D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Which FOV calculator do you use? I was trying reddit spreadsheet but the proportions of cars and track were off comparing to triple screen rendering.
Just use numbers from this one.
Just use numbers from this one.
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Static or moving images? ACC is using TAA which highly depends on your FPS as it weighs in consecutive frames to calculate anti aliased outcome. But low fps usually result in ghosting, not shimmering. Also some artifacts can be the result of too aggressive sharpening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good for you, sounds very nice! 
My "body" has quite some issues with moving objects in close focus, getting dizzy v quickly etc.
I tried to use "real" FOV with 50-60cm eye-monitor distance and yeah, it looks nice but it's also hurting a lot
In theory the movement is scaled correctly.
In example if in reality a car 10m away from you moves 1m to the left, that's an angular change of 5.7° for the eye.
projected with "correct" fov, it will also move 5.7° on the monitor but my eyes just can't follow this.
So I'm simply using the FOV that feels best without making me motion sick from the distortion at too high FOVs and without hurting my eyes from too low FOVs.
85cm eye to monitor, 34" 21:9 (27" 16:9 height) and 49°.
Andrew's FOV calculator suggests 22.4° FOV
My "body" has quite some issues with moving objects in close focus, getting dizzy v quickly etc.
I tried to use "real" FOV with 50-60cm eye-monitor distance and yeah, it looks nice but it's also hurting a lot
In theory the movement is scaled correctly.
In example if in reality a car 10m away from you moves 1m to the left, that's an angular change of 5.7° for the eye.
projected with "correct" fov, it will also move 5.7° on the monitor but my eyes just can't follow this.
So I'm simply using the FOV that feels best without making me motion sick from the distortion at too high FOVs and without hurting my eyes from too low FOVs.
85cm eye to monitor, 34" 21:9 (27" 16:9 height) and 49°.
Andrew's FOV calculator suggests 22.4° FOV
Hi mate I used this one
Yeah that spreadsheet from Reddit didn’t satisfy me tho he put some real work into it and was grateful he shared it. I originally set rf2 as triples but on the new pc I havnt and I haven’t noticed a difference. For acc I can never find an fov or visual setting (fish eye or projection correction etc) that satisfied me and rather than create a sequel to the experience I had trying to getting vr to work iv just decided to boycott all kunos games from now on except ac (lol) for drifting although I may move to live for speed. No hard feelings about those 2 years I spent trying to get acc to work and then plankidick basically admitted they didn’t even give a F about vr users and prob never would.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Oh boy, hearing this really hurts, you are missing the pinnacle of the modern sim racing.
In all seriousness, combination of modern graphics, sensible FFB and excellent telemetry driving tactile makes the best close to real life experience I've had. But to each his own.
Last edited by a moderator:
You posted at the same time I did, lol.
Always talking about MOVING images. I don't care about static at all.
I'm limiting to 85 fps, which is basically the 1% low value when I unrestrict the fps.
To test the effect of 200% resolution scale, I lowered the resolution to 1920x1080 and disabled any scaling (so black bars all around but 1:1 pixels).
I like some very mild sharpening, but I mostly only sharpen to the point that my eyes don't feel like looking at something blurry.
Right now I'm using DLSS with 5% dlss-sharpness and overall game sharpness at 80%.
No advanced sharpening and and no nvidia control panel sharpening.
Silverstone is one of the worst tracks. Lots of the bright armco parts shimmer/flicker and the crossing white lines (starting grid etc) do too.
The "black lines" on the armco and the white lines aren't really there at a certain distance and have "gaps" in them.
It's the distance where the LOD is too detailed and the pixel jumps between "there and not there".
I recorded some videos with my phone to show this, but I just installed a fresh OS and don't have my video software configured yet...
49, written in fat in my post above
85cm distance, 34" 21:9, 49° vertical (in all games)
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Sounds bad, wondering why I can't see anything that severe, perhaps due to no DLSS in use.
My fault, I did look twice and still missed it.49, written in fat in my post above
85cm distance, 34" 21:9, 49° vertical (in all games)
It's worse without DLSS
But I'm really sensitive for this stuff, so I'm definitely not the average user.
My Videos are with native res + dlss quality ; native res + taa ; native res + 200% + taa ; DLDSR + dlss/taa.
Dldsr + dlss is the smoothest but has some glitches sometimes.
I'll try to edit the videos over the weekend!
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
@RasmusP, I am always looking for a way to bump IQ in ACC, well just as well as in any other title. Wondering if we should move this conversation to ACC subforum where we can share our settings as subject deviated "a bit" from LG monitor announcement.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm so disappointed in the low resolution. 3440 x 1440 is what most 34" ultrawides use. Now they're blowing up that size by 11" while still keeping the exact same resolution. They could have at least gone with 3840 x 1600 like the 38" ultrawides. If you look on the positives, the low resolution (for it's size) will at least keep the costs down and make games more easy to run.
Pixels per inch:
24" 1920x1080 (16:9) = 92
27" 1920x1080 (16:9) = 82
27" 2560x1440 (16:9) = 109
31.5" 2560x1440 (16:9) = 93
34" 3440x1440 (21:9) = 110
45" 3440x1440 (21:9) = 83
37.5" 3840x1600 (24:10) = 111
45" 3840x1600 (24:10) = 92
49" 5120x1440 (32:9) = 109
28" 3840x2160 (16:9) = 157
31.5" 3840x2160 (16:9) = 140
83 PPI is about the same as a 1080p 27" screen (82 PPI). It's pretty bad. I had triple 1080p 27" screens at one time and the image quality loss due to the lower PPI compared to my previous 24" 1080p setup was quite noticeable. I recently went to 31.5" 1440p from 27" 1440p and the image quality loss is also noticeable but 31.5" 1440p @ 93 PPI which is not too bad but 27" 1080p @ 82 PPI is pretty noticeable especially when you sit close to your monitor.
LG are probably saving the 4k or 5k versions until later but they should have made this 3840x1600 like their 38" ultrawides. That would have brought the PPI up to 92 which is about the same as a 24" 1080p monitor and a 32" 1440p monitor which is decent.
Having said all that, for how gorgeous the monitor will look in every other way (colours, contrast, black levels, HDR, pixel response times, etc.), I'm sure most people won't care much about the low PPI when playing games. Sure, you won't get that super clean, sharp image like you get with a 27" 1440p monitor or especially a 28" - 32" 4K monitor but it will look so damn good in every other way. Plus there's always upscaling tricks, anti-aliasing, DSR, etc. to help boost the image quality.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, going from 109 PPI (1440p 27") to 93 PPI (1440p, 31.5") doesn't bother me at all. After 3 or 4 days, I got used to it and I forgot how much better 109 PPI looked. I never even think about it or notice when it when playing / racing. But when I went to 82 PPI (1080p 27") from 92 PPI (1080p 24"), I still noticed the image quality loss even months later. The pixels were just too big at that PPI. It would always stand out to me.
Pixels per inch:
24" 1920x1080 (16:9) = 92
27" 1920x1080 (16:9) = 82
27" 2560x1440 (16:9) = 109
31.5" 2560x1440 (16:9) = 93
34" 3440x1440 (21:9) = 110
45" 3440x1440 (21:9) = 83
37.5" 3840x1600 (24:10) = 111
45" 3840x1600 (24:10) = 92
49" 5120x1440 (32:9) = 109
28" 3840x2160 (16:9) = 157
31.5" 3840x2160 (16:9) = 140
83 PPI is about the same as a 1080p 27" screen (82 PPI). It's pretty bad. I had triple 1080p 27" screens at one time and the image quality loss due to the lower PPI compared to my previous 24" 1080p setup was quite noticeable. I recently went to 31.5" 1440p from 27" 1440p and the image quality loss is also noticeable but 31.5" 1440p @ 93 PPI which is not too bad but 27" 1080p @ 82 PPI is pretty noticeable especially when you sit close to your monitor.
LG are probably saving the 4k or 5k versions until later but they should have made this 3840x1600 like their 38" ultrawides. That would have brought the PPI up to 92 which is about the same as a 24" 1080p monitor and a 32" 1440p monitor which is decent.
Having said all that, for how gorgeous the monitor will look in every other way (colours, contrast, black levels, HDR, pixel response times, etc.), I'm sure most people won't care much about the low PPI when playing games. Sure, you won't get that super clean, sharp image like you get with a 27" 1440p monitor or especially a 28" - 32" 4K monitor but it will look so damn good in every other way. Plus there's always upscaling tricks, anti-aliasing, DSR, etc. to help boost the image quality.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, going from 109 PPI (1440p 27") to 93 PPI (1440p, 31.5") doesn't bother me at all. After 3 or 4 days, I got used to it and I forgot how much better 109 PPI looked. I never even think about it or notice when it when playing / racing. But when I went to 82 PPI (1080p 27") from 92 PPI (1080p 24"), I still noticed the image quality loss even months later. The pixels were just too big at that PPI. It would always stand out to me.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Finally was able to make DLDSR work on G9 with ACC.It's worse without DLSS
But I'm really sensitive for this stuff, so I'm definitely not the average user.
My Videos are with native res + dlss quality ; native res + taa ; native res + 200% + taa ; DLDSR + dlss/taa.
Dldsr + dlss is the smoothest but has some glitches sometimes.
I'll try to edit the videos over the weekend!
Combined with in game Quality DLSS, the cleanest image I've seen to day. Also updated to the latest dlss dll.
Goodbye TAA.
What is DLDSR? I've heard of DSR and DLSS but never DLDSR. Also, if you want the cleanest image without upscaling to an even higher resolution than your monitor (too much of a performance hit), run at native resolution. DLSS, even at quality, is still rendering at a lower resolution and then upscaling it to your resolution. Having said that, most people don't notice a difference between native and DLSS @ quality. Even in screenshots you sometimes can barely tell the difference. But, ya, if you technically want the "cleanest", you wouldn't want to run DLSS.
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Only applies to RTX Nvidia
How to Use Nvidia's DLDSR to Improve Image Quality on Older Games
Not to be confused with DLSS, Nvidia's DLDSR (Deep Learning Dynamic Super Resolution) is a method of supersampling that renders games at a higher resolution than your...
www.techspot.com
Increase output resolution which becomes base for DLSS which after applying reduction ends up at or near native, so they sort of cancel each other, but what you get in return is clean as a whistle AA, no ghosting, artifacts. Really must see to believe.
EDIT: You can also try FSR instead of DLSS, especially Ultra Quality mode as it has 77% reduction comparing to 66% of DLSS Quality, so base resolution will be higher and you can still use TAA with it, with DLSS it's disabled. It's very slightly more expensive but might look a pinch better, I am still contemplating between the two.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow I didn't calculate it, my posts were based on my gut feelings when I saw those numbers. This is even much lower than I expected. It will indeed be very noticeable. For me: close as possible to zero shimmering is one of the most important things to look for when looking at a screen/vr hmd for sim racing.. going back to 1080P times is really going back into time instead of moving forward. Yes the rest(except the "overcurved part") looks great but if the resolution is that low then this isn't a 2023 product imo.
D
Deleted member 197115
-
Deleted member 197115
Handy PPD Calculator, it also accepts distance to screen, with bigger monitor you will be farther back so effective PPD will change based on that.
BTW 3440x1440 is standard UW-QHD resolution. Not defending LG choice, I'd love higher res myself, but it might not be as bad as you'd think.
BTW 3440x1440 is standard UW-QHD resolution. Not defending LG choice, I'd love higher res myself, but it might not be as bad as you'd think.
Personally, I don't sit further back with a bigger monitor for my simracing setup. I think that defeats the point of getting a bigger monitor. For me, the bigger monitor is to provide more FOV for the same image size perception as the previous monitor. If you sit further away with a bigger monitor then you may end up back at the same or similar peripheral vision as with your previous smaller but closer monitor.
When I upgraded my setup from a single monitor to triples, I didn't move the monitors further back from me. If the distance to my single screen was comfortable for my eyes then the monitor shall remain that distance regardless if it's 1 monitor or 3, 24" or 32" or 40".
Having said that, being that close with a big, wide monitor will definitely not make it easy for other tasks like working in other Windows programs and general PC use, lol. That'll be hard on the neck, lol, so I can see why a 45" 21:9 may need to be moved back compared to other sizes.
Last edited:
