I have been very tempted by the 49”. I have a 34” wide, curved and I love it. The vertical limitation put me off but now I am making a cockpit dashboard that won’t matter.
Thanks for this. Just got the 49 and like to fly airliners. Still Really hard setting it to get all captain side instruments on screen since I don’t use any instrument peripherals. Thanks again, great vid as usual.
Depending on your monitor and eye position to get the field of view correct just calculate or measure the actual angle from your eye to the edges of the inside monitor bezel(the image). If you match this angle to the Field of View set in XP11 the size of the image will match reality. For details see ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PjdgOBJ5xkQ.html
I use a 27" monitor, but prefer to use 70-80 degrees fov. Might still be a bit zoomed in, but it offers a more accurate pilot point of view without needing to zoom in too much on instruments or feeling like you're a passenger.
Hey Michael, have you had any issues with the Samsung 49 Ultra wide monitor freezing on you having nothing but a pixelated screen? If so, is the monitor defective or are the settings set up incorrectly? Also, what ultra wide monitor do you feel works best for flight simulation? Thanks for providing awesome video content!
So for x-plane, do you gain anything by buying a 1440p vs 1080p 49” monitor to display the external view. I always run two copies of X-plane. One as the master displaying instruments on two 22” touchscreen monitors, currently 3 27” monitors for the external views. Would like to change out the 3 27” monitors with a 49” monitor. Can’t figure out if the higher resolution will be used?
I run 3 x 32" Lg nano ips monitors and 1 Air manager touchscreen with g1000 below. To simulate a 49, drape 2 towels 1/2 across the 2 outer monitors. See if you like it. The form factor is key, not the resolution, imo. 3 mon = 48x9 ff where a 49" ff is 32x9. The physical height is also key. 32" monitors are 17" in height. Makes a big diff between 27" monitors which are only 14" in height. Most affordable 49 are only 14" in height. Rather narrow imo. 1 advantage is, 1 49 main monitor allows more air manager touchscreens or hardware cockpit monitors below or anywhere. Nothing beats 3 mon wide, due to ability to look straight down each wing. Which, imo, should be the goal post. I rarely have to use keyboard to switch views. As soon as 49 is affordable and 17" in height I might try it. BTW, Running 2 networked computers, 2 copies XP, 2 copies, AM must be a PITA. Having 2 copies of Windows must be like having 2 wives. Not gonna try that either!
Hi Michael, what hardware are you using? I have a 49"LG Monitor (5120x1440) with i9 / 64GB RAM and RTX 3080 (10GB) and the rendering is horrible on xplane 12 (20fps).
Let us know how MSFS2020 looks in your new monitor, you know now how to run Windows, right? A side by side comparison with XP11 would be even more interesting. Are we worried yet?
Boas tudo bom Eu tive um samsung odysseyg9,mas nao gostei pk cokpit ficava tudo dezajustado,a janela da esquerda super pequena,a da direita ficava enorme Tentei comfigurar mas não deu kkkk Para jogar ets2 era muito bom,mas para flightsimulator nao gostei nada,ficava muito camara tipo olho de peixe Mas monitor tinha excelente qualidade para o resto ❤❤❤
VR does not work well for 2 or more training, instructor/student, and IOS (instructor operating station) situations. VR does not work well for youtube training videos either. Too much head movement. Nothing beats 3 wide and one touchscreen below with Air Manager/Knobster for training. VR works great for home alone experience. I had problems twisting knobs in VR(too many misfires) with controllers on Pilotedge. Basically, it depends on situation. VR is not the holy grail for all situations.
David M , ok "nothing" maybe was a little optimistic. I was referring to the degree of immersion and sorry, I keep my opinion saying that no display array can beat that. When it comes to FI/student lessons or let's say IFR training I'm with you. Handling dials, knobs and switches is a little tricky at the beginning, that's true. Head movement: that's also part of real life and important say when you're about to turn on final or practicing spot landings, watching for traffic. I know, beginner stuff but imoprtant stuff. Recording, ok...You'd do that with without VR or the viewers get sick. ;) Like you said, it depends.
@@aviator_thomas It has a good reason, why the commercial full motion flight sims are NOT VR! It just doesn't work, as one wouldn't get any feedback from all the knobs, switches and handles. Many procedures are done mostly by feeling, like the throttle, and all the different shapes of these knobs, switches and handles are there for a reason!
@@aviator_thomas I would say that nothing beats VFR helo flying in VR. How's that for a compromise? Only if you can twist com freq with left hand by touch, not a controller. Perhaps a logitech radio panel. VR controllers, IFR flying, online ATC, and RU-vid videos, are weak areas for VR. Picking up, even with contoller strap, and putting down a controller to manage power, twisting knobs, writing clearances didn't work for me. No offense.
Well, I need to explain my answer, I think. I refer to the experience of flying itself, the 3D spatial impression, the ability to estimate distances, to be able to look over your left and right shoulders just like in real life. I used VR a lot to prepare for my PPL checkride, to practice spot landings, go arounds and simple procedures in the simple VFR world. I can't to that with just a display, or two. BUT, and that's the point where I agree with the other side, VR could be simply cumbersome and even counterproductive when it comes to IR training and "what the pros" use in their training for ATPL. Of course commercial flight sims are not VR... :D And that's the point: you don't need the above mentioned advantages from my point of view, when it comes to the complicated instrument rating and MCC stuff - even more: VR doesn't make sense there.
