Jump to content
PossumHueCity1968

Need Advice On Purchasing A Suitable Monitor For IL-2

Recommended Posts

Greetings.  I am building a modest gaming rig for the purpose of flying Cliffs of Dover and the Battle of Stalingrad.

 

My CPU is an I7 3770.  I have maxed out the RAM (DDR3), and sprung for an NVIDIA RTX 2060 graphics card.

 

I don't have any experience with gaming, and have no idea what frame rates I can reasonably expect from this CPU/GPU--so I'm a bit lost in trying to choose a monitor.

 

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how much playable resolution I can hope to see with a 3770?

 

When choosing a monitor, would I be wasting money on a 1440 144hz lcd monitor, given the limitations of my CPU?

 

Should I stick with 1080p and 60 hz until I  can save up for a better board/CPU?

 

NVIDIA is now supporting Freesync, so I am inclined toward choosing a monitor with that feature, and I'm also leaning toward an IPS panel for the color rendering.

 

Is there an optimal size?  27" seems to be pretty common, but I'd perhaps go bigger if I wasn't wasting my money.

 

Thanks for any advice

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PossumHueCity1968 said:

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how much playable resolution I can hope to see with a 3770?

 

In most games, resolution has very small effects on CPU load. CPU instructions don't change much with resolution because the CPU doesn't operate on the level of individual pixels (that's up to the GPU). Therefore, an adequate CPU will be remain adequate at any resolution. Fortunately, the 3770 is reasonably good, though far from the fastest.

 

It's the GPU that really matters for resolution. With an RTX 2060, 1440p is probably the sweet spot, as you can comfortably run ultra settings above 60 frames per second.

 

4 hours ago, PossumHueCity1968 said:

When choosing a monitor, would I be wasting money on a 1440 144hz lcd monitor, given the limitations of my CPU?

 

Monitors with high refresh rates and adaptive sync are always an improvement over standard 60 Hz monitors. You'll get decreased latency and shorter intervals between frames. However, you shouldn't expect to actually render 144 frames per second. Your CPU and GPU are insufficient for that.

 

5 hours ago, PossumHueCity1968 said:

Should I stick with 1080p and 60 hz until I  can save up for a better board/CPU?

 

I'd just get a nice monitor now. You can always upgrade the motherboard and CPU at a later date.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a Sceptre 50" TV/monitor from Walmart.com.  It's 1920x1080 and has a motion control mode which 'fakes' in more frame refresh than 60hz somehow.  There's HDMI, USB and other cable inputs.   The color is a bit weak (I can't see the color difference between Axis/Allies tracers), but otherwise, I can spot most aircraft in the sky and over ground quicker than most of my squad mates.  It's not perfect by any means, but for less than $250 - shipped to my door - I'm very happy with my purchase. 

 

It might be a stop-gap solution until you can research what you really want.  Also it can double as a basement lounge or kid's TV after it's done being a monitor because of the super cheap price.  Hope this helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input--I will definitely consider that. I saw a thread here where a lot of guys are advocating for using big HDTV's, and they're real happy with them.

 

You haven't found "lag"to be a problem with this particular (aviation sim) gaming application?

 

I actually have access to a 40" Sony with HDMI inputs, maybe I should take it for a spin before committing to a high-end gaming monitor.

 

Better this way, trying the lower rez first, because I get the sense that once you experience a super responsive high-end gaming monitor life never quite looks as good without it (lol).

 

Thanks for the food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem to me that there's lag.  It's hard to tell because of multiplayer being a millisecond or two off-sync.  I can make shots in single player that look exactly like the youtube 'aces', but making the same shots in multi always seem to miss.  That's not the TV's issue though.   There's also a multi-pin PC graphics card connector port on the TV which may actually be faster than HDMI - but I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

144hz monitor would be ok. Your PC would run it no probs. This game doesnt care if its i7 or i5. It counts the pure single core performance, so the more the Ghz your CPU has, the better it will be. But 4GHZ on a modern i5 and i7 is already more than enough and 2060 is a new 1070 so it should run this game at 144 fps. There are also freesync and gsync monitors so you dont care about Vsync then.

Edited by blackram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get the monitor, you might want to consider overclocking your CPU (if possible, I see it's a non-K processor). I believe you can do this by increasing the BCLK. You might also be able to enable "all core boost" optimization in your BIOS, so the CPU boosts to its maximum even when more than one core is loaded.

 

Despite the fact that most of the work is GPU, you still need some CPU grunt to run IL2. Lots of people on the VR subforum have shown this to be true. If you are getting less than 60 FPS it may be that you need to reduce the CPU load and increase the GPU load of the game. You can do this, for example, by reducing from Ultra to High settings so less geometry is being processed, but then increasing AA and super-sampling and enabling SSAO so the GPU does extra work to make the game look pretty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're interested in a great monitor,  I have a brand new one with all packaging and cables etc. just missing the original box because the box was damaged. I don't have any use for it as I bought it for my son but he's not into pc games.(he likes consoles PS4)https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0JC-0019-02374&nm_mc=KNC-MSNSearch-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-MSNSearch-PC-_-pla-_-Monitors+-+LCD+Flat+Panel-_-HP-_-0JC001902374&msclkid=4c75af17dfd618f0e53cf378adc3fe9e&gclid=CLDJ07S4zuACFRPFswodFuYAyA&gclsrc=ds#

I don't want top dollar for it either since its kind of just in the way right now. if anyone else is interested let me know.  otherwise I will put it on eBay this weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend at least a 27" at this point, they aren't really all that expensive anymore. The issue is that at that size, if it is 1080p you can start seeing the pixels more easily because the dot pitch isn't that high. It's still fine at that size but I probably wouldn't go any larger without having a higher resoultion.

 

I have a 38" Ultrawide that is 3840x1600 res. Something like that will probably break your bank, but some of the lower res, slightly smaller ultrawides are more affordable.. say a 34" that has a 1400p vertical resolution or even a 1080p res.. The dot pitch is probably similar to a 27" 16:9 on a 34" or 36" 21:9. I like the ultrawides because you get more horizontal field of view which is great for simulation games and immersion, you can see outside and scan the horizon more without having to turn your virtual or real head as much.

 

While I think 120hz and up is great for twitch shooter games and the like, it is probably more of a waste on a WWII flight sim.. Most of the time you are scanning the skies and the ground is passing by you very slowly when at high altitude, typically an enemy aircraft in a dogfight is not moving so rapidly as to where the extra smoothness of the higher frame rate will be that large of an impact. High refresh rate is a nice feature to have but I don't think it is necessary for every game title, especially if on a budget.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott_Steiner said:

While I think 120hz and up is great for twitch shooter games and the like, it is probably more of a waste on a WWII flight sim.. Most of the time you are scanning the skies and the ground is passing by you very slowly when at high altitude, typically an enemy aircraft in a dogfight is not moving so rapidly as to where the extra smoothness of the higher frame rate will be that large of an impact. High refresh rate is a nice feature to have but I don't think it is necessary for every game title, especially if on a budget.

Yes, it's not that important for effective reactions in these types of games, but high-end gaming monitors can still be nice for visual quality.

 

Typical 60 Hz monitors work well if you can peg the frame rate at 60, but that's not always easy if you're using high resolutions or weaker CPUs. Whenever the frame rate drops below 60, you have to deal with bad stuttering or tearing depending on your Vsync choice. 

 

With high-end monitors that have adaptive sync, you can largely forget about those problems.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Yes, it's not that important for effective reactions in these types of games, but high-end gaming monitors can still be nice for visual quality.

 

Typical 60 Hz monitors work well if you can peg the frame rate at 60, but that's not always easy if you're using high resolutions or weaker CPUs. Whenever the frame rate drops below 60, you have to deal with bad stuttering or tearing depending on your Vsync choice. 

 

With high-end monitors that have adaptive sync, you can largely forget about those problems.

Yes, I agree that adaptive sync is a must have. I will never buy a monitor that doesn't have this feature this day in age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of just one monitor, why not consider three?

 

My center is 27" 2550 IPS panel and the two outer one are 24" third hand cheap ones. 

 

The middle one was quite pricey when I bought it new 8 years ago for photography and the others were about $125 each. The middle one is what gets my attention most and needs to be the best, the outer ones are still good but not as clear not had the same contrast ratio which is really only noticeable at night flights.

 

The three monitors give me about 165cm of viewing space left to right which is about 5600 pixels.

 

Add in head tracking and it's a great cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Poppa said:

Instead of just one monitor, why not consider three?

 

That has many disadvantages

  • Three monitors will be very expensive, especially if they have the desired quality
  • There will be discontinuities in the image between monitors
  • Il-2 does not provide options to customize the interface for multiple monitors
  • Performance will be poor with that many pixels

I wouldn't recommend it unless you already happen to have a few similar monitors.

A single curved ultrawide monitor is an alternative that eliminates most of these problems.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

That has many disadvantages

  • Three monitors will be very expensive, especially if they have the desired quality
  • There will be discontinuities in the image between monitors
  • Il-2 does not provide options to customize the interface for multiple monitors
  • Performance will be poor with that many pixels

I wouldn't recommend it unless you already happen to have a few similar monitors.

A single curved ultrawide monitor is an alternative that eliminates most of these problems.

 

You don't have, nor have tried the triple head experience have you?

 

FPS performance for me seems to drop only 20fps on some games with a triple head set up. Depending on the initial FPS that could be undesirable but I don't anticipate that to the an issue with the OP set up

 

Once you do, you won't go back to one.

 

The bezel width might be considered a problem for some on initial usage, but I can tell you that your brain quickly adapts and does not notice the bezel. There is no missing content between the bezels, it's just a tad further to the next pixel.

 

Performance will unlikely be "poor", particularly with a decent graphics card like a 1070 or the ops 2060.

 

If anyone can loan a couple of lower end monitors to trial a triple head set up they should give it a go. I and many other users can highly recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that triple monitor setups are bad - in fact they're one of the better experiences. However, they may be a recipe for frustration if someone values smoothness but doesn't want to spend a huge amount, as is the case here.

 

Nothing wrong with trying it on some spare monitors, but buying three would quickly get expensive if choosing adaptive sync, IPS, 27", etc.

 

With nearly 8 million pixels (about the same as a 4K monitor), you'd need to make some sacrifices to achieve the crucial 60 fps in most games (although admittedly that data is not applicable to Il-2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for their input on monitor preferences--I appreciate it.

 

I have some time yet to make my decision because scenery and spotting enemy fighters hasn't been much of an issue for me yet, as I keep thrashing sod and burning on takeoff (lol)--and my current monitor renders that beautifully.

 

This is going to be so much fun fun when I'm successfully aloft at last, and finally get to be a helpless skeet pigeon for the experienced enemy pilots.

 

All the best.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Poppa said:

 

You don't have, nor have tried the triple head experience have you?

 

FPS performance for me seems to drop only 20fps on some games with a triple head set up. Depending on the initial FPS that could be undesirable but I don't anticipate that to the an issue with the OP set up

 

Once you do, you won't go back to one.

 

The bezel width might be considered a problem for some on initial usage, but I can tell you that your brain quickly adapts and does not notice the bezel. There is no missing content between the bezels, it's just a tad further to the next pixel.

 

Performance will unlikely be "poor", particularly with a decent graphics card like a 1070 or the ops 2060.

 

If anyone can loan a couple of lower end monitors to trial a triple head set up they should give it a go. I and many other users can highly recommend it.

I used to run 3 27" monitors for mostly sim racing.. The thing is, if the game you are playing doesn't have an option to split the viewpoint out into 3 separate cameras (one for each monitor) you get a massive fish-eye effect on each of the side monitors, making your purchase of 2 additional high quality monitors.. a complete waste.

 

I know that the original IL-2 Sturmovik supported 3 screens but only if they were 4:3 format, the splitting out the 3 seperate viewports does not work on 16:9 monitors. Rise of Flight did not support any of this but in addition, running that wide of a screen res forced the game into some low res mode on AMD Radeon cards.. Why do I bring this up? Because this feature has never been properly supported in the Digital Nature engine and I am sure it is not supported now.

 

I think Flight Simulator X has some multi-monitor support where it can properly split out 3 or more different viewports for each screen and DCS does too (although I think DCS is very taxing).. But really, there aren't a lot of titles that support triple screens the correct way and unless you play a lot of specific title that has the proper feature, it is not worth it IMO.

 

With the advent of 32:9 monitors, that seems like about the max screen width you can get without too much of stretching or warping the view,  so I would consider that aspect ratio a good buy for immersion but not anything wider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

Hope its ok to butt In here.  In regard to monitors I am also looking to purchase a new 34" GSync monitor and have narrowed it down to 2 possibles.

Acer Predator Z35P or Asus Rog Strix PG348Q.

My PC specs are Skt 1151 CPU i7 9700k 3.6G with 32Gb ram.  GPU RTX2070 8Gb and a PSU 1000W

Does any pilot here use one and can you confirm if there are any problems.

Are there any other alternatives I may have missed or any upcoming units to be released soon.

 

BJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...