Basically true, but it really comes down to viewing distance. You can place 32" triples a little farther away than 27" and get basically the same experience.
The main reason to pay for larger monitors is to increase the fov, particularly when you're aiming for a realistic fov. When you place larger monitors farther away, you're reducing the fov, so be careful how much further away you put them. My target vertical fov(*) is 39-40 deg, which is where you can see high-mounted cockpit rearview mirrors like in NASCAR and low mounted gauges, like the speedometer in a Cobra.
For instance, if your 27" monitors are 55 cm away (22") and you put 32" monitors at 65 cm (25.6"), then there's no reason to get 32" monitors as the fov would be the same. If the fov is the same with a 32" monitor, then 1080p will look the same as 1080p on a 27" monitor at the closer location. Unfortunately, as you increase the monitor size, it has to fit behind the steering housing rather than floating above it, which means you must move the monitor further away.
The moral is to measure carefully before purchase!
I'm getting 97fps in AC benchmark at 5760x1080/144Hz refresh with a 1070ti and a combination of high and ultra settings, and I think that's about all my old CPU (FX8350) is capable of.
AC is very enjoyable at this rate (things fly by fast enough for my old eyes lol) but my son says the card will do better with a faster cpu. I'll find out soon, I'm upgrading to a 7-2700X and an X570 motherboard tomorrow!
Very good compromise! Where people will become dissatisfied with it is if they want to run night/rain with that combination in ACC or rF2 or PC2.
(*) I calculate vertical fov for a single screen even with triples because that's what matters even if the game uses horizontal fov or the weird fractions like Raceroom. Edit: by the way, the fov calculator at
https://dinex86.github.io/FOV-Calculator/ is wrong... it says vFOV changes when you change the aspect ratio, like going from 16:9 to a wide screen 21:9 and that simply isn't true.
