultra wide plus 2 32s would be amazing, as the ultra wide would have the entire front dash on one screen.
Probably a very uncommon configuration not worthy of spending development resources on. The developers surely have PC configuration data from all the players. I'm guessing most people use single screens
I could have missed it because i skipped around in the video but it seems you have not adjusted the FOV for each of the monitor setups. I do agree triple ultrawides do have a bit of a claustrophobic feel. I have backed off a bit from my triples and moved back to a single utrawide as I only race rally currently and I dont beed as much peripheral vision.
Good point about the single screen and rally. Once upon a time I was a big rally simracer (we're talking WRC: Rally Evolved on PS2 with my Driving Force Pro) and I can definitely see a single monitor performing adequately. Lately though, door to door racing has been my area of interest and the peripheral vision of triples helps a lot. As for the FOV settings, all the monitor setups were configured individually to get what I felt was the right FOV whilst sat in the F3. I didn't check again for the street stock demo. A couple of things to note - the two triple monitor stands have different side monitor angles AND different distance of centre screen to driver which explains why the longer ultrawides actually have less horizontal FOV overall. The reason for this is the 32s are my own, but the triple 35s came straight off the RaceKraft sim centre floor and were trailered into my studio fully built - we have different needs and hence built the monitors differently. This was not meant to be a rigorously thorough and scientific comparison, rather just a real world test of the different configurations. It was also pointed out to me that the 49" FOV is a bit tight as seen in the driver's hands - I put my hand up to that one, I made a small setup mistake. A couple of degrees here and there, doesn't really make a difference to the outcome but an oversight we can all agree.
That sounds to me like it would look like you're racing through the view of a fisheye lens. I'll play with the settings next time I'm in the studio and see what happens. It will certainly be a departure from an accurate 1:1 projection of the real world through the monitor but sounds like it could provide meaningful racing information to the driver. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
I know triple or vr is the best, but there is 3 things that stops people from doing it. 1: cost of triples and stand 2: computer power, triple needs power to perform really good. Cost again. 3: space, triple does take up a lot of room.
VR is a much cheaper and much more immersive choice for this. But the biggest downside is low fov- you really have to move your head to see opponents when side by side, when on tripple you can stay focused and just use your peripherial vision. VR is better for starters because it just feels more natural when you can easily feel dimensions and distances and you can start gaining skill and understanding much faster, while on screen you will be struggling for much much longer. But for competitive consistency people switch to tripple screens over time. VR is also "not for everyone"- meaning different people will have different vestibular... Having fans blowing air at you helps with that. Most popular headset for simracing is hp reverb g2. pimax crystal is the best choice for money tho (higher fov, higher refresh rate and resolution). Personally i would recommend choosing helmet with 120hz refresh rate, q\am\oled displays, fov over 120 degrees.
Hi there! I'd love to play with VR but I've been out of the VR game for so long I just don't even know where to start. But I know monitors so I create content about monitors! When I used PSVR I 100% needed a fan blowing on me
@@DrAlanQuan many comments about vr under this video, so i decided to add my own opinion. setting up vr headset is way easier than tripple, but also depends on brands software. usually its the matter of updating software, choosing resolution and refresh rate and then launching game in vr mode, setting up graphics to always hit above 120 fps (if its 120hz headset) to have smoother experience you need to make sure fps is always above 120 with gpu headroom. then you adjust ingame sitting position to your liking and just enjoy. iam quest2 user but i would not recommend it for competitive circuit racing. many reasons behind it. but i just occasionally drive touge, shutoko and small drift tournaments so im happy with quest2. for circuit racing i would suggest trying pimax crystal to get the best experience for its budget. for lowest budget i would suggest pico 4 or quest 3. also i would really suggest getting halo strap for those to get the most comfort (its way better when helmet sits on top of your head/forhead) its really worth trying, but i think that on mid-pro level of competitive simracing - tripples are just more consistent
@@sxdattxb Thank you for writing this up! The information is still quite overwhelming - when you discuss what is good for beginners vs what you use etc it appears you have an innate understanding of the different products, their features and their price points - but to me they are just names. I have a lot to learn about VR! I will definitely play with VR on the simrig some day. Maybe 2024 is the year for that!
Between the triple ultrawide and triple 32", I would have thought the ultrawide was a silly option as it costs you more pixels for less vertical FOV. I just thought it'd all be negatives. But something I think I can see in your comparison is that you get a better view in the center monitor. Like there is better depth perception or something. How did this feel in person? Is it just something that only comes off in the video and not in reality? Just wondering because arguably the center monitor is the most important for actually driving.
Ok there's a couple of factors to unpack regarding triple ultrawides vs. 32s First, the ultrawides are wider - which means the bezels get pushed out sideways, and also the side monitors can reach out further towards the driver. The ultrawides can easily reach past my ears if I have the centre monitor close enough - but I don't need images behind my head. What I can then do is push the centre monitor further away from me yet still have the side monitors exactly at my ears like the 32s. So the ultrawides are further away than the 32s, and since the bezels are further out to the side but also further away - they end up roughly in the same place from the driver's eye. The extra distance from eye to monitor means less eye strain, but the restricted vertical FOV feels a bit claustrophobic and I MUCH prefer having the extra height that the 32s offer. Having tried all these configurations, triple regular 16:9 monitors absolutely is the winner for me (32"s in my case, but 43"s and 50"s if the space allowed would also be great). In practice, all three monitor setups feel 'right' when driving - the most glaring difference is that the 49" is incapable of showing cars at your side which is what I focused on in this video. Glad you brought this up! Thank you
@@DrAlanQuan Brilliant reply, thanks! Maybe 4:3 monitors would be ideal for triples, if they were still made. If you can only get a maximum 60 degrees horizontal on each monitor, you might as well have them taller.
Wow ! Perfect timing , I've been on the hunt for a new monitor & seeing these side by side helped so much . I wonder if a 1660super will push 3 32's @120-144hrz(1080p i guess) Thx for the content .
Awesome, glad to hear it! I'm not sure about graphics cards at all. I hadn't kept up to date with GPU hardware for 10 years before I got my 3070. Good luck!
@@DrAlanQuan 27s :D. It's just an expansion off the 2 desk monitors I already had. How small these are is why I'm wary to settle for 32s. The proportion of the windshield on 27s is just way too small, still easy enough to settle into, but when shooting for real-world accuracy regarding proportions, I figured at least 45s would be the ticket The 32s look bigger in this video than I expected, definitely a big upgrade from 27s. And price to performance is a big deal. I haven't looked into the prices of the TVs too much. They seem to be quite expensive, whereas good 32" monitors have been around for a while now and there are a lot of good deals
Even though some say my CPU and GPU would be better off sticking to 1 screen, the benefits of running triples is worth the hit. I have a Ryzen 5 3600 and a 3080 10 GB. No way I'm uninstalling 2 of my monitors and going with one 27" 16:9 1080p screen. Screw that!
80s sounds fine to me. I limit my fps to 90 to keep my power consumption in check. Your CPU could probably keep you happy for another 5+ years, save the money!
Superb video comparison. Could you do the same with rally ? I am guessing that 49 is better overall as you do not have competitors to worry about and the FOV should be enough with 49.
The challenge with rally is software support. As I understand it, none of the modern rally sims render triple screens as 3 separate projections, but rather one perspective stretched out which leads to distortion. So not a fair fight, but I agree. Eyes forward, no side by side racing, the 49 would be enough.
Fantastic video, really informative for someone like myself looking to go triples. Are you using VA or IPS 32" or is either suitable for sim racing. Cheers
Thanks for watching! These are VA monitors and they work completely fine. There's a bit of ghosting which is most obvious when racing at night but not game breaking at all. I'm very happy with them
Awesome analysis. Would LOVE an update with the 57 inch Neo G9. I'm running VR primarily, but use a 57 inch Neo G9 when my face gets hot/tired from the VR headset.
Hi Sam - that would work but the challenge comes to value. Let's not forget super ultrawide monitors are expensive. One 49" monitor costs more than the three 32" monitors together. Also I don't have the patience to break down the monitor stands and mess around trying to configure 3 non-alike monitors - there's other content I'd prefer to spend my time work on. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@DrAlanQuan yes I understand the cost as I have a Samsung G9. But for some who may be looking into going triples while having an ultra wide may be interesting.
@@solowundesignsbysamdavis9043 yes, reasonable upgrade path. I'm hoping my video helps people to not be surprised at the limitations of single monitors so they don't wind up in that scenario in the first place
I think your image is stretched on the triple 35" ultrawide or the FOVs are different between your cockpits. Otherwise you would see more of the side mirrors on the center monitor, when compared to the center 32"
Hi Fleet, yes your observations are correct. A few others have pointed this out as well. The 35s are set up to be further away from the driver, and the side angle is shallower as well. The 35s were trailered into my studio directly from the RaceKraft sim centre, fully assembled - so it's built to sim centre spec to cater for all customers of all sizes. My 32s are built to my personal spec which is quite a bit tighter, and this explains the inconsistency you've observed. So not a truly 100% ruthlessly scientific comparison, but my focus on this video was to demonstrate the 49" versus triples in general. And other viewers have correctly identified that there are issues with my 49" FOV as well 😂 The next comparison I do will be perfect, surely 😂
Bro you forgot the 57 ultrawide! Height of the 32s without all the clutter. And i can max out acc with no dlss and get over 100fps with my 4090. I don't need wraparound, and my fov is perfect. I don't need the extra on the sides. I can see my left side mirror and the entire windshield. Spotter clears me on the right regardless, you ain't looking over your shoulder with a Hans and helmet... on right hairpins i am looking at my right front corner, that's all i really need. I already have 2 neo g8s, i easily could've bought a third. Not worth it!!
Didn't forget it! It was still pre order only in Australia at the time of filming :) Í have since reached out to Samsung to try to get one in the studio but haven't heard from them yet. I don't think I want to privately fund the monitor as I suspect it won't meet my needs which are presently fulfilled with the 32" triples. I'm super glad you're happy with your though!
I would say in general, larger screens are better but also that having 3 of the same size screen is best just because the software is designed for that. Mismatched monitor widths just sound like a nightmare to set up and I don't plan to ever try to do that. So triple ultrawide, triple super ultrawide, triple gigantic tv, triple 32s will all be fantastic imo
Tbh ultra wide monitors especially the 49” ones are really overrated for sim racing. You can get triples for less money and the FOV is incomparable. I think 32” is the sweet spot as long as the screens are on top of the steering shaft. If you want the screens behind the wheelbase then it’s basically the bigger the better.
I like the idea of this video but the fov settings don’t look correct so the comparison isn’t fair. The middle triple 32 screen has a wider fov than the middle 35 ultrawide
Hi you are correct and this has been pointed out a few times in the comments now. I didn't control for things like monitor distance to driver and also side monitor mounting angle. If I get a chance to redo this test, I will do so with excruciating attention to detail :) For this quick comparison I just took 3 separate rigs that were configured for different purposes, put them side by side and made the comparison. The triple 35s were straight off the RaceKraft Sim centre showroom floor, so built to accommodate easy access for people of all sizes which is why it's mounted far away and with a wide angle. The triple 32s are my own and they're set up close and tight since I can work with that. If you take each example and plus/minus some field of view for each that will give you a reasonable idea of what each of capable of - and the wide gap in function between a single screen and a triple screen remains obvious.
Yes I've of my friends is a big fan of this approach but I've not tried it and the idea of the world around me revolving as I move my head sounds counter intuitive to me
umm, clearly there's something wrong with the screen's position. the 35inch ultrawide is physically wider than the 32inch, but shows less horizontal viewing angle. Either the view angle setting is wrong, or the 35inch display is placed further away from driver's eyes.
Exactly right, the display is further away. The 35 setup was trailered straight from the RaceKraft showroom floor into my studio so not built to my preferred spec, hence it sits further away
Hi Doc, Can you confirm if either or both Triple setups were FLAT or CURVED and if curved, were they 1800, 1500 or 1000? Thanks a bunch and keep up the good work! :-) (Greetings from Canada)
Currently I have a G9 49” and I’m adding 2 smaller monitors on the sides of it. I’m going crazy I gotta stop spending so much money. My only issue with the multi set up is the drop in FPS
Totally worth it. I ran triples on an old, underpowered PC as a test. 25-30fps. Not ideal but better than 60fps on a single, in my opinion anyway. Have fun!
Great video Dr, however would you like to do a 49” super with 2 27” curve and make it a triple and comparison? I have the G9 and is wondering this is possible. I use Q3 VR for most of the sim racing and that is probably the best already but I would also like my rig looks cool and thinking someone can show a setup of 49 with 2x 27 setup
Hi Optima, I don't think I have any 27" monitors available for testing - I can say that I have seen people post their setups online showing exactly what you described: 27-49-27 and it looked good to my eye - but I've never set up a triple monitor configuration myself with anything other than 3 identical monitors. I have an idea of how I would set it up to get the bezels in the right spot but it's very resource heavy and I think I'd prefer the 3 identical monitors if that's the case. The 49 does look cool though!
@markpharoah1297 for 1 too 2 hours year try 6 hours of Sebring in VR I have and its not nice. VR is great for short stints terrible for long races also the FOV isn't good at all like looking spectacles. Also the graphics are no where near good enough and I have the Aero and Valve index.
Thank you so much! The difference is really big, it actually surprised me when I did the simulation the first time - and then filming it for real it was even bigger 😂 The people need to know!
Yes absolutely, this has been identified by a number of other viewers already as well. This wasn't intended to be a ruthlessly clinical and scientific comparison - it was just pulling 3 setups that happened to be running side by side, each of which was running well, and compare them. The 34s were set up for a sim centre, far from the cockpit and wide open to accommodate many different drivers. The 32s are my own and are close and tight, and what I would call ideal That said I think the video is successful in demonstrating some facts - the general FOV deficit of super ultrawide vs triple monitors, and also the height advantage of 32s over the shorter ultrawide monitors. Perhaps one day I'll get out the tape measure and protractor and do it with rigorous precision. Maybe when Samsung send me a 57" monitor to test. Thank you for watching and commenting! If I have any blind spots, I am very appreciative to be shown them so please keep the comments coming!
@DrAlanQuan my friend I do agree that you demonstrated your point successfully. And I don't think you did anything wrong with any intent. It's more a case of, the 49 fov took a sound defeat. But if there is any room for argument, you left the door open by not been precise enough. It's probably because I use a laser measuring tool for distance and level so I've become too picky
@@johndog2010I remember thinking about doing it to the level of precision you talk about, but the moment I realised it wasn't just a software adjustment - I'd need to adjust the angle of the side monitors as well - I decided to just do it as is Certainly though, the next video will be ruthlessly precise. Just need Samsung to get on board!
@@DrAlanQuan personally I don't see why Samsung don't stick up for themselves and send a team of thier technicians with a range of their latest products to you. I'm thinking that maybe they just aren't serious 😅
I use a 49" and I honestly had no idea how much FOV I lacked in comparison to the triple 32"s until now. Thanks for this video!
Thanks for watching! Yeah the difference is quite significant. Situational awareness and sensation of speed both get a big boost with more FOV.
Whether it's worth the time, cost and hassle of changing from your setup is now your decision :)
You are so right, I have been to try tell drivers nice that you agree.
i understand. i went from a single 16/9 to a 21/9 to triple 16/9. So never had 32/9. But i love my triples because you can really see when someone is besides you for an attack. But must also say, 1 49 superultrawide is also not a bad experience. Its still way better then just 1 normal screen. I think the best thing you can get is 3 42inch 4k oled panels. No motion problems and all the screenspace you want. But not to extreme like some youtubes have triple 65inch. Thats to big. For me triple 27 it is for now because i don't have much space left. XD
Update: I did upgrade to triple 32"s shortly after my comment. Night and day difference! If you've got the space for it, do it! Costed me less than my G9 costed.
@@FifthPinned 🔥 heck yeah
Very interesting topic, Doc!
You've convinced me to go triples in the near future. I was initially planning on getting a 21:9 (34") monitor, but, like you said, I was having an unrealistic expectation of FOV. This clears up quite a lot of stuff!
Hi Darth, I'm so glad I could help with your purchasing decision! I hope I've saved you some frustration and some money ❤️
Having had single, triple and super ultra wide.. i can now say nothing beats VR for simracing. That and a 3DOF rig and you have fully immersed race that nothing can beat.
I'd love to give VR a proper try. I have a PSVR and really enjoyed Dirt Rally, but haven't used VR for any racing since then.
Please write to your favourite headset brands and encourage them to send me a headset to test!
i've used about 6 different HMD's for now my daily driver is the pimax crystal just because of the amazing clarity an visuals. In overall feeling my HTC vive Pro was the best.@@DrAlanQuan
Tried rift S and quest 3, get ton of issue even with a pretty decent computer. lose tracking or freeze in the middle of a corner ... Sold them and got triple for almost the same price
hmmm honestly i never had any problem with my HTC vive or vive pro....nor do i have this problem with my crystal ( btw the vive's worked with a RTX2080) i do agree the setup takes time . However a decent 3 monitor takes a while to . But once that is setup it should be for ever. @@dylanfriedrich5722
If you want to be faster, use a monitor. Easier to be more consistent in 2D
I have owned the 49 inch for about 5 months now and I could not be happier. I probably would have gone triples but just do not have the space the 49 is a tight fit but as I said I personally could not be happier, Yes racing side by side is not as easy as with triples but it's still leagues apart from the single 27" I started on and it is a lot more user friendly in terms of setup, Great video showing the differences btw, But to anyone who doesn't have room for triples the 49 is a great option imo
Hi Andy I completely agree and I'm so glad you brought this to the comments.
I don't think a single 49" super ultrawide is a bad choice - it is compact but maximises FOV for its compactness, it looks awesome, it's a simpler task to assemble and wire.
It suits your needs, just as it doesn't suit my needs. I just hope that people will have a fair understanding of what to expect FOV-wise with this type of monitor before spending their money and I think my videos accomplish that!
49” with Track IR is better than Vr for me 💯. Never tried triples, but with 49” I can run every game maxed out pretty much with 2070super. I know with triples I would have to upgrade pc as I’m used to nice graphics. TrackIR has zero performance hit and lets you look into the apex which gives a very realistic feeling as well as checking sides. This was a great video btw.
I choose the single 49“ to save electrical energy. The system uses about 300 watts less power (monitors and gpu) compared to tripple. Energy costs are really high here in Germany…
@@alex.germany power consumption is an interesting aspect I didn't consider for this topic - but I have actually been measuring power consumption of all my equipment in the last few weeks and think it's a fascinating topic
@@DrAlanQuan Yes. I measure my equipment since about two years. And my sim rig allone (including all periphery) draws about 600 kWh just this year. I just startr the sim rig for 2 to 3 hours per day in average. This means that the whole system requires around 650 watts when I use it. My main computer - that runs usually 15 h to 16 h per day - used about the same power because it's most of the time idle, has a smaller monitor etc...
What a amazing video you just made. It really help to see the real FOV you'll gonna get with all configurations. Thank you !!!
You are most welcome! Thank you for reaching out with your kind words ❤️
This is a fantastic video that I will now always link to people who want to get an Ultrawide. Great work!
That's really awesome, thank you! I feel so proud that I've created a resource that is useful to so many ❤️
Hi,
I appreciate the content!
I am in process of setting up triple 32's after several happy years with an MSI 34 in ultra wide. The ultrawide replaceed a single 27 inch
I chose Samsung 32in 1440p 166Hz G5's.
They're still in boxes as am awaiting delivery of the triple support brackets for my rig.
For the past year'ish, I've been using VR more and more, (which is amazing), but still wanted ease and comfort of triples.
July summer sales finally made the three monitor expense come down to an acceptable price point.
Thanks for sharing your work and making it easy to compare and discuss the different configurations.
Hi Rick, thank you for sharing your comment! How do you feel about your monitor progression - it sounds like you've bought and moved on from quite a few setups in your time!
I think the triple 32s are endgame level purchases and will be very satisfying to install and fine tune. Also the satisfaction of knowing you'll never, ever need to upgrade screens again.
I'm actually going to film a follow up to this video today - I will be filming a Samsung 57 and doing FOV comparisons on that but you and I both know the triple 32s are going to come out on top :)
I'm thinking about getting a Quest 3 for my first taste of VR (since PSVR 1 anyway). I know triples have a lot of advantages but I'd like to experience what modern VR can do
@@DrAlanQuan Wow! I had a really long essay written, chronicalling my evolution from couch sitting 55 inch TV monitor gamer to triple 34 in rig using sim-racer. And then somehow I mis-hit a key and POOF - all gone. 🙂Oh well...
The gist is, I feel good about my evolution. My choices for monitors suited my needs as I grew first in understanding what FOV and peripheral vision meant to my racing skill, and then to needing and wanting more peripheral visability. My desire was always to get as much peripheral vision as I could afford to help me be as safe and effective a driver as I could be. I am a still a relative noob at this.
Size and spec wise I think I did a good thing with this most recent purchase.
A few years down the road I might, maybe, have to upgrade to OLED something or others, as you do from time to time. 🙂 But yeah, I think I'm good for awhile. Appreciate your comments.
Sidenote: A tool I found really useful and you might want to check out and comment on on the channel, is TrackIR 5 head tracker. www.trackir.com/
While it soesn't change your FOV, it does give you easier access to what's off screen to left or right. I started using trackIR5, with the 27in and continued thru to this day on the 34in monitor. I found it relatively inexpensive and very helpful for letting me move my head in a very natural way to look left or right to give you some side vision. It's not VR.
As for VR: I bought my wife and I Quest 3's in February of this year. Love it! Would like to hear how you get on with it.
For PC interface I am only using a bit of software called Virtual Desktop, and Steam VR for PC games like AC, ACC, Automobolista 2. I am planning to download Open XR or Open VR to make a go in iRacing.
Take care. looking forward to the deep dive into size.
Rick
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you've not adjusted the FOV relative to the horizontal and aspect ratio (easily seen in the video) so you're 35 ultra wide (horizontal pixels 3x3440) shows less information in the FoV than your 32" 16:9 monitors (horizontal pixels 3x2560). That just isn't factual if the FoV is adjusted for the horizontal and aspect as the 35" ultra wide setup has more pixels to work with on the horizontal, and therefore will show MORE information in a properly adjusted field of view.
A monitor has amount of horizontal pixels to work with. The Samsung 57" super ultra wide for example has 7680 pixels on the horizontal, and you're 3x 32" monitors have 2560 pixels on the horizontal, so they have the same 7680 pixels on the horizontal to work with as the Samsung super ultra wide. If FoV is adjusted relative to the horizontal and aspect for both setups, you'd get the exact same information displayed for the FoV on both, at least as far as the horizontal is concerned. The 57" would have more on the vertical though which while nice in some ways, would require more GPU power to drive, so it's give and take.
If however someone had triple 1080p monitors, regardless of the fact it's a triple monitor setup, they still would have only 5760 pixels to work with on the horizontal, so once the FoV calc is adjusted for the size and aspect of the monitor(s) to reflect the correct FoV, they would display LESS in their FoV than the 57" super ultra wide, despite it being a triple monitor setup.
Hope that makes sense ... It was an interesting video all the same, just not entirely accurate in what you were trying to demonstrate :)
Hi Cryptic Dingo, thanks for commenting!
In my opinion, you have a mix of correct and incorrect points and I'll try to address them.
You are right, my triple 35"s show less than the triple 32"s when they should show more - IF the driver head position is the same for both setups. However, the driver eye to screen distance for the 32"s is quite short (within arms reach) and the eye to screen distance for the 35"s is much longer. The reason for this is the 32"s are my own personal setup tuned for my preferences, and the 35"s are exactly as configured when delivered by RaceKraft - and they have theirs set up for many customers to easily get in and out of the cockpits in their sim centre. The net result is the screens are further away, so show less. Think of a small window in a cafe - if you're far away from it, you can't see much out of it, but if you get up real nice and close you can see almost everything outside - this is the effect that distance from the eyes has.
Should I have corrected the FOV settings to match the same driver distance? For a pure scientific comparison, yes I should have. But I was just filming a comparison of 3 cockpit setups that I had running side by side - all 3 were working well in their own way, and I started filming. Several eagle eyed viewers including yourself asked about the 35s showing less than the 32s which is great - it shows you are watching but also applying your knowledge and asking questions when things don't appear to match up - I love that!
Now onto your topic about resolution - I am absolutely confident about this, but please let me know your thoughts. Resolution has nothing to do with FOV, what matters is SCREEN SIZE. Let's take my 32"s as comparison - they have 2560x1440 resolution - so does my 6" phone. If I had the 6" phones set up as triples, at the same distance from my eyes as the 32"s would I have the same FOV? Absolutely not, the phone screens are tiny, even though they have the same resolution - and if they are my window into viewing the world, I'll see barely anything.
If I have 3 projectors, each 1920x1080, but projecting triple 100" screens I could make an ENORMOUS game world with huge FOV even though the resolution is smaller.
BTW the triple 35"s actually have a resolution of 2560x1080, so they have the exact same horizontal resolution as my triple 32"s - but again it's not about resolution, it's about screen size - and the 35"s are WIDER than my 32s, so they should show more FOV but only if the eye to screen distance is the same.
As for the 57" - again we can ignore the resolution, but the issue with the 57" is that it doesn't wrap around you like triples do, so it will not show as much FOV. The screen just isn't in the correct space around the driver's head to show someone driving alongside them.
FOV is not about resolution. It's about screen size AND distance from eye to screen. Resolution just makes things look clearer. Thanks so much for your comment, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my reply :)
@@DrAlanQuan Thanks for taking the time to respond. Just based on what I could see I took a stab the 35's had more than your 32's on the horizontal, I knew yours were 2560, so made the assumption they would be 3440 on the horizontal.
Re your iPhone 6" screen example. If you adjust the viewing distance to accomodate for the physical size and had them angled to cover the same viewable angular range, then yes, 100% they would have the same FoV. You probably wouldn't want to sit there with iPhones rigged up as monitors right up in your face, but you could, and you'd have the same information displayed (resolution) in the same angular range (fov).
Those 3 x 1080p 100in projectors you mentioned, regardless of if you set them up to the same FoV, they would show so little observable/useable information (due to lack of pixel size/density - low resolution relative to physical size) that you wouldn't really have a game world to play in.
But as you rightly point out, FoV isn't about resolution! It is about what is observable within a given angular range. Perhaps I was a little fixated on thinking about how much information could be displayed on a given screen regardless of physical size. Why? Because having useable information within the FoV is kind of important. There is a reason they don't make 100" 260p OLED displays right 🤪
So, perhaps when we talk about FoV, triple screen setups vs super ultra wides, we need to address more than just the FoV alone. It's about getting usable/actionable information about the observable 'world' so we can make the best decisions based on that information, like the car coming alongside you. The 3 iPhones (though capable), or the 100in 1080p screens (also capable for FoV but not for providing useable information due to resolution, or lack thereof) are both examples of why we need to talk about these things with more context than just FoV or resolution alone.
As for the 57" super ultra wide... that doesn't wrap around as much as your setup, so you're right 100% right, it wouldn't have the same FoV as the 32's because of how much more you bring those around (angular range). That said, technically, it is capable of displaying the same information as the 3x 32's (because of the resolution), just the FoV would be a little off/condensed. One could argue the information would be more usable as it more easily observed (less head turning - peripheral vision is only so good). Still, I concede that point to you Sir 😎.
That said, I'd rather the single massive screen and tweak the FoV to give me just enough 'view', but without condensing information from the larger FoV (trips) too much into the slightly smaller FoV (super ultra wide).
Side note: I really enjoyed watching your video and chatting with you about it. It certainly made me think, and if your video gets people thinking about these things, then one could say it did what it set out to do. Keep up the good work! 👍
Thanks for this follow-up video, super interesting to see the differences between the setups in direct comparison, big thumbs up 👍👍
Yeah it's quite hypnotic to watch the the different perspectives all playing out in real time. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for commenting! I appreciate your appreciation!
Very nice video. I like how you clearly showed the difference in game, that's real life scenarios. I missed the ultrawide 45 LG oled and the new Samsung 56", but hey, there's too much to ask, you did amazing
Haha thank you, I've received so many comments suggesting/telling me to test the Samsung 57" and I'm just like, it's THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS I don't make big purchasing decisions like that easily haha
RaceKraft actually have the triple LG OLED setup so it's not impossible to film those. I raced in them, they work really well. FOV-wise it's not much different to triple 32s - it's big, wide and tall. But the colours are lovely and the deep curve is quite spectacular.
That big Samsung though, it's so expensive and it is 'just' a single monitor after all and unless Samsung sends me one to assess, I don't think I'll come across one to test.
@@DrAlanQuan yeah, it’s too expensive. They definitely should send you a review unit, it’s on their best interest. If it does well, they have a selling point and a justification for the absurd price. Another common option is for people to go with a big 65” TV, this can show how much they gain(or lose) with a ultrawide and a triples set. Anyway, thanks again !
Yes this makes sense. I’m definitely adding 2 27” to my 49”
Sounds good - have you found the racing experience lacking from your 49" so far?
that would not be recommended. you would have to set the resolution ingame as for 3 49"s to work, and you will only view half of the rendered image on laterals. and of course the GPU will most likely not cope with such high resolution.
Wow, thats really awesome!! No one has made it this clear so far, fantastic video Alan!
Thanks! I've come across a lot of people who are under the impression that super ultrawides are almost as good as triples - probably people who bought super ultrawides themselves and have justification bias.
But the truth is the racing experience isn't even close - and if I can save a new buyer some regret and some money by making this video, I think I've helped to make the world a better place ❤️
clear what? that triples is better... of course
Thanks for the video sir. I ran triples until VR happened and I haven't gone back since. Rift, Quest 2, HP Reverb and now Quest 3. Using on my race rig and also my flight sim. Now with mixed reality coming into play, things are progressing rapidly. Cheers!
I'm curious, why the upgrade path between those three headsets?
I'm very new to VR, trying to learn as much as I can before possibly picking something up in the new year
@@DrAlanQuan It's just the progression of technolgy and better headsets coming out through the years. HTC Vive and Oculus Rift came out in 2016. Since then optics have improved and prices have come down. There are advantages and disadvantages going either way with flat screens or VR. You have a lot of studying to do. But luckily there are tons of videos and opinions out there. In short, if you want pure immersion then VR is the way to go. If you want to know more about the history and progression of VR then look up a chap named Palmer Luckey. Cheers!
@@DrAlanQuan i think pico 4 would be a great entry for you, they use the new kind of pancake lenses and dont have the bloat that comes with using a quest. Its only 200 to 250 bucks used in europe at least, a great deal for any kind of VR and especially sim racing.
@@Maebbie thanks I'll add that one to my list of headsets to watch!
@@Maebbie I'm going to add a used Quest Pro (if you can git it at a good price) to the mix. It has eye tracking so you can use Dynamic foveated rendering for open xr compatible titles for huge performance gain. The only thing I don't like about VR is that for someone like me who's always trying to get the best picture/fps, it's really expensive!! The best thing right now would be to wait until the end of 2024 because there are several new HMD's that will probably come out.
This is exactly what I needed! thank you so much for the great video!
I'm glad you found it useful!
@DrAlanQuan Since I am starting from Scratch I will still go with an Ultrawide, my pc is still a workstation/gaming station that is not 100% dedicated to sim racing. I do not have the luxury of putting in triples yet. Great analysis. Thank you, new sub! @@DrAlanQuan
I'm enjoying this Discussion - Thank you for posting this content!
On this topic, I believe it's fair to mention the use of triple screens varies depending on use.
In my opinion, it depends on the type of vehicle and track you're currently racing.
This importance ranges from being extremely crucial to somewhat negligible, and it's not a linear relationship at all.
As an example, it seems to be more important in Open Wheel Scenarios, but in Dirt Street Stocks, or even NASCAR the left side monitor has limited benefits compared to an Super Ultrawide view. Personally, I feel like the best configuration is a Super Ultrawide flanked by 2- 27" 1000r monitors.
Hi Flannelguy, thanks for taking the time to comment!
I agree with a lot of what you say, think open wheelers definitely benefit the most - tin tops with their roofs and doors really block off a lot of the visibility and hence benefits of the side monitors - but I still enjoy triple monitors for all sorts of racing.
Your ideal monitor setup sounds fine to me, I just wouldn't know how to effectively set them up in software. 3 monitors of the same shape and size keeps things simple for me!
Hope to see you more in the comments :)
@@DrAlanQuan Thank you! I look forward to more of your content. I'm also interested to see if curved monitors add any utility at all to sim racing...I see many from the FPS gaming crowd that absolutely dislike the 1000r curve, but it seems that it could be beneficial for sim racing. I'd be interested to see content that either confirms or denies that.
Great video.. Nice comparison between the 3 variant types.. I for one use triples and it is most definitely the way to go.. The only issue I must point out is; the way most folks are using triples. They are using it in the wrong way.. They use it in a "semi" ultra wide configuration.. Also the screen size in 32 is not ideal IMO.. What you want to achieve in triples is full immersion. You want a 250 - 270 FOV with plenty of vertical.. The way to achieve that is by using larger screens; 48 inches minimum. 55s are the sweet spot. I use triple 65s, since I used both race and flight sims.. Just my 2 cents.. If you get the chance please feature these setups in a future video 👍.
Wow I would love to sit in your rig!
One thing I've come to learn after reading all the comments it's everybody has different needs, and what I strongly feel fulfills all my requirements just doesn't suit others.
Still, I create my videos to share my experience and hopefully help others, and also to meet people like you who can broaden my horizons :)
Your rig sounds like an amazing 'ultimate' setup, and I'd love to build one for laughs but the cost and space and computing requirements to run it make the endeavour just a bit more expensive than I can justify at this time.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@DrAlanQuan You have a valid point around cost... For me why gaming monitors at 65 inches is not effective... The direction I have taken was leveraging LGs 4K TVs... For what you would get for a single Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 you could get 3 LG screens in that price point.. 4K, 120, VRR, HDCP, HDR, in sub 10 milliseconds is decent...👍
@@rmoore6471I briefly looked into that, just for curiosity, but I turned away when I kept seeing these 120Hz screens were only taking 60Hz inputs
Probably not a huge deal, I haven't found myself to be fussy with frame rates but I worry that there's quality left on the table if I choose a monitor with a limited frame rate
@@DrAlanQuan - I can personally say for sure since I have both LG C1 in 48 inches and LG C3s in 65 inches... All the HDMI inputs reflect 120hz in windows in Nvidia Control Panel under PC - Video settings..
@@rmoore6471awesome! If I ever decide to go bigger I'll certainly look into the LGs, thanks 😊
Genius analysis and thank you!
Genius 😂 thank you for reaching out
High quality content! I wish i've had seen this earlier.
To my right there is a LC POWER '49 and i wasn't aware of what i'm missing.
49s are still good screens so I'm sure you are enjoying benefits there, but for racing I much prefer triples and it's not even remotely close. Thanks for the comment!
@@DrAlanQuan the issue of the necessity of high cpu & gpu power remains for me. I've heard that (in my case) 33% increase in pixels leads to ~33% in FPS loss. I'd fall far below the 90 FPS mark, which to me is the minimum for sim racing. And lowering the graphics quality would kill more immersion, than the triples would add. But for the future you definitely inspired me to upgrade as soon as the components for that become more affordable :)
I'd say GTX 3060 ti is simply not enough for full hd triples on mid to high graphics settings in iRacing.
@@wwvvww573 do you need mid-high iracing graphics? When I was doing my graphics testing I really didn't mind low settings at all, but with my 3070 I found I was able to run triple 1440s with ease, with settings I liked, at 120+fps. A 3060Ti isn't far behind, and if you're getting triple 1080s that's even less pixels to drive.
But that was before rain and admittedly I haven't done a lot of driving in iracing since the rain update so maybe performance has changed
Thanks for the insightful videos. I always link your original video when people ask what to choose between ultrawides/triples, will link this from now on.
That's so lovely, thank you!
The first time I saw someone link my video as a reference was extremely flattering. I'm glad it's a useful resource for you!
Hi Alan based on your video I went 3x27” curved WQHD as opposed to the single 49” and very glad I went that direction. The extra FOV is worth it. Cost wise was about the same if including a stand for the triples.
I'm so glad you're happy with your decision! Even though I like triples myself the intent of my videos was to demonstrate what to expect from each monitor form factor so that expectations are set appropriately.
Super ultrawides are positioned as premium, expensive monitors and they're very cool but don't provide the racing experience I want. I know they suit others' preferences and that's good, but this is one of the situations where the usual rule of more expensive = better doesn't necessarily apply
This is great content, very informative and clear up lots of confusion between triples and super ultrawide. I am glad that I have cancelled my Samsung 57 and went for triple 32s instead, definitely one of the best investments I have made for my rig.
I think you made a good choice 👍 thanks for your kind words, it's my pleasure to have you here
Personal opinion based on how I see things physically. I would prefer the 35in ultrawides as I'm used to using them for gaming. I have 32in monitors, but I don't use them for gaming. That locked in feel, for me, makes things more immersive, and I don't have to move my head and eyes as much as things are in a more natural field of view. Loved the video.
Thanks for sharing your view (literally! Haha). The locked in feeling contributing to immersion is certainly a different perspective on the matter I hadn't considered.
This is exactly why I produce videos - to have conversations with other hobbyists and learn to enjoy aspects of the hobby I hadn't considered, or to enjoy them in new ways.
I'm glad you took the time to add a comment, I hope to see more with time:)
I'm so glad i did happen to choose for triples back when i built my rig, especially after seeing this, i knew triples would have a better fov but this makes it so so clear, the difference is way bigger then i had imagined. The ease of only having to deal with 1 monitor almost made me buy a 49". But after everything is set up, having to deal with 3 isn't that bad anyway. Awesome video, thank a lot. Greetings from a felllow iracing f3 lover.
Hi Colin, definitely a good thing that you went with triples! Yes they take up more space and aligning them is not easy, but the FOV difference is staggering.
Still, every setup has is advantages and a lot of people love their single screen rigs - no judgement from me!
Love that F3 :)
I moved from triple curved 32's to the 57" Ultrawide and love it. Getting 140 FOV and don't miss the triples at all
That's awesome! Glad you're enjoying the move.
I am curious - you already had triple 32s which are, at the very least, a good setup. Yet, you chose to buy the 57 which is not a cheap monitor at all - what motivated you to look into and then purchase an alternative monitor setup?
@@DrAlanQuan people always throwout comments and never answer the important questions xD
@@Bankai90I know right? I'm like come onnnnnnn I want to know what the fuss is all about because I don't get it
Triple 16:9s is definitely the way to go. It provides the best immersion due to the excellent horizontal and vertical field of view.
You could argue there are advantages to larger monitors than 32". But 16:9 is the sweet spot.
I very much agree! Vertical field of view is very much appreciated. I was surprised since I though all I needed was peripheral vision, but just for general comfort and wellbeing that extra vertical real estate is lovely
The issue is the bezels, no matter how much better the fov is the bezels just kill the Immersion for me. I've tried every setup you can imagine and the bezels are just too much to deal with. Even when lined up perfectly they will always be off slightly depending on which section you have chosen to line up. The biggest issue is when taking tight turns the bezel can be right in the middle of the turn which is a massive annoyance. A single ultrawide with radar and mirrors is the sweet spot for me. What we really need are massive curved ultrawides that wrap around you but can't see that type of monitor ever being released due to the very niche market.
Hi Jonny, it's a very personal thing and unfortunate that the bezels are so bothersome for you because aside from the bezels, triples are a great and cost effective option.
I personally found the bezels to drive me crazy if the screens are further away - if the screens are moved closer to me the bezels move outboard and are quickly forgotten. I did find the Asus bezel free kit to help A TON when the bezels were super visible.
Have you tried VR? A lot of commenters suggest it but I haven't given it a good go yet
@DrAlanQuan yea I race in VR sometimes but it's not ideal either for comfort reasons mainly. Once the headsets get lighter and the fov increases they could be a game changer but right now a big screen / ultrawide is my first go to for a smooth comfortable experience. Wanted to mention other big plus with one monitor is the higher fps as I like to have at least 120 to reduce input delay and frame times.
Another great video, I thought your other video was good but this one is the icing on the cake, thankyou for your hard work.
That's a really nice thing to say, thanks for sharing that with me 👍
Thank you! I recently had someone suggest the 49-in Odyssey. I think they were just justifying their purchase. It looks stretched and distorted. I'd rather have pixels beyond my field of view.. and you're only going to do that with three monitors.
With as far as Sim rigs have come in the past two decades, you would think by now someone would have offered a affordable seamless triple monitor system. Our dealership put a television in the showroom that's 20x35 ft. It's a pile of tiny screens all together, and you can't tell where one stops and another one starts. Three slightly curved seamless screens world be nice
Those LED panels are great! They provide some real wow factor, but the only ones I've seen have had pretty poor resolution - so at the distances I have my monitors I'll gladly take the bezel. I'd love to see some game changing display tech. A lot of people say VR, which I'm hoping to give a serious go this year
I think the 49" monitor is fine, it's certainly usable - if just gives less situational awareness than triples, period.
That's a deal-breaker for some, and no biggie for others.
@@DrAlanQuan with as much money as people are investing in riggs, that game-changing display Tech has to be on the way. I recently learned that the field of view in the VR is actually quite narrow. Which explains all of the excessive looking around. I thought they were doing it to show its realism. The fact is, in a real car you want to move your head as little as possible. Under stressful situations, and for the inexperienced, you can sometimes have a tendency to turn the direction your head goes. That's why they tried to improve the field of view in helmets, so you can glance.. as the post to swinging your head left and right. I'm old, and I'm getting to where I have to hold things at arm's length to see detail. The inability for your eyes to focus is the cause of headaches in VR. I'm old, and I've made a lot of mistakes with money. $500 for something that I can't use for 3 or 4 hours straight, isn't worth it to me. My eyes can focus on three monitors, and I don't need to see my lap or the headliner LOL. It's amazing the extent we have to go to for realism, when our eyes seldom Veer more than a few inches from Center
Great video!!! I have both the 49" wide and 32" triples plus VR. The max FOV is a great thing. PS that "Triple 32" in the top right needs the bezel corrected resolution selected.
Haha good catch. I had bezel delete kits installed on the triple 32s but I pulled them off because they kept falling off when I was moving the rigs around with all my other testing in the studio.
Forgot to adjust the bezel settings before filming this 😂
Thanks for commenting, pleasure to have you here :)
I was think about buying those bezels kits but my family walks by my monitors and pushes them inward sometimes by accident as it is located in the bonus room. I wonder if my 49" wide sees a little more as it is the Samgsung Odyssey 49" 1000R curved at 5120 x 1440p (I'm not sure)@@DrAlanQuan
@@BakerRacing the bezel delete kits work great on 27" screens but on 32s they need extenders, and that's the weakest link and where they come apart if you knock them a bit.
As for the 1000R screen yes I would expect another few degrees FOV but in the real world I doubt anybody would notice the difference.
Ultrawides are marketing monsters. Basically, they are 55 inch TVs cut in half vertically. Their only advantage for FOV is the slight curve, otherwise you might as well use a 55 inch TV from LG with 120Hz and 1ms GtG response times. They are "ultrawide" or "half as tall", it's all a question of how you look at them. I personally use one at the desk because it allows you to be more productive, but for sim racing I moved to the 55 inch OLED, way better experience. Eventually, triple screens.
I like your take on the topic.
I only briefly looked at TVs and, at least the ones I looked into, the 120Hz displays are driven by an HDMI input that only handles 60Hz input
I currently use 165Hz displays (rendered at 90fps) and worry that a 60Hz input would be limiting. Probably overthinking it.
@@DrAlanQuan There are 120Hz ones, I bought an LG OLED BX in 2020, they were the first to support 4K120. They are pricey, but maybe in the 3 years since then there's even more choices at a cheaper price. But good point that people need to check the HDMI output to not be left with 60Hz
The new 57” super ultra wide is much more an appropriate comparison. I replaced my 49 with the 57 and is night and day difference
I'm really glad you experienced a worthwhile upgrade!
I would love to test the Samsung 57" and if you could put in a good word with Samsung to send me one I would be extremely grateful!
I have no doubt the 57" is a good product, but the cost is significant and definitely a barrier for me.
Thank you for watching and commenting!
I prefer VR, generally. I get the 110 degree FOV with my particular headset, and the ability to look around, which is really what does it for me. The depth also helps me personally when aiming the car and judging my braking points!
I'm aiming to give VR a good go this year!
I use Triple 49s. I would never want to use anything different. You dont need height when you have a real gauge cluster. My rig frame is actually a race car chassis. The Monitors act only as windows.
Awesome set up! What distance is the centre monitor from the driver? With that much reach, it could be out nice and far for less eye strain
Speaking from a point of reality....the 49" is the most realistic especially on dirt. In car you can see very little to anything at all behind the A pillar because of the seat and helmet. I would adjust the in game FOV just enough to see the drivers side mirror and that would be about as good as it would get in reality. I race asphalt late models and my spotter only calls to the door on the inside but to the front 1/4 on the outside. A lot of people think I am odd for this but learn to see with your ears. More often than not you can hear them beside you.
Hi Hayden, cool perspective. I definitely agree with the sound cues - I have to admit I am not a 100% stickler for realism. The 1:1 projection of the game world in the monitors is a big plus. Besides that I would say I want my setup to provide competitive advantage rather than strict realism - more FOV (ignore restrictions of seat and helmet), adjust audio levels (boost tyre noise, suppress engine sound, etc) to help me race safely and competitively - my enjoyment comes from the battle, rather than the struggle 😂
I'm really glad you shared your view though, it makes a lot of sense! 👍
Yeah I drive by feel. Anybody who says siper ultrawide fov isn't big enough had never been strapped into a HANS wearing a helmet lol!!
@@yjzep9922 THIS. One of the reasons I went with ultra wide over triples is that the FOV restriction is somewhat similar to when wearing a HANS.
Something that should be pointed out is that the fov heavily depends on the seating position. From what i can tell with the video especially with the 49" setup the screen is quiet far away because of the very agressiv formular style seating position and the screen itself has a very suddle curve.
With a more GT style seating position and a more aggressive curve the visibility to the sides gets greatly improved, altougth its never going to be as good as having more screen realestate ^^
Hi there, yes eye to screen distance makes a big difference. Not enough of a difference to make up for the geometric limitations of a single screen vs triple though.
Also I like the screen to be fully at arm's distance from me - in a formula position that's roughly just on top of the wheelbase, in a GT position that's a good 6 inches further away from the wheelbase - any closer than that and it really strains my eyes to focus on the screen.
So for me, doesn't matter if I'm formula or GT - distance to screen is the same, FOV is the same
awesome! great effort and perfect comparison
Thanks! Some things need to be seen to be believed 😂 I'm very lucky to actually have the monitors all next to each other to compare - not many of us get this luxury so I try to pass on everything I learn!
@@DrAlanQuan absolutely! Very rare, someone has this opportunity and shares it! Much appreciated
Very interesting and informative, i have been using a single 32 curved monitor for a while and live it... was thinking going wide didnt see the point of triples ...but this gave me new insight and now i think this is my next upgarde! 👍
Good stuff! If you're going to upgrade, at least make the improvement with your time, effort and money - that's my philosophy and it sounds like it might match up to yours.
Have fun!
Awesome video, such an important decision when putting together a setup. Random Question - Where do you purchase your monitor mounts and all those nice accessories hanging off them from?
Hi :) so for the three rigs:
Triple 35 - RaceKraft monitor mount with RaceKraft keyboard tray
49 - Simrigs Exodus integrated monitor mount (no accessories mounted)
Triple 32 - Trak Racer monitor mount with my own 3D printed keyboard tray
@@DrAlanQuan Thanks! Looks great!
Wauw! Fantastic comparison. I've never seen the differenceses that clearly compared!
Interesting how the actual Ultrawide 49" made less viewable at the extremeties to the sides, compared to the simulated Ultrawide 49".
Also noticed that the side monitors of the triple 32" seemed to warp the nearby car more so than then widescreen 35" sidemonitors did.
Was all FOV the same, for all setups, both in person and simulated?
Excellent observation. One of the other commenters noticed in the dirt street stocks scenario that the hands in the 49" were oversized which makes me suspect I might have had the FOV setting slightly too tight - with that corrected it would probably still end up being a bit tighter than my simulation though.
Also a very sharp observation about the angle of the side monitors. The triple 32s are my own and have a fairly deep angle. The triple 35s are straight off the RaceKraft sim centre floor (they trailered it fully assembled to my studio) and have a shallower side screen angle probably to make it easier for customers to get in and out of the cockpit.
I know with my triple 32s is a bit tight at times and my belly hits the monitors sometimes when getting in and out!
The 3 PCs and their respective monitors were all set up recently to have an accurate, 1:1 projection from the driver's eye into the game world. I might have been off by a degree here or there but it's pretty close - so the actual FOV number in software is different for all 3 monitors, but the outlook from the driver's eye is the same for all of them.
Thanks for your kind words and I look forward to seeing you in the next video's comments!
@@DrAlanQuan Thank you so much for the thorough run down!
Yeah I think the slight "warping" on the 32" triples setup could just be do to the narrower angle between the screens of the setup compared to the 35" triples. I think the different angles are maybe visible in the video. Al though that might just be confirmation bias, now that I've know this.
Nice that you took the time to calibrate all the setups correct FOV, and a few degress difference isn't the deciding factor it would seem. The video highlights way more impactful differences between the different setups.
I have'nt been able to save up to a solid alu-rig just yet, but I'm getting closer month by month now, and the content you add to this community is just pure gold to someone like me. Massive thank you. I'll definitely be adding to your view count, though I'm usually a rare commenter. Looking forward to more great & passionate videos. Cheers!
I prefer triple 32 inch because of the extra vertical space that it provides. This makes a very noticeable difference. I would be so happy if ultrawides had more vertical real estate.
I agree completely. When I did the simulation for my older video I thought the lesser height of a 27" or 35" ultrawide would be fine since it just eliminates sky.
Then I raced on the triple 35s and thought they were ok.
Then I went back to triple 32s and it was like OH MY GOD I feel so light and free
that would just be a tv my liege...
One thing I don't really understand is why do people have their monitors so high compared to your normal horizontal eyesight. This means you will get a bad neck and strain your eyes. I've tried it out at a mates house and different events, I just can't get why people have it setup like this
Hi Martin, I have the monitors at this height because I'm always rolling the rigs and monitors around my studio - and since some rigs are higher than others, I set the monitors to be able to roll over the higher one.
If you look at my rig tour video I have the monitor much lower - that was before I had multiple cockpits to manage in the studio 👍
The best setup, if your eyes completely center horizontally in the monitor.
Exactly that’s what I think everytime I see people’s screens!
I have mine set as low as possible so the monitors centerline is directly at the height of my eyes.
Everything else is undrivable for me!
@@rolux4853same here. I also don’t get when people put their monitors so far away like behind the wheelbase or even behind the pedals. You get so much more usable FOV if you drop your screen down on top of the steering shaft.
I use a 65” TV so I don’t have mine high and this means the bottom of the screen is obscured by the wheel
such a great content you made! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you my friend!
For static view obviously triples are heads above other setups (except VR). Just that historically and due budget limitations (and in some cases space for rig limits) single screen still is most common picture output, hence since long various workarounds to limited vision are implemented to reduce awareness issues/limitations in race with such. Voice spotter like crewchief, in-game virtual radar, look-with-steer, bound buttons for side-glance view, head tracking with TrackIR and so on ..
Yes agreed to everything you've said.
I also want to point out I've never had to mess with any of those things you listed because I have triples and enjoy the natural peripheral vision they provide.
It's like I paid for the premium display configuration to save me effort in overcoming the shortcomings of a single monitor.
Equally, since I have no experience with these techniques I don't even think of them to discuss. A good reminder of what's out there. Thank you!
Nice vid, just bear in mind the loss of frame rates with triples. It is approx at least a 20% drop across triples. I have both and sometimes it is noticeable.all said I still prefer my triple 32” setup for the higher and wider fov.👍
What frame rates do you need to feel comfortable?
Anything above 80, I'm very happy and I'm lucky that my PC can push that easily on triples :)
@@DrAlanQuan I am getting high 80s to mid 90s but it is very noticeable against singles which are frequently above 150
Since I barely race, I mostly hotlap or drive togue, a 49" would probably be fine for me, as its mostly about being able to set the pov sort of correctly but still seeing enough. And for when I race, I do use an overlay to show the relative position of other cars.
VR would be another very interesting comparison here.
Yeah, the side monitors are king if situational awareness of adjacent vehicles is important. A 49" works just fine for looking forwards, spotting apices, general driving duties.
VR comes up A LOT in the comments. I'm hoping 2024 is the year I give it a good go
Great analysis! One note, with the addition of Samsung’s new 57” monitor, curious to get your thoughts. Triples are still going to get better FOV overall but the 57” gets a solid FOV. The challenge around triples is space and general management.
Yes absolutely - wiring and general bulk are two serious considerations with a triple monitor.
I haven't had the Samsung 57" in my hands but I did the math with another commenter in my other fov video.
My triple 32s are roughly like one very wide, very deeply curved screen which is 660mm from centre of screen to edge of screen
The Samsung 57" is a curved screen with depth of 251mm (roughly)
This means the triple 32s reach 400m further out towards my ears than the Samsung 57" which is A LOT. I think it's a geometric limitation of single monitors.
I'm sure the Samsung 57" is a serious piece of hardware. Nice panel specs, nice height. But it's damn expensive and by my assessment not especially well suited to simracing.
But please contact Samsung and ask them to send me one! I would love to test it and share my findings with the world!
think of their 57" as .. double-32" 4K monitors. (32:9 49" ultrawides are like double 27" 2K monitors).
Great comparison vid alan, ive been using 49 ultrawide for a long time and very rarely have to flick my look left and look right for what i cant see...few mates of mine have triples and they couldnt answer me for how many times they look at the side screens haha
Hi Boothy thanks for watching. I agree the 49 is perfectly serviceable as a driving monitor.
As for how often I myself look at the side screens - often enough that I want them to be there. In F3s there's not so much side by side racing but it's awesome when it's there - but dirt street stocks! They're awesome fun and it's side by side racing 90% of the time and your side monitors are just full of cars the entire time. It's an awesome break from road racing, and there's driving skills specific to that discipline that are really satisfying to learn.
Thanks for commenting and merry Christmas!
@@DrAlanQuan yeh I race a heap of dirt sprintcars and midgets mate, dirt is very under rated I put out a vid recently in the midget had some mega racing...merry Xmas to u too Alan hopefully see ya in a boosted race next year 🤙🥃
Great video. I would have loved to see how drift racing is compared. I would assume since you’re putting the car doors close to each other it would make a big difference. Tough choice for me.
More FOV is better since you're literally looking out the side windows so much.
Not a tough choice - triple 32s 👍 haha
Thanks for the comment! If I do a follow up video on this topic I'll try to include drift scenarios :)
@@DrAlanQuan😂 true.. thank you so much for the info.
@@DrAlanQuanwhat curvature do you recommend?
@@RogerKnowsTech I honestly don't think it makes a difference, so choose what you think looks cool and/or what's cheapest
@@DrAlanQuanthank you!
This is the best and most informative comparison I have seen on this subject yet. Will be re-purposing my super ultrawide and going with triples. However, I am curious about your thoughts on the triples vs one of the newer VR headsets which have dramatically improved clarity?
Hi, thank you for your kind words! I'm so glad you found the video useful/informative. When I made my initial video there were a couple of videos on the topic but each of them had certain issues that made it difficult to discern any useful conclusion from.
It was really fun to test out the different configurations, race in them, and make the video - plus all the discussion/debate that comes in the comments too!
I have very little experience with VR and am hoping to give VR a proper go later this year. Years ago I played GT Sport and Dirt Rally on the PSVR and there was enormous potential there, I'm sure it's a crazy amount of fun now that the tech is getting better and better.
Had you felt your super ultrawide was limiting you before this video?
@@DrAlanQuan yes I absolutely did feel limited. I was a bit shocked at how little peripheral vision I had on my Samsung crg49 when racing side by side with others. I was quite disappointed and it didn’t inspire much confidence when fighting for position with others. Your video demonstrated my issues very well. I figured with the ultra wide and the curve I would get the best of both worlds, immersion like triples and almost as good FOV. I was very wrong as it turns out, but it was a necessary compromise considering the lack of space I had. I found myself racing in VR a lot because of it, but that has its own drawbacks as you will find out later this year. I hope you make some content on your experience!
Just got a great deal on 3 x 32” 1440p IPS panels and am super excited to mount them and drive. Thanks for your reply!
I dont have space for triples atm, but a g9 is a good compromise, much better than a single 32" normal screen. If i had the space i would do triples tho
Very reasonable position. The 49" is pretty compact all things considered
I will check it after finishing this video. But I hope you have a video comparing also VR x monitors, because your content is so good. Thanks for this material.
This comes up a lot, and VR is definitely a big aspect of the simracing scene that I have next to no experience with.
I'm hoping I can change this in 2024! Thank you for your kind encouragement❤️
Just as a little addative. A super ultra wide isnt the best full stop, but i have a sturdy wooden rig with a miata chair for my DD wheel setup that i slide infront of my desk when simracing. When NOT simracing i use the superultrawide normally on my desk. I LOVE it for that. a 3 monitor setup could never. if the setup Is PURELY sim please do 3 monitors. its probably cheaper too. if its a multi use setup you could consider it!
Your setup sounds great! I like your take on the topic.
Each setup has its strengths. FOV is not a strength of the 49", but it is versatile, compact and looks good.
But I am an FOV fiend and I don't mind having this mechanical behemoth in my room if it can give me what I need!
great video good info for my build plans!
Knowledge is power, happy to share! Have fun!
Triple it is!
Easy decision :)
I have the g9 57”. I could add a single monitor to have the equivalent of triples. It’s basically 2 monitors in one. There is a TH-cam video on it.
Any chance you can link the video? I'm having difficulty visualising how adding a single monitor to the 57" makes it equivalent to triples
Also, what were you using before you started using the 57?
@DrAlanQuan the 57 is already two monitors equivalent so you add one and you have 3 monitor equivalent. I had a 34".
th-cam.com/video/t2Bu-ZbRDak/w-d-xo.htmlsi=a47f6b7Vsj2FKPi6
great video - any suggestions of games/sims that are made for triples? Assetto Corsa, iRacing and RaceRoom seem like the lonely few. Also I heard one version of MS FlightSim did it properly - is it the lastest one?
Please don't suggest EA WRC / Dirt or other games that just stretch some garbage onto the side screens.
Hi Will. iRacing is the most problem free piece of software for running triples that I have used, hands down.
It was so easy and good, it was the only gaming software I used (not counting stuff like simhub) for nearly 3 years. I had a busy professional life and limited time to race - and iRacing was a consistently reliable and enjoyable experience.
I have a bit more time these days but I spend it all making content instead of racing haha so I don't have anything to add to the discussion. Hopefully I can strike a better balance in the new year. I will happily take your suggestions!
It must be hard when you keep forgetting your own name... :) Great video, appreciate your research
Hi Miner, thanks for the kind message. What do you mean about forgetting your own name? That's going right over my head :)
There’s also the 57” curved monitor from Samsung. Still not wide enough for my flight sim cockpit. Three 34 inch 4K monitors is my preference. I have seriously considered the 57” though. It would make life a lot easier as far as GPU’s are considered. Just miss the peripheral vision in X-Plane 11.
I would never have thought anybody would say the 57" is gentle on the graphics card. Dual 4K is a lot of pixels!
That’s why we have the 4090. I’m holding out for a one screen solution with three 4K panels. My 4090 can handle that today. Few years down the road with 5090 and 6090 cards it should be even easier. At a cost of course.@@DrAlanQuan
@Alan Quan
Great comparison, enjoyed it very much.
Super if we could add the 57 inch Super Ultrawide to this comparison.
At the moment I have 49 inches, for 3 monitors I have no room. Ideally I will fit a 57 inch there and I wonder if I will gain much and if it is worth swapping the 49 for a 57 inch. The price is scary for a 57 inch , but I am thinking about it a lot.
The price for the 57" is indeed scary. Based on my simulation and measurements, I think the 57" will be marginally better than the 49", and still significant more restrictive than the triple monitors.
Whether that is worth the $3000AUD is really up to the individual. I would really like for Samsung to step up to the plate and send me a 57" to test. I would do a good job telling the world all about it!
great comparision.... good content !! I joined the party
I am running 3 46inches here and also very happy with it
i hope you make some more vids like this thx
Thanks for your kind words! Triple 46" sounds fantastic. See you in the next video 🤠
The cost of running triple 32 in 1440 with high refresh rate, 1 ms response, and an IPS panel is so high. It’s not the hardware, you can get those for under $400 a piece - but it’s the GPU card you need to run 1440.
A modest ($1500) CPU and GPU build can run triples in 1080p w/ 27inch monitors at 180 hz and 180 fps all day w no issue.
To run triple 1440’s you need a 4070 super or 4070ti just to hit 110-115fps.
So triple monitors in 1440 has to come with huge upgrade changes to CPU and GPU hardware and around (2500-3500) and you still wont get the fps and refresh rate aligned at 180 for smoothest game play.
(Edit) Single 49in in 1440 can easily be ran at over 120/130 with 4070 super or 4070ti.
Fair points, there is a cost factor to consider. That said I'm running a 3070 and powering my triple 1440s just fine - settings are moderate, I think it looks pretty enough.
One thing I've seen over the years is as new GPUs come out, people's expectations of GPU requirements also go up even if the game hasn't changed.
Why was a 3070 fine for iRacing triple 1440s 2 years ago but all of a sudden now it isn't? I personally think the benefits of the 32 inch monitors over the 27s are tangible and worth any small additional cost needed to get there
I think 32 is the sweet spot for sure so I agree with you. From all the chip research Ive done and forum research 3080 seems to be the minimum standard for running 1440 triples.
The problem is you still wont get ver 115 fps on triples with a 3080 (most people around 90-100) and then you have an fps not synced with a nice monitor that can refresh at 180.
So you have 3 fancy monitors but they aren’t being utilized fully in terms or refresh rate but you wont get full benefit of 1440 with anything under 4080 for a fps over 120/140 that you can d at night, rain, heavy circuit, will full 1440 clarity.@@DrAlanQuan
Ah ok I think I understand where you're coming from now. I think your goal of maximising fps on these fancy high refresh rate screens is what's setting your very high expectations.
I'll happily race at 80fps, I personally don't care that it's less than half what my monitors are capable of - the extra thousands bucks or so it takes to push the extra frames - that's not good value to me since I can't perceive the difference anyway.
Ahhhh now we are synced up! Thanks brother. Excellent video btw. So you run between 80-100fps? @@DrAlanQuan
Yeah before the iRacing rain update I was able to run consistently 90fps minimum, but typically between 110-120 - so I locked the frame rate at 90
I haven't done much running in the rain or the newer circuits so not sure what the current performance is like - life's been busy! Good discussion, thanks for joining me :)
I really enjoyed this virtualization. I always wondered how my 49" view compared to triples. I was hoping the 49" you used was a 1000R curve, but it looks like you had the 1800R curved 49", which is what mine is. I am curious how much more you could see between the 49" 1800R vs 1000R. Perhaps you could include that in a later video comparing those two vs the new 57" samsung ultrawide. That would be awesome to see!
If I get the opportunity, I will produce an updated comparison - the 57" has been requested many, many times already in the comments
I've sat in front of the 57" and it's ok. There's only so much a single screen can accomplish.
I am quite confident in saying that for racing door to door, it's triples or VR at the top, and everything else doesn't even come close.
I'm also happy to be proven wrong and I'm hoping Samsung will step up and allow me to demonstrate what the 57" is capable of
I have a Samsung 49" which is great for sim racing. If you want to keep track of someone coming up on your side, I recommend using Track IR. With Track IR I can slightly move my head to the side and see the opponent while still being able to still see the track ahead.
I've not used Track IR but it gets mentioned a lot.
Without first hand experience I can't comment much on it, but it seems counter intuitive to have the screen perspective shift when your head moves - like of I move my head left 5 degrees the whole image shifts 10 degrees or something like that.
I feel like i'd get dizzy - has that been an issue for you?
@@DrAlanQuan For flight sims its decent, for sim racing its awkward at best. You have to turn your head while still keeping your eyes center....awkward.
@@advanceddarkness3exactly what I thought it would be like. Thanks!
This video needs to be updated to include the 57" ultrawide monitor.
I actually have a lead on a 57" monitor now, I'll be making some phone calls and see if I can make it happen
Enjoyed the vid, can you tell me how far your wheel is from the centre screen?
Thank you - my aim is to keep the monitor at roughly one full arm's reach from my seating position.
In a full formula position it's right behind the steering wheel, very close, since I'm deeply reclined and my shoulders moved backwards away from the wheel.
In an upright GT position it's a solid 15-20cm behind the wheel.
Any closer than that and it's uncomfortable for me to focus my eyes at such a short distance. Hope this helps!
@@DrAlanQuan That's a great help, thanks for your help👍
@@karlallen6055 my pleasure! Thanks for watching, see you in the next video
You neglected to mention the 49" super ultrawide does give nearly full view of the mirrors in the formula car which do provide a lot of information as to where the opponent car is.
Hi there thanks for commenting! I didn't mention that because that has not been my experience.
Just like in real life there is a blind spot wedge between what you can see forward in the monitor, and rearward in the side mirrors - but turning your head (or using peripheral vision) to see the side monitors will show the car
Have a look at the video again - when the car is fully alongside in the triples, it is neither in the super ultrawide nor the mirrors, at least in some circumstances.
I also never look in my side mirrors in iRacing... I guess I've had the luxury of side monitors that I never needed to resort to the in game mirrors
I don't understand why mix resolutions aren't supported by any game or graphic card drivers. Having an ultra wide plus 2 32s would be amazing, as the ultra wide would have the entire front dash on one screen.
Probably a very uncommon configuration not worthy of spending development resources on.
The developers surely have PC configuration data from all the players. I'm guessing most people use single screens
I could have missed it because i skipped around in the video but it seems you have not adjusted the FOV for each of the monitor setups. I do agree triple ultrawides do have a bit of a claustrophobic feel. I have backed off a bit from my triples and moved back to a single utrawide as I only race rally currently and I dont beed as much peripheral vision.
Good point about the single screen and rally. Once upon a time I was a big rally simracer (we're talking WRC: Rally Evolved on PS2 with my Driving Force Pro) and I can definitely see a single monitor performing adequately.
Lately though, door to door racing has been my area of interest and the peripheral vision of triples helps a lot.
As for the FOV settings, all the monitor setups were configured individually to get what I felt was the right FOV whilst sat in the F3. I didn't check again for the street stock demo. A couple of things to note - the two triple monitor stands have different side monitor angles AND different distance of centre screen to driver which explains why the longer ultrawides actually have less horizontal FOV overall. The reason for this is the 32s are my own, but the triple 35s came straight off the RaceKraft sim centre floor and were trailered into my studio fully built - we have different needs and hence built the monitors differently.
This was not meant to be a rigorously thorough and scientific comparison, rather just a real world test of the different configurations.
It was also pointed out to me that the 49" FOV is a bit tight as seen in the driver's hands - I put my hand up to that one, I made a small setup mistake. A couple of degrees here and there, doesn't really make a difference to the outcome but an oversight we can all agree.
I didn't see it covered, but IRacing has a simulated triple-render setting that works outstanding on the 49" ultrawide.
That sounds to me like it would look like you're racing through the view of a fisheye lens. I'll play with the settings next time I'm in the studio and see what happens.
It will certainly be a departure from an accurate 1:1 projection of the real world through the monitor but sounds like it could provide meaningful racing information to the driver.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
I know triple or vr is the best, but there is 3 things that stops people from doing it.
1: cost of triples and stand
2: computer power, triple needs power to perform really good. Cost again.
3: space, triple does take up a lot of room.
All very true!
A single monitor will be a very reasonable and effective choice for some people
VR is a much cheaper and much more immersive choice for this. But the biggest downside is low fov- you really have to move your head to see opponents when side by side, when on tripple you can stay focused and just use your peripherial vision. VR is better for starters because it just feels more natural when you can easily feel dimensions and distances and you can start gaining skill and understanding much faster, while on screen you will be struggling for much much longer. But for competitive consistency people switch to tripple screens over time.
VR is also "not for everyone"- meaning different people will have different vestibular... Having fans blowing air at you helps with that.
Most popular headset for simracing is hp reverb g2. pimax crystal is the best choice for money tho (higher fov, higher refresh rate and resolution). Personally i would recommend choosing helmet with 120hz refresh rate, q\am\oled displays, fov over 120 degrees.
Hi there! I'd love to play with VR but I've been out of the VR game for so long I just don't even know where to start.
But I know monitors so I create content about monitors!
When I used PSVR I 100% needed a fan blowing on me
@@DrAlanQuan many comments about vr under this video, so i decided to add my own opinion. setting up vr headset is way easier than tripple, but also depends on brands software. usually its the matter of updating software, choosing resolution and refresh rate and then launching game in vr mode, setting up graphics to always hit above 120 fps (if its 120hz headset) to have smoother experience you need to make sure fps is always above 120 with gpu headroom. then you adjust ingame sitting position to your liking and just enjoy.
iam quest2 user but i would not recommend it for competitive circuit racing. many reasons behind it. but i just occasionally drive touge, shutoko and small drift tournaments so im happy with quest2.
for circuit racing i would suggest trying pimax crystal to get the best experience for its budget. for lowest budget i would suggest pico 4 or quest 3. also i would really suggest getting halo strap for those to get the most comfort (its way better when helmet sits on top of your head/forhead)
its really worth trying, but i think that on mid-pro level of competitive simracing - tripples are just more consistent
@@sxdattxb Thank you for writing this up! The information is still quite overwhelming - when you discuss what is good for beginners vs what you use etc it appears you have an innate understanding of the different products, their features and their price points - but to me they are just names.
I have a lot to learn about VR!
I will definitely play with VR on the simrig some day. Maybe 2024 is the year for that!
Between the triple ultrawide and triple 32", I would have thought the ultrawide was a silly option as it costs you more pixels for less vertical FOV. I just thought it'd all be negatives. But something I think I can see in your comparison is that you get a better view in the center monitor. Like there is better depth perception or something. How did this feel in person? Is it just something that only comes off in the video and not in reality? Just wondering because arguably the center monitor is the most important for actually driving.
Ok there's a couple of factors to unpack regarding triple ultrawides vs. 32s
First, the ultrawides are wider - which means the bezels get pushed out sideways, and also the side monitors can reach out further towards the driver. The ultrawides can easily reach past my ears if I have the centre monitor close enough - but I don't need images behind my head. What I can then do is push the centre monitor further away from me yet still have the side monitors exactly at my ears like the 32s.
So the ultrawides are further away than the 32s, and since the bezels are further out to the side but also further away - they end up roughly in the same place from the driver's eye.
The extra distance from eye to monitor means less eye strain, but the restricted vertical FOV feels a bit claustrophobic and I MUCH prefer having the extra height that the 32s offer.
Having tried all these configurations, triple regular 16:9 monitors absolutely is the winner for me (32"s in my case, but 43"s and 50"s if the space allowed would also be great).
In practice, all three monitor setups feel 'right' when driving - the most glaring difference is that the 49" is incapable of showing cars at your side which is what I focused on in this video.
Glad you brought this up! Thank you
@@DrAlanQuan Brilliant reply, thanks! Maybe 4:3 monitors would be ideal for triples, if they were still made. If you can only get a maximum 60 degrees horizontal on each monitor, you might as well have them taller.
Wow ! Perfect timing , I've been on the hunt for a new monitor & seeing these side by side helped so much . I wonder if a 1660super will push 3 32's @120-144hrz(1080p i guess) Thx for the content .
Awesome, glad to hear it! I'm not sure about graphics cards at all. I hadn't kept up to date with GPU hardware for 10 years before I got my 3070.
Good luck!
спасибо большое за обзор, таких практически нет
Thank you very much!
Nice. I’m partial to triple 45 or 55, but 32s look great
Yep, bigger definitely brings certain advantages but the price to performance for 32s is pretty good! What do you run?
@@DrAlanQuan 27s :D. It's just an expansion off the 2 desk monitors I already had. How small these are is why I'm wary to settle for 32s. The proportion of the windshield on 27s is just way too small, still easy enough to settle into, but when shooting for real-world accuracy regarding proportions, I figured at least 45s would be the ticket
The 32s look bigger in this video than I expected, definitely a big upgrade from 27s. And price to performance is a big deal. I haven't looked into the prices of the TVs too much. They seem to be quite expensive, whereas good 32" monitors have been around for a while now and there are a lot of good deals
Even though some say my CPU and GPU would be better off sticking to 1 screen, the benefits of running triples is worth the hit. I have a Ryzen 5 3600 and a 3080 10 GB. No way I'm uninstalling 2 of my monitors and going with one 27" 16:9 1080p screen. Screw that!
Low settings and high FOV sounds just fine to me. Still, your computer sounds plenty competent - what frame rates are you getting?
@@DrAlanQuan R3E. I get about 98 in a busy race. ACC, last time I checked, I was in the 80's. I believe the CPU is the issue.
80s sounds fine to me. I limit my fps to 90 to keep my power consumption in check. Your CPU could probably keep you happy for another 5+ years, save the money!
Superb video comparison.
Could you do the same with rally ? I am guessing that 49 is better overall as you do not have competitors to worry about and the FOV should be enough with 49.
The challenge with rally is software support. As I understand it, none of the modern rally sims render triple screens as 3 separate projections, but rather one perspective stretched out which leads to distortion. So not a fair fight, but I agree. Eyes forward, no side by side racing, the 49 would be enough.
will share what we are cooking here
would love to get your feedback
I'd love to have a look! My email is in my channel information page I look forward to hearing more
Fantastic video, really informative for someone like myself looking to go triples.
Are you using VA or IPS 32" or is either suitable for sim racing. Cheers
Thanks for watching! These are VA monitors and they work completely fine. There's a bit of ghosting which is most obvious when racing at night but not game breaking at all.
I'm very happy with them
Awesome analysis. Would LOVE an update with the 57 inch Neo G9. I'm running VR primarily, but use a 57 inch Neo G9 when my face gets hot/tired from the VR headset.
I'd love to get a 57" in for testing as well. I've followed up a few leads but so far nothing. I'll continue trying to get one for filming
You should try an ultra wide offset with 1 extra monitor on the left or right.
Then try the ultra wide centered in a triple setup.
Hi Sam - that would work but the challenge comes to value.
Let's not forget super ultrawide monitors are expensive. One 49" monitor costs more than the three 32" monitors together.
Also I don't have the patience to break down the monitor stands and mess around trying to configure 3 non-alike monitors - there's other content I'd prefer to spend my time work on.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@DrAlanQuan yes I understand the cost as I have a Samsung G9. But for some who may be looking into going triples while having an ultra wide may be interesting.
@@solowundesignsbysamdavis9043 yes, reasonable upgrade path. I'm hoping my video helps people to not be surprised at the limitations of single monitors so they don't wind up in that scenario in the first place
this is very helpful thanks!
Absolutely my pleasure, thank you for leaving a comment!
The best video 👍🏼 thx Alan
That's so kind, thank you for sharing!
I think your image is stretched on the triple 35" ultrawide or the FOVs are different between your cockpits. Otherwise you would see more of the side mirrors on the center monitor, when compared to the center 32"
Hi Fleet, yes your observations are correct. A few others have pointed this out as well.
The 35s are set up to be further away from the driver, and the side angle is shallower as well.
The 35s were trailered into my studio directly from the RaceKraft sim centre, fully assembled - so it's built to sim centre spec to cater for all customers of all sizes.
My 32s are built to my personal spec which is quite a bit tighter, and this explains the inconsistency you've observed.
So not a truly 100% ruthlessly scientific comparison, but my focus on this video was to demonstrate the 49" versus triples in general. And other viewers have correctly identified that there are issues with my 49" FOV as well 😂
The next comparison I do will be perfect, surely 😂
@@DrAlanQuan Thank you, but still a very useful comparison. Looking forward to the next comparison. Cheers.
Bro you forgot the 57 ultrawide! Height of the 32s without all the clutter. And i can max out acc with no dlss and get over 100fps with my 4090. I don't need wraparound, and my fov is perfect. I don't need the extra on the sides. I can see my left side mirror and the entire windshield. Spotter clears me on the right regardless, you ain't looking over your shoulder with a Hans and helmet... on right hairpins i am looking at my right front corner, that's all i really need. I already have 2 neo g8s, i easily could've bought a third. Not worth it!!
Didn't forget it! It was still pre order only in Australia at the time of filming :)
Í have since reached out to Samsung to try to get one in the studio but haven't heard from them yet.
I don't think I want to privately fund the monitor as I suspect it won't meet my needs which are presently fulfilled with the 32" triples.
I'm super glad you're happy with your though!
@DrAlanQuan goes to show how quick the sales come tho. I only paid $1799 and the thing basically just launched!!
I wonder if the optimal setup is a super ultrawide in the center and two ultrawides on the sides; it's the best of both worlds.
I would say in general, larger screens are better but also that having 3 of the same size screen is best just because the software is designed for that.
Mismatched monitor widths just sound like a nightmare to set up and I don't plan to ever try to do that.
So triple ultrawide, triple super ultrawide, triple gigantic tv, triple 32s will all be fantastic imo
Tbh ultra wide monitors especially the 49” ones are really overrated for sim racing. You can get triples for less money and the FOV is incomparable. I think 32” is the sweet spot as long as the screens are on top of the steering shaft. If you want the screens behind the wheelbase then it’s basically the bigger the better.
My thoughts exactly 👍
Thought I'd put a video together as a visual aid since the difference is really quite staggering
@@DrAlanQuanGreat stuff Alan! Thanks for providing this service to the community!
I like the idea of this video but the fov settings don’t look correct so the comparison isn’t fair. The middle triple 32 screen has a wider fov than the middle 35 ultrawide
Hi you are correct and this has been pointed out a few times in the comments now.
I didn't control for things like monitor distance to driver and also side monitor mounting angle. If I get a chance to redo this test, I will do so with excruciating attention to detail :)
For this quick comparison I just took 3 separate rigs that were configured for different purposes, put them side by side and made the comparison. The triple 35s were straight off the RaceKraft Sim centre showroom floor, so built to accommodate easy access for people of all sizes which is why it's mounted far away and with a wide angle. The triple 32s are my own and they're set up close and tight since I can work with that.
If you take each example and plus/minus some field of view for each that will give you a reasonable idea of what each of capable of - and the wide gap in function between a single screen and a triple screen remains obvious.
@@DrAlanQuan thanks for the explaination, that makes sense
how about 49” SUW with trackIR? You’d still miss the peripheral vision but you’d be able to qiuckly glance over with small head movements
Yes I've of my friends is a big fan of this approach but I've not tried it and the idea of the world around me revolving as I move my head sounds counter intuitive to me
umm, clearly there's something wrong with the screen's position. the 35inch ultrawide is physically wider than the 32inch, but shows less horizontal viewing angle. Either the view angle setting is wrong, or the 35inch display is placed further away from driver's eyes.
Exactly right, the display is further away. The 35 setup was trailered straight from the RaceKraft showroom floor into my studio so not built to my preferred spec, hence it sits further away
Hi Doc,
Can you confirm if either or both Triple setups were FLAT or CURVED and if curved, were they 1800, 1500 or 1000?
Thanks a bunch and keep up the good work! :-)
(Greetings from Canada)
👋 hello!
All the screens are curved.
The triple 32s are 1500R
All the other screens are 1800R
Thanks for commenting and see you in the next video :D
Very very good explanation and side by side comparisons. Now I have to decide which triples or even Samsung's new 57inch or something haha😅
Decisions, decisions! Each option will have its strengths - if you get the 57 please check in and let me know how you go!
Currently I have a G9 49” and I’m adding 2 smaller monitors on the sides of it. I’m going crazy I gotta stop spending so much money. My only issue with the multi set up is the drop in FPS
Totally worth it.
I ran triples on an old, underpowered PC as a test. 25-30fps. Not ideal but better than 60fps on a single, in my opinion anyway.
Have fun!
Great video Dr, however would you like to do a 49” super with 2 27” curve and make it a triple and comparison? I have the G9 and is wondering this is possible. I use Q3 VR for most of the sim racing and that is probably the best already but I would also like my rig looks cool and thinking someone can show a setup of 49 with 2x 27 setup
Hi Optima, I don't think I have any 27" monitors available for testing - I can say that I have seen people post their setups online showing exactly what you described: 27-49-27 and it looked good to my eye - but I've never set up a triple monitor configuration myself with anything other than 3 identical monitors.
I have an idea of how I would set it up to get the bezels in the right spot but it's very resource heavy and I think I'd prefer the 3 identical monitors if that's the case.
The 49 does look cool though!
You know what beats all of these…VR 😉
Hahaha please write your favourite headset makers to send me something to review 🤪
@markpharoah1297 for 1 too 2 hours year try 6 hours of Sebring in VR I have and its not nice. VR is great for short stints terrible for long races also the FOV isn't good at all like looking spectacles. Also the graphics are no where near good enough and I have the Aero and Valve index.
Agree. Simply. Triples all the way!
It really is that simple 😉
Wonderful video to explain the difference❤❤👍👍
Thank you so much! The difference is really big, it actually surprised me when I did the simulation the first time - and then filming it for real it was even bigger 😂
The people need to know!
Thanks for the video. I would love to see a follow up with the Samsung G9 57'' to see how much it improves the fov.
Hi Nicolas I'm interested as well. It's not yet available in Australia but I'm trying to organise one. Stay tuned!
Great video. What brand/model 32's are you running?
Hi Jim, those are Gigabyte G32QC. No complaints from me. Good budget option, I'd happily buy them again if I was starting over 👍
i can see that the fov is set further back on the ultrawide which works against it. be nice to see it the same'
Yes absolutely, this has been identified by a number of other viewers already as well.
This wasn't intended to be a ruthlessly clinical and scientific comparison - it was just pulling 3 setups that happened to be running side by side, each of which was running well, and compare them.
The 34s were set up for a sim centre, far from the cockpit and wide open to accommodate many different drivers.
The 32s are my own and are close and tight, and what I would call ideal
That said I think the video is successful in demonstrating some facts - the general FOV deficit of super ultrawide vs triple monitors, and also the height advantage of 32s over the shorter ultrawide monitors.
Perhaps one day I'll get out the tape measure and protractor and do it with rigorous precision. Maybe when Samsung send me a 57" monitor to test.
Thank you for watching and commenting! If I have any blind spots, I am very appreciative to be shown them so please keep the comments coming!
@DrAlanQuan my friend I do agree that you demonstrated your point successfully. And I don't think you did anything wrong with any intent. It's more a case of, the 49 fov took a sound defeat. But if there is any room for argument, you left the door open by not been precise enough. It's probably because I use a laser measuring tool for distance and level so I've become too picky
@@johndog2010I remember thinking about doing it to the level of precision you talk about, but the moment I realised it wasn't just a software adjustment - I'd need to adjust the angle of the side monitors as well - I decided to just do it as is
Certainly though, the next video will be ruthlessly precise. Just need Samsung to get on board!
@@DrAlanQuan personally I don't see why Samsung don't stick up for themselves and send a team of thier technicians with a range of their latest products to you. I'm thinking that maybe they just aren't serious 😅