1. Do you need support for Assetto Corsa Competizione? Please use the proper forum below and ALWAYS zip and attach the WHOLE "Logs" folder in your c:\users\*youruser*\AppData\Local\AC2\Saved. The "AppData" folder is hidden by default, check "Hidden items" in your Windows view properties. If you report a crash, ALWAYS zip and attach the WHOLE "Crashes" folder in the same directory.
  2. FOR ASSETTO CORSA COMPETIZIONE: If you report issues with saved games, please always zip and attach your entire User/Documents/Assetto Corsa Competizione/Savegame folder!
  3. If your game executable is missing, please add your entire Steam directory to the exceptions in your antivirus software, then run a Steam integrity check or reinstall the game altogether.

Super Ultrawide versus Triples versus VR

Discussion in 'ACC Hardware Discussions' started by FriendOfJah, May 9, 2020.

  1. FriendOfJah

    FriendOfJah Racer

    Hi Folks,

    I just watched Dave Cam's YouTube video review of his new Samsung C49RG90 49-inch Super Ultrawide Curved Gaming Dual WQHD 1440p Monitor (I know, he’s using iRacing and not ACC) Here's the link to the video:

    I've been debating about going to a VR setup (of course now everyone is sold out of them), but then I saw this video and thought maybe an 49 inch Super Ultrwide curved monitor would be the way to go. Then I've seen other videos touting the benefits of triple monitors. I have a new high end gaming PC with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 Super card, so I should have more than enough computing power for any option.

    I would be very interested in what those here prefer and why. What advantages and disadvantages does each option present? I will say that with my current desk setup, going with triples would be quite difficult as where the other 2 options are doable.

    Thanks in advance for everyone's input. It's greatly appreciated.

    Roger
     
    Pernando Alomso likes this.

  2. Similar Threads
    Forum Title Date
    ACC PS4 - XB1 General Discussions how to create superpole event on private server? Nov 13, 2020
    ACC Hardware Discussions How to run Assetto Corsa Competizione in VR at 60fps on an OLD PC - i7 3770, GTX 1650 Super, WMR Nov 9, 2020
    ACC PS4 - XB1 General Discussions Superpole & Track Limits Oct 23, 2020
    Chit Chat Room 2013 Super GT500 by Chivas Oct 19, 2020
    ACC Online Leagues / Championships room ESR & RWB Present Super Saturday GT Series 19/9/2020 Aug 31, 2020
    ACC Online Leagues / Championships room OTCR Porsche SuperCup Aug 2, 2020
    ACC Online Leagues / Championships room [CFS] Ginetta GT4 SuperCup [Brands Hatch GP] Aug 1, 2020
    Console Lounge Weekly Hotlap Challenge 188 - A Sideways Superfast and a Spin in South Africa Jul 18, 2020
    ACC PS4 - XB1 General Discussions Honestly...it's SUPER also on Consolle! Jul 14, 2020
    ACC Gameplay Superpole in this game doesn't work at all Jul 3, 2020
    ACC Virtual Reality Any Help appreciated Reverb 2070 super May 14, 2020
    ACC Troubleshooting GTX 1660 Super not being fully used May 9, 2020
    ACC Virtual Reality VR Upgrade GTX 1080 to RTX 2080 Super Apr 13, 2020
    ACC Hardware Discussions VR Upgrade GTX 1080 to RTX 2080 Super Apr 13, 2020
    ACC Online Leagues / Championships room RLM 12H of Suzuka - Super Pole 11th April - Main Event 18th April Apr 11, 2020

  3. Atak_Kat

    Atak_Kat Simracer

    I have tried triples at a racing centre with really good hardware and setup. Very good, but I ruled it out mainly for:
    - lots of space needed, and can be a bit finicky to setup judging from various comments around on forums.
    - Might change my mind in the future, but certainly don't see any need for it at the moment.

    I recently got an HP Reverb and I'd say in general I'm just disappointed. I keep it for now, thinking that somehow things will get better with the software, but I get really frustrated with all the messing around with settings etc, and the result is just really far from what I'd like. It definitely is a unique experience, and I do believe my lap times are better in VR. But I cannot get past the quality and mostly the shimmering and aliasing which I cannot get past. It annoys me all the little tricks/things you need to do along the way. I have not tried it with iRacing yet, so that will be the next test someday.

    I got the CRG9 last summer, and I have zero regrets. The nice thing, is it just works and with minimal hassle. The FOV is obviously not as fantastic as triples, but it's still damn good. What bridges this gap (vs. triples) for me is Track IR. Adding Track IR, with just a bit of movement, makes everything really work well. You don't need a lot of movement when you look left/right. In reality, the CRG9 is so wide that you pretty much need to turn your head (and eyes) anyway to see the sides... so combined with the Track IR and just a bit of Track-IR movement when you turn your head, it really works well in my opinion. Added benefit, you can tilt up/down slightly just to get the full view of your instruments as well. The trick I find is not to over-do the settings in Track IR....

    Everything runs 1440p, high frame rates, beautiful image (HDR as well every now and then....), large FOV, track ir takes care of what's missing vs. triples. Still requires lots of horsepower to crank up the settings, but not as much as triples. Track IR is ZERO impact on frame rates or anything as far as I can tell....

    No complaints. I will keep the VR for a while (simply because I stumbled on it at a really nice price), possibly interesting for other games or hoping that there are improvements in the software. But I honestly don't see what all the craze is about (I do think I'm missing something in the settings somewhere, but I'm tired of messing around in all the details and .ini files and everything......)
     
    Tim Larsen and f.e.negroni like this.
  4. torsteinvh

    torsteinvh Rookie

    A bit off topic maybe, but would you mind sharing your Track IR settings?
    I have a CRG9 as well, but never managed to find Track IR settings that I was satisfied with...
     
  5. Atak_Kat

    Atak_Kat Simracer

    Sure. Try this for a 32:9 like the CRG9 (for narrower monitors, it likely won't be good because there likely won't be enough movement to see the sides when you turn)

    (note, I use the Pro version, with the leds on my headphones. Also, my monitor is about 50cm from my eyes... where your monitor sits obviously impacts how much you turn your head to see the sides.... so you might need to experiment)

    - set the global Speed setting to about 0.4 (more on this later). It's important to pick a Speed setting first. And then the Smooth setting to about 20 to start.
    - set all the axis curves to be dead-flat. Around 2.0 in the graphs. It should just show a flat green line at the 2.0 level on the axis. I just have all the green dots spaced out evenly across the graph.
    - I have TrueView turned on, but not exactly sure what it does.
    - I have all the action HotKeys disabled. Some of them conflict with F-keys in sims and you can end up triggering TrackIR things when you don't realize it.
    - I save the profile and set it to exclusive. I use exactly the same profile for every game (only using it for simracing titles, but other games might need different settings)

    Toggle the different Views (top, left, right, etc, etc) and what should result is that the movement of your simulated head will be extremely close to the orange wire frame around it. The orange frame is the view that will result in game. When they are in sync for all movements, that's what you're looking for.
    In my case, the combination of Speed 0.4, and all the axis at 2.0 seems to give the closest match to real movement. Start there.

    Once you have that baseline, then you can test things out in game.

    Then:
    - you might not like all the axis on. I like them all on because the tracking is very good, even for movement closer/further from the screen. But some people may prefer just to have the left/right and have the other axis static. Personal choice there.
    - the global Speed setting seems to be just a sort of multiplier of everything else. So, once you have the baseline, if you want slightly more movement, just turn up the Speed by another 0.1. Or, in opposite, if it feels like too much movement, just adjust the Speed down by 0.1. Example, I find that some cars I need just a bit more view out the right side window.... so I just adjust Speed up by 0.1 (so it becomes 0.5), and it's good. But the more you adjust this from the baseline set, the less natural the movement becomes.
    - It's important to set that global Speed first, before setting your axis curves. If you set the Speed too high to start, you need to set the curves really low and it's frustrating in the software (I found). If you set the Speed too low to start, then setting the curves is easier, but then later on you limit the practical adjust-ability afterwards.
    - Smoothing, you need to find what you're comfortable with. Lower values might make things a bit jittery. Too high and things will seem too unnatural and even with a bit of delay. Start at 20 and adjust from there.
    - After a while, I found that I wanted just a bit more Pitch movement. So in the end, I have my Pitch Curve set at 2.7 flat (other curves are 2.0). This just makes the tilting up/down of my head a bit more sensitive when I want to get a better view of the gauges. Also can be handy if the car you are driving has a mirror a bit high and you need just a bit more movement to see it when you tilt your head up.

    Try it out and let me know what you think.
     
    torsteinvh likes this.
  6. torsteinvh

    torsteinvh Rookie

    Thanks a lot for the settings, and for explaining why you chose the values you did. Really appreciate it :)

    I tried them out, and found them very nice and immersive, without being to exaggerated. I’m going to run them for a while, and then maybe tweak them a little. I have the same montior as you, but sit maybe 5-10 cm further away.
     
    Atak_Kat likes this.
  7. mikocchio

    mikocchio Gamer

    I would describe my experience with the Oculus Rift CV1 as "entertaining" and "immersive". The act of turning your head towards the apex is really satisfying. On the other side, driving in ACC requires a lot of practice and VR is exhausting ( for me, but your mileage my vary). Another problem is the low definition of the vanishing point, that makes looking for cars or features of the track an exercise in guessing. The big disadvantage of ultrawide is of course its small dimensions: on straight and slight bends its ok and high DPI makes everithing clearer, but in hairpins and overtaking it's like wearing blinkers. In the end, I found that triples are the solution with more pros and maybe only one cons: PC performance. Triple screen can hit hardly your GPU. I mean you'll need an RTX 2070 or RX 5700XT for good framerate at 1080p high quality.
    Have fun.
     
    Atak_Kat likes this.
  8. Try iracing it runs very smoothly, a huge step up from Acc, I tried triples and presently own a 21-9 monitor but VR (Index)is just more immersive :)
     
    Slowbloke and Atak_Kat like this.
  9. Tim Larsen

    Tim Larsen Racer

    iracing does run smoothly - dont race on it but installed it briefly for a friend that wanted to try my rig. Basically iracing with full quality gfx ran at 200+ fps and a gpu load of about 30% on my C49RG90 - ACC runs at 70-120 with 100% load on GPU :)

    I use the trackIR as well and it runs great - I use the monitor as a TV as well so it's on a swivel arm on my rig . Because of that triples was not valid. If I had to put together a rig again with the monitor used as TV as well, I'd probably go for one of the 43" LG 21:9 instead with a higher horisontal resolution. 1080 is a bit too low.
     
    Atak_Kat likes this.
  10. Tim Larsen

    Tim Larsen Racer

    Edit: My Samsung is the C49HG which is 3840x1080 - not the higher models with 5120x1440.
     
  11. FriendOfJah

    FriendOfJah Racer

    Thanks so much to everyone for all of the replies and great feedback. I’m definitely leaning towards getting the Samsung C49 HG. I just wish it was considered to be an Nvidia G-Sync compatible monitor.
     
  12. Tim Larsen

    Tim Larsen Racer

    It's not a validated monitor for Nvidia version of freesync but it does work. However, as I think was mentioned, only Freesync V1 works well. Fresync 2 causes flickering in my setup. Freesync 1 I believe starts at 70 fps so you would have to target that number as minimum fps in the GFX settings. I have a 2080 ti so can run almost epic in everything while maintaining above 70 fps.
     
  13. FriendOfJah

    FriendOfJah Racer

    Hi Tim - Thanks for the clarification on this. Now I just need to find a place to buy this monitor from for a really good price.
     
  14. Serge M

    Serge M Alien

    You guys realise that ACC vs iRacing graphics comparison in VR is insane right?

    iRacing released : 2008, that engine hasn’t changed, it’s lighting and reflections are stupidly limited, it looks clean in the same way doom 3 would look “clean” today, there’s just no detail anywhere. This engine is limited to using two cores only so per core clock speed is king, forget rain.

    ACC: released 2018 (a whole decade later!!!) supports all sorts of dynamic everything, heaps of detail, so yes, with current VR some of it gets lost in a bit of a blur. Multi core support which allows lots of cool features on modern CPU’s.

    Personal highlight is sitting in the pits at night with a car in front and when the driver in front touches the brakes my car lights up with the red hue from the brake lights of the car in front.

    Those things add huge immersion, they are also not free performance wise.

    Lastly, screens being compared to VR, these are two different things, one is a clear view through a 2D window in to the world you are racing in, the other is a low “relatively” res reality with proper depth the same as you see the real world, the clarity sacrifice may not be for all yet, but it will be for all eventually, there’s no way around that
     
    RDGNL, rycil, aotto1977 and 3 others like this.
  15. You are right about Iracing but it is very playable, I just can not play ACC as it is, I tried again last night, to me it just performs rubbish, hopefully DLSS and new hardware will improve it:)
     
  16. Andysonofbob

    Andysonofbob Gamer

    Blimey this is a tough one!

    If I had never gotten into VR I, and had the storage, I would have said triple!

    For perspective, my house is too small for storage of triple screen so I went projector where I could retract the screen. It's not triple but because it's over 2m wide you could get it set up with fairly high FoV with it looking natural. Compared to mate's with triple (wasted on FPSs) we would say it was like adding a third extra screen to each side. Not much you might say, but you defo missed it when you played on the monitor. And it was massive!

    I have VR, Rift S, a significant upgrade from CV1, and I love it.

    I didn't love VR at first but I stuck with it because it's not cheap. I got used to the reduced definition. I got used the limited FoV. I now can't go back.

    Unfortunately I struggle to play sims in 2D now. It just feels less real.

    I would say however that your system might struggle VR. The gtx 2060 is ok but not for ACC. It would own AC though which I still think is a very VERY good sim and good looking thanks to Sol.

    The following video might be of interest because GamerMuscle experiments to see how far he can read the signs, comparing Rift to Rift S. Quite a significant difference!
     
    FriendOfJah likes this.
  17. Slowbloke

    Slowbloke Simracer

    Not at all. They are both Sims. Comparison is natural. They just have different pros and cons.

    For me at least the pros for iracing in vr outweigh acc significantly. The style and technology means it looks & runs much better and is a lot clearer. The colour palette is more natural and the textures are again so much clearer.

    I still love acc but I also love iracing. Both have strengths and weaknesses in numerous areas.

    Taking a more modern SIM pc2 looks better and performs better in vr to acc (not talking about the driving experience etc...)

    I went back to monitor for acc but race in vr (along with ac, pc2 and ams2).
     
  18. mikocchio

    mikocchio Gamer

    Gt Legends is a Sim too (and what a Sim!). I think you could easily push it over 200 FPS with modern hardware. But it doesn't mean that Gt Legends is "more playable", it means that is easier on the hardware because has less realistic appearance and less realistic physics. An apple to apple comparison would be calibrating video options to achieve a similar effect on screen (detail, effects, fog, rain drops and so on) and then benchmark. Then, if you like FPS and stylized graphics over (quasi) photorealism and advanced physics, it's your choice.
     
  19. aotto1977

    aotto1977 Hardcore Simmer

    Regarding curved monitors: As long as the game's (virtual) projection surface is nor curved aswell, I cannot see any sense in using a curved monitor, which will distort the image.

    Regarding VR: I'm running ACC on my Rift S through a GTX1080, FPS capped to 40, AWS forced in OTT for a stable performance.
    For me, the advantages of depth perception, a stereoscopic view (in comparion to 2D monitors it's like knowing whether you fit through a gap rather than guessing) and a natural head movement outperform the tradeoffs by far.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice