Thank you! It was a really fun project to put together - the idea came to me a while back, but it took a while for my editing skills to catch up and make it reality. I'm really glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you for your kind encouragement! It means a lot to me!

Thank you so much! I did a real life version of this video recently with a few different race scenarios as well, but the conclusions are the same. Enjoy your new triple monitors! Thanks for reaching out, I'm really glad I could help

@@DrAlanQuan Right after, I also looked your real life version ;) It sealed the deal on triple 32’ configuration !

Thank you Chris! I watched a few comparisons and none were presented in a very intuitive way to me so I dreamed up this concept for a super consistent view (since it's the same base video) with the graphic overlays on top. Took a few weeks to figure out how to do it, but it was fun and I hope has answered a lot of questions from racers. And yes, triple 32s it is indeed! Thanks for your support ❤️

Thanks Ed, when I ran the visualisation i was surprised too! The extent of the difference is substantial.

Yeah, a super ultrawide definitely has a very sleek and clean look. I thought about getting one for the studio and actually this video was partly for me to test out for myself and sort of "try before you buy". Thanks for sharing your experience!

You don’t need triples with a SUW and you use the radar function available in-game or as an add-on. I race very close without triples and I have awareness via 1) radar 2) sound 5.1 3) instinct.

@@johnseyerle any free radar for iracing？ thanks

@@Dominicyu89racelabs has one

@@johnseyerle still inferior to triples in that statement you have admitted that you need to rely on 3factors that you will have to take a gamble on rather then one major factor that triples give which is proper visual of whats going on around you in fast pace game …

Thanks for sharing your appreciation!

You're welcome, and thank you so much for sharing the love! I hope you have a great day

Daniele, your message brings me so much joy! Thank you for watching :)

@@DrAlanQuan no problem man! I have a passion for photo and video editing and i love the work so far! Just got a moza r9 and a moza KS i was planning to Just play in VR but this video Is super helpful if i want ti upgrade!

I knew triples would be better, but I was surprised by how much better as well. Thanks for commenting!

They're very cool! I've only just started to play with them but the effect is really impressive. I raced just fine without them for years so they're not game changers, but they are very cool!

Went triple 32's with bezel free a few years ago couldn't go back it's a game changer now.. watch out they scratch way too easy as the film is very thin. Even resting on your leg can scratch if moved

@@DrAlanQuanAre there bezel free kits for 32 inch monitors or do you have to use adapters? Thank you!

@@martink.123 these are the Asus bezel free kits with 3D printed extensions to fit the 32"s

From a strictly functional perspective I agree completely! Ultrawides have their place but their FOV capabilities are limited, and I wanted to prevent buyer's remorse for people who hadn't appreciated the difference before buying Good luck with your upgrade!

Your kind words are very encouraging, thank you!

Thanks Alec, I appreciate the kind words! As you can see from the video, having triples makes it very safe to lose positions 😂

@@DrAlanQuan lol rather safely lose a position than have a crash any day 😂😂!!

Thank you so much! Some fun stuff coming really soon ❤️

Thank you! They're going to be great 😀 have fun!

Ah yes, something I don't really think about, but enjoy unconsciously every time I drive

Dang that's awesome. I'm curious about the 50s - since they're so much bigger than 32s, is the installation/alignment any more difficult? I'm guessing at the very least, it's a 2 person job to put each monitor on its stand, but what about getting them level, matching corner heights etc?

@@DrAlanQuan I was going to do the usual 32inch setup, but after seeing Karl Gosling and Boosted Media setup, decided to go as big as I could fit in my space and add a 'booth' setup were everything else is blacked out - great for immersion. I think it is amazing and for comfort, edge to edge clarity and FOV, rivals any current VR headset (but no 3D image for close cockpit views etc) - although that may change in the future. I built my stands from a track racer setup, which I modified so that they can fit/support these big screens and be screw adjusted in the required three directions (I think you can purchase commercial version of these brackets). There are also hooks on the screen part of the frame so initially they can easily just be clipped on/off and then fixed onto the main frame by one person. If interested kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y5x8ad2prN_QiX0.html. All the best.

@@seattime4075 wow, kudos on what you've built. A lot of personalised design for your needs which is what I like to see

Triple 43"s sound great! With the extra height and horizontal reach you have more flexibility with monitor placement (behind the wheelbase rather than on top). I think as you alluded to, the cost increases and also the processing power needed to run them at triple 4K is substantial. Epic setup though, I'm jealous! Thanks for commenting :)

im running triple 43 inch lg tvs on an rtx 580 getting the full 60fps and no stuttering or issues at all on i racing or acc.....Don't need deep pockets for a super expensive GPU to go for a triple setup that simply works

@@ianchambers3473is that an rx580 from Polaris generation?

Very nice! Do you mount them above your wheel or behind your wheelbase/above your feet? The extra reach around the sides from the 43s sounds great

Thank you for watching and commenting :) it feels amazing for my creation to be enjoyed by others

Thanks for reaching out and for your kind words! Always happy to meet another racer and share thoughts

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!

Thank you, that was my conclusion as well. The virtual screen overlays were a fun project - I do try to create interesting looking videos with substance to back it up - thanks for your appreciation! I'll keep the creative fires burning and get more interesting content out pronto!

Thank you so much for your kind words. Triples definitely take up space, and it sounds like you have an effective system in place for the time being. Thanks for mentioning the look left/right functionality - that's something I'd actually completely forgotten about because I haven't needed it since my Gran Turismo days.

Thanks Kees, always nice racing with you 🔥

Thank you very much!

Thank you so much! More fun videos on the way :D

I'm so glad you enjoyed it ❤️

I recently sat in a rig with triple 24s. Not bad really! Better than any single screen easily

Just like in real motor racing, packaging efficiency is also a factor! Even if something is functionally superior, if it takes up too much room it just won't work

Hi Robbie thank you! A lot of people have been asking about mismatched monitors which is surprising to me - I've seen people post pictures of such setups so it must work, but it just seems to add another level of complexity to the setup. Who knows, I might tackle this exact issue in future. Time will tell!

Hi Daniel, thanks for commenting! I really appreciate the time. Regarding the curvature - it's really difficult to model a curved display using the virtualisation technique I employed for this video, so I did the best I could. That said, I don't think the curve is going to make a significant difference. The Samsung G9 49" super ultrawide has a curvature of 1800R - when the screen is 600mm from your face, the 1800mm radius is very shallow and doesn't come anywhere close to approaching the level of enclosure that a triple monitor set can provide. For reference with my triple 32s closed in the way they are, they approximate a semicircle with a radius of about 600mm which is why they're able to reach past my ears and give me true peripheral vision. There are videos out there by people who filmed actual super ultrawides and actual triple screens and the comparisons echo my findings - the super ultrawides have massive blind spots relative to the triples. Was my modelling perfect? Definitely not, but I think the representation in my analysis is fair. I've sat in front of a super ultrawide and the sheer width of the monitor is very impressive, but the field of view just isn't there. Regarding 27s, 24s and 32s all able to show the same image - of course they can, but in my modelling the monitor is pretty much in the ideal spot (it could probably be about an inch closer) - any closer and it's uncomfortably close (like reading a book with your nose touching the pages instead of at arm's length). For a 24" monitor to show the same FOV they'll either be super close to your face, or at a more reasonable distance with a non true-to-life perspective from the driver's seat (which is fine, but my comparison is tailored especially towards true-to-life FOV from the driver's seat).

I really missed having radar when I moved onto iRacing! But with triples - no radar, no worries!

I'm glad you found it useful! Spending money on monitors is a pretty significant cost, and it would be a shame if all that money spent led to a disappointment. Have fun with the upgrade!

Sounds good! FYI my 32s fit within a 1300mm wingspan in case that helps your planning, and could probably tighten to 1200mm without too much compromise. Good luck!

Thanks for your kind words, I love the experience you bring to the table with your comments. I'm glad you found my visual presentation of the issue interesting and intuitive! Have fun with the 6DOF!

I agree, the spotter is very helpful and for me, essential. I find the visual cue of seeing the competitor car in my peripheral vision also to be essential, and I think only a triple setup can provide that. Thank you for watching :)

I've been thinking about getting a Quest 3 for a while now... I'm in no hurry maybe I'll just wait for a good sale. What GPU are you using to drive the Quest 3?

@@DrAlanQuan I upgraded BIG TIME a couple months back. I am now running a 4070 Ti Super and a 7800X3D and it's incredibly smooth. I'm able to max the resolution on the headset and have High basically everything in game and run at 90hz (fps) with about 35-50% headroom depending on the track and conditions. I previously had a 5600X CPU and a 3060Ti and it was good for running at 72Hz but with some new tracks coming out and the possibility of rain in races, I couldn't really take the chance of dropping frames, it started happening a little too often for me to be comfortable. So far on the monitor, I'm getting over 200 FPS with everything maxed out and HDR enabled, so very happy with the performance as far as that's concerned.

Dang, that's a solid PC. The Quest 3 purchase just got a whole lot more expensive! Congrats on your new parenthood and see you on track some time!

@@DrAlanQuan thanks, that would be awesome!

Thank you for commenting! Your stance on ultrawides and practical real world FOV is a well reasoned one and I'm glad you mentioned it. I made the video to visualise what may not be intuitive for some people when making decisions for their own rigs and I think it accommodates that goal. I don't know if you've seen but I redid this video a month ago without the virtual graphics, but with real monitors which is worth a look I think! It goes through a few different race scenarios instead of just the one

The first time is the hardest! And if you never reconfigure your monitors you literally never have to set them up again. Have fun :D

I very much appreciate Nvidia Surround mode.

I completely agree with everything you've stated here. Like I said in the video, there's lots of good reasons to use a single monitor - and you've listed many of the tools available to make up for some of the shortcomings of a more restrictive field of view - this does really extend quite a bit beyond the intended scope of this video which was to focus on the visual information available to each configuration. Thanks for taking the time to comment!

Haha thank you. Triple 55 sounds great - the extra width of the monitors means the side monitors reach really far outwards - this opens up flexibility to position the main monitor above your feet instead of your wheelbase, and that means you can mount the bottom edge of the screen lower than I can with my 32s. If I had the space, triple 55 would be great! I'd want to check the specifications of the screens though. The refresh rate in particular. I've been TV shopping lately and some screens are 120Hz displays but they only accept 60Hz input. I have no idea if there's any real world issues with this, but I run 165Hz monitors now and worry about a downgrade in refresh rate. Might be a non issue, I'm not sure.

Sounds like a good set up. I do feel like triples still win out functionally because I can use my peripheral vision, and not need to physically turn my head to see the car alongside.

Thank you for commenting! Hardware requirements are a tough topic to advise on since everybody has different visual quality expectations, and also different tolerance for low frame rates. For me, anything above 60fps (ideally above 90) looks pretty good! Others swear by 140+ which takes a whole lot more power to run. That said, the general hierarchy of graphics cards and CPUs is generally known. I just look at the total resolution in number of pixels to estimate the computational load. I run triple 1440s (~11 million pixels) on my 3070 at about 100fps, so that's my reference. Today I finished setting up a 9 year old Quadro K2200 on triple ultrawides and it does 40fps on ultra low settings... I don't love it, but it works

Thank you for your answer! Did you run the triple 1440s with the 3070 and the 10700K in iRacing?

​@@bluebull6close! iRacing, triple 1440s 3070 10600KF 😂

Thanks for the info!

Pleasure to be of service! 😂

Hi thank you for reaching out! They are definitely curved G32QCs, if you watch my studio tour videos (there are 2 of them - the old studio and the current studio) you can see the monitors are curved. My recommendation - which ever one is cheaper! That's how I chose the Gigabytes 😂 I honestly think flat vs curved makes no difference. The fact that some people swear flat is better while others swear curved is better just means neither is actually better. If one was truly better, NOBODY would use the inferior one. Who uses drum brakes on their performance cars? Nobody, discs are better. Who uses flat vs curved monitors? Lots of people run each. They're both fine :)

Thank you :) I was filming a replay and I don't think the virtual mirror can be enabled during replays - in any case, I feel the virtual mirror improves drivability equally for each monitor configuration so triples still come out vastly on top. My issue with single monitors is when it comes to door to door racing - there's a huge blind spot for single monitors where the car disappears from the virtual mirror and hasn't yet made it into view on the main screen. I've really been spoiled with triple screens :)

@@DrAlanQuan i agree. Triple looks so good

I'm not aware of any comparisons that address your particular question but I truly believe a lot of people like to make this topic more complicated than it needs to be. All modern monitors are pretty good! At least with iRacing, any level of curve can be accounted for, and even if it isn't, the projection discrepancies in my opinion are so minor, you'll only notice them when you're looking for problems. If you set them up and start racing, no matter what you choose, you're going to have fun :)

Tbh a lot of wanting to see them compared is how they wrap around, how wide in total, space getting in and out, difference if any on setup angles. The total width and getting in and out would be great information to have so can work out what will fit my needs most and what's too dangerous when not so careful friends play. Even with my 24's its a heart in mouth moment when some get in and out, even after explaining and showing how easy it is they still struggle and seem like any second they will fall into something. I have 0 issue as skinny and rather flexible, aware of my own mass, not everyone is like that.🤷‍♂️🙄🤣 Can't really tell a friend your too clumsy mate, you can't play 😬😉

@@simplymentalOG Ah yes I see. Universal issue for us all 😂

Hi Nicky, Samsung haven't offered to send me one to try - and at the moment I'm not considering purchasing one. Based on my simulation, I don't believe any single monitor can give the field of view I like when I race which is a big part of that - obviously that's only one factor in choosing a monitor. That being said - I do have a habit of doing things I've only recently said I won't, so if you subscribe you'll probably see a video on the 57" screen pretty soon hahaha

Thank you for the kind feedback, I really appreciate that!

@@DrAlanQuan You are welcome, I will ditch my 49 ultrawide and go for triple 32 you made up my mind. Thanks

Ah yes I forgot about that, it's something I've never played with personally but I've seen it on streams and it's very interesting technology. Thanks for the reminder!

I play on a 55 inch tv with trackir. At first is sickening but you get used yo it quickly if set correctly . It's almost as hood as triples. However, seeing dashboard move around while your physical wheel isn't... Is weird.

The bezels can be distracting, I agree 100% - less of an issue if you can have the monitors close and therefore the bezels further out of your field of view - when I had the screens further away and the bezels became more central I absolutely hated them! But if you have the space and the cash, hell yeah get that 57" and enjoy!

Thanks for the kind comment! I'm really happy to contribute to the community

Hi John. I don't think curved vs flat is as big an issue as people like to think it is. I used these on iRacing both before and after they implemented curve compensation in their graphics - honestly, the difference is miniscule. I feel like people just like to worry for the sake of worrying. As for the VA panels and off angle viewing - if you want to get really fussy, the backlighting is not 100% even, and because of the angle of the side monitors they are viewed slightly off-axis from the driver's eye so the perceived colour rendition is a bit different on the side monitors compared to the front. BUT the only reason those side monitors are there is for peripheral vision. It doesn't matter that the colour accuracy is not 100%. You can study the colour difference all you want while stationary, it's a complete non issue the moment your car starts to move. I have zero regrets choosing these monitors. Thanks so much for commenting! I hope my upcoming content continues to be relevant and entertaining to you :)

⁠@@DrAlanQuanThank you for your detailed reply. You made some great points, which will be very helpful to many who are deciding which triple monitors to go for. I’m certainly going for 32 - 1440p and narrowed down the choice to either M32QC curved VA (same as yours but with the extra type c port) £327 each. Or hold out for the M32Q Flat IPS £401 but nobody has them in stock. The gigabyte units seem to be thin at the base, so they can sit inbetween the steering wheel and motor, making the screens closer. Maybe one day soon I’ll get to enjoy a triple experience. I’m still on the quest 2 which is great for immersion but sometimes it feels like a huge effort to jump on the rig when you’re already tired because you feel even more wiped out once you’ve been in VR for an hour or so. Thanks again.

Thanks for your kind words! I do hope to be of service to the community. Based on what you've told me, I'd say go for the VA panels when you're ready. I would say the IPS panels are probably noticeably better, but £200 saved means £200 less you need to earn. Depends where you put the most value.

What do you like about the ddu? I tried my phone as a dash for a while but I didn't like it obscuring my view of the screen

@@DrAlanQuan It allows me to ignore the on screen dash and place an off screen dash in front of it which then allowed me to move closer to the windscreen improving emersion in two separate ways. i.e - a more accurate field of view which looks and feels better and the dash itself being separate from the screen is in itself more emersive.

Hi Phil, thank you! I liked the idea for the graphics but making it happen was a whole different story! I've given your comment some thought and I don't think either of us are wrong. Everybody is welcome to run their displays any way they want - realistic or unrealistic projection/perspective. That said, the reason there are FOV calculators (online and also within game engines) is to render perspective-correct views from the driver position. In real terms if you were restrained to a 12" screen, you would probably avoid 100% perspective correctness since it's impractical (just the driver's hands as you say). When we have larger monitors, be they single 27s, 32s, 49s, triple 32s or beyond, it becomes more feasible to run 100% perspective correct fields of view which DO scale with monitor size - hence from the driver position, no matter the screen configuration, the perspective should be the same i.e. realistic proportions and perspective. The whole concept of "FOV police" is borne of this desire to have accurate FOV from the driver's protective, but of course - your house your rules! Thanks for commenting, let me know if you have other thoughts to add, otherwise see you in the next video :)

I've seen people do it and be happy with that set up - it wouldn't be my first choice because I'm not sure the software would cut the image in the right spot to batch up with the bezels since the width is not exactly evenly split into 3. For me personally, if I already had a 34 I'd either get 2 more 34s, or mount the 34 up high as my 4th monitor and get 3 of the same monitors for my triples (27s, 32s, 43s, anything) But if you decide to do 27-34-27 have fun with the setup/troubleshooting process! You'll see in the next few videos that I have no problem with doing stuff that is unconventional and takes way too much effort hahaha

Thank you for your kind words! I've not used either configuration you've described, but my analysis suggests that the one key metric for a single screen is its overall width. At a guess, the 55" and 49" monitors probably have a very similar width, so I would expect your racing experience to be very similar. The question is, armed with this information are you willing to spend $1000+ to find out? What I hoped this video would do is provide a relatable understanding of what FOV is achievable with different monitors and hopefully help people make informed choices with their hard earned money. Any screen curvature contributes only a small amount to the FOV, I can't see any curved screen approaching the utility of triples - happy to be proven wrong of course. From the information you've given, my understanding of the properties of the monitors in question, and for my personal circumstances - I would stick with the 55" and spend the $1k elsewhere

@@DrAlanQuanAppreciate the quick and detailed reply! Yes, I think at best, would achieve a bit more immersion with the ultrawide mounted closer, but at a cost of a bit of sky. May not be worth the switch, and putting it into PC/peripherals, or even VR instead. Your comparison shows that I would not seem to gain much peripheral awareness either (would be like the 49" with some sliced off the top)

Yes that's exactly how I imagine it would be! And it's not a bad thing - a 49" looks super slick, whereas a 55" TV mounted straight into a rig kind of looks overwhelming - if the aesthetic of the rig is important, the 49" would be fantastic. But $1000 saved is $1000 I don't need to earn so...

I contacted Samsung to see if they would send me a monitor but nothing so far... I'd love to test it out though!

Haha you must be the 5th person to ask about that 57". Honestly, I had zero plans to do so since my analysis suggests the 57" would be pretty similar to the 49" but never say never ;)

That's the monitor I was thinking of getting but was curious as to how much more immersive it would be with 57inch. Cheers! @@DrAlanQuan

@@kevinelkington5877 I'm sure it's a great monitor. Dual UHD, HDR, 240hz etc - I'm sure it produces an amazing image. 16 million pixels means it will take a lot of graphics processing power to game on. Triple 1440s is about 11 million pixels for reference. I'm also sure that it does not provide wrap around FOV since it is restricted to a single screen. And then consider the price - it is priced as a premium product. Overall I'm sure it's a nice product but I don't believe I will see good value from it for my purposes. If you want to ask Samsung to send me one to try please feel free 😂

Hi thanks for your comment, and I'm very excited for your nice to PC with triple screens. I'm no expert on PC specs so I don't think I'm best positioned to advise, but triple 1080s is a relatively light workload compared to how much modern PC's can handle which means you should be able to find something second hand, or even brand new that's very affordable yet capable

I like them. They were cheap and full featured. Yes curved - iRacing handles the curve compensation perfectly. Zero screen tearing, but there is some ghosting particularly noticeable when racing under night conditions. It's helped by turning down the overdrive settings. I run two of them at 165Hz via displayport and the third at 144Hz via HDMI. I don't use any gsync/freesync at all. They're excellent for watching media, editing video, working on documents - but in certain racing scenarios there is some ghosting as described above. One of the monitors has a glitch once every 3 months or so where it will have green artefacts all over the screen - I just turn it off and on again, and it's all good. Overall, I'm happy and would buy them again.

Hi Nickster, I didn't outright declare this in the video but the goal with my screen setup is to get a perspective correct view from the driver's seat. What you're describing is definitely doable and probably advantageous for single screens - but it does stray from that perspective correct philosophy and will produce a distorted view of the game world. Nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't align with what I want to achieve in my own rig which is why I didn't think to mention it!

@@DrAlanQuan makes sense, thanks for replying. just fyi for folks with a 34” in case that want to try and get a wider view with the side mirrors

Hi! This is the 27" Asus kit, and my friend 3D printed some extensions from here for me: www.thingiverse.com/thing:4615747 I only just installed them for this video, and I'm still figuring out how to get the most from them - when I know enough about it I'll produce a video :)

Hi, the 57" monitor you're talking about was not out in Australia at the time of filming - and it's phenomenally expensive (the single 57" monitor costs double what I paid for my three 32s) I asked Samsung to send me a unit to test but they haven't responded But to answer your question, yes I believe the height is comparable to a 32" but I haven't put them side by side (but remember physical size is independent of resolution)

@@DrAlanQuan Thanks for the response! When I say height I'm referring to the resolution. The Neo G9 has a 2160 vertical which is more than the 32 inch in your review (1440). I would think this makes for a more attractive offering in the wide screen space, especially if you're considering a 1 display setup (cost consideration set aside). What are your initial thoughts?

I think the 57" monitor should be a very good monitor, lots of resolution, class leading image quality etc. Aside from the astronomical cost, the other consideration is the resolution needs a lot of horsepower to drive at high frame rates but thankfully graphics cards are getting faster and cheaper. But overall for my own needs, I am extremely happy with the triple 32s. I think it serves my needs better and for less money than the big single

Hello :) I get asked this question a lot! I have seen people show photos and videos of this configuration, but I don't have experience with this alternative setup - I am not aware of any official setting to support this format - as far as I am aware, iRacing will do triple screen projections exactly evenly so there may be issues with a visible seam on the centre monitor. In my mind, I can think of a potential workaround but it requires a lot of processing power. From what I know, I suggest to use 3 identical monitors to have the easiest setup experience.

Dual monitor setup? Definitely better than single - I'm curious how you'll physically set it up - match the curve of the monitors or make more of an acute angle - and if the latter, how that will look on the opposite side (in the middle of the G9)

@@DrAlanQuan This is the guy that gave me the idea. After looking at it more though the overlap of the two screens is rather odd. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qphyqJCLx7iokZ8.html

Yes you can, but I was working with the premise that we maintain an accurate 1:1 projection of the game world from the driver's point of view. Widening the FOV will improve visibility but will be a departure from that 1:1 projection, which is fine if you want to do that, no judgement. That said, the FOV deficit from ultrawide to triples is too much to bridge with an FOV adjustment alone. It's huge. Thanks for watching!

@@DrAlanQuan I'm looking to buy a ultawide in the near future, mainly because i can't afford triples (which would be my preferred choice). So your video is both entertaining and informative. It has confirmed what i think i knew, the ultrawide is good choice in the absence of triples. Thanks for the video.

Hi Highside, I haven't done so since my goal was to create as accurate a projection of the virtual game world at possible, but my understanding is it would create a slight/strong fisheye effect to the graphics (depending how far you crank the settings ) which is a common stylistic choice in many arcade racers. Not a good or bad thing, just different to what I want for my own setup.

I could learn from you. I race fairly close because I'm pretty confident in my spatial awareness, in the heat of the moment I'm not thinking about what the other drivers can see

@@DrAlanQuan i learned to do it, when i started putting my car in the spaces i knew it would fit, all to often i was getting turned in on, squeezed off track, or they'd turn across the front of my car and spin themselves So i just leave a buffer space now so i can react to any moments. If during a race someone demonstrates they're safe, ill race them harder, or names i recognise overtime

I would love to compare VR, but I don't have any experience with current generation VR hardware. Maybe one day

@@DrAlanQuan I think it could be estimated also without having it, calculating the viewing angle of the VR compared to triple screen, of course moving it around to emulate turning your head

@@piereligiodisante haha yes that's true, the concept is something I haven't thought before and at the moment, beyond my abilities to produce on video. Great idea for a future project! Thank you!

@@DrAlanQuan thanks, and no problem 😁

I've seen a triple 24 (or similar) setup and I think it's ok. It's really similar to a single 49" super ultrawide. Because the screen is not very wide, the bezels are very much in your field of view so could be distracting, and unless the screens are super, super close to you the side monitors won't extend very far towards your ears to show you that peripheral vision. If the monitors are free, worth playing with. I would not buy 24s to build a triple though. I'd either get 3x27s or a single 49 instead

These are Gigabyte G32QCs. I can change the FOV to make it 1:1, narrower or wider. I've had it installed at every distance possible as well since I've had to move the rig around so much. I do prefer to race with a 1:1 projection

4080s only came out a year and a bit ago, but people have been running triple 1440s for years on 20 series cards maybe even older than that too My 3070 does 100+fps at triple 1440, which is good enough for me :)

Hi Mr J, if you're using a single monitor (regardless of its size or aspect ratio) and you want an accurate 1:1 FOV, you will always gain FOV by bringing the monitor closer and closer to you. The balancing act then becomes that as the monitor comes closer to you, it causes more eye strain from focusing on such a close object. I think long term, eye strain is not a worthwhile side effect of simracing so I suggest to keep the monitor a full arm's length from your eyes. The FOV will be what it is, and if you want more FOV either get a bigger, deeper curved screen - or do triples which is even better

@@DrAlanQuan ya, I do have the screen a arm length and half a hand away. As soon as I move I will be getting two more of these Asus monitors. My PC can run them, I have it just for iracing. I appreciate your help.

Do you find the 49" is enough? One of the rigs in the studio has a single 49" and for me it's only barely passable. Sure is easy to get in and out of the rig though

Yes you could do that, but the side view would be small compared to the main monitor. To be clear, I think it's a terrible idea. But you can mount the monitors and plug them in and the world will not end 😂

I think that setup would work very, very well. Cons would be cost and required processing power - I've not tried this setup personally but let me say this - check my channel again in a few weeks ;)

@@DrAlanQuan Thank you, I'll be waiting for that video, thank you once again

I'd love to test one out but Samsung haven't offered to send me one - and it's a marketed as a premium product so the price is high. That said, based on my analysis I think the 57" will be functionally very similar to the 49". So basically I think the 57" will be a very impressive, very pretty monitor that gives inferior FOV to triples.

If the view becomes smaller, you're no longer looking at an accurate projection of the virtual world - it's now a slightly miniaturised one. My goal is to have an accurate projection, which is what FOV calculators do - so yes, so long as you're aiming for that life-like protection, a smaller monitor will have smaller FOV. It's like a smaller window to look at the world through

@@DrAlanQuan In this case, it makes all sense. So you configured each monitor with a different FOV to match the same projection? I'll search for one of this FOV calculators to try on my 34 inches 3440x1440, I am probably using the wrong FOV for months. Thanks for all your videos.

Hi, thanks for commenting! Yes, bringing a smaller monitor closer will increase FOV - but it can introduce other issues For me the biggest issue is as I get older, my eyes tire from focusing on a screen so close. For my best eye comfort I want the screen roughly one full arm's distance from my eyes. The second one is in my daily driver cockpit using 32s, the screens are right behind my steering wheel just close enough that I don't touch the screen with my fingers when I use the paddle shifters. To mount 27s closer than this, the 27s would be between my face and my steering wheel 😂

Hi Sheep, thank you for commenting! My thoughts on the matter are this - there is only one "true to life" image projection. It doesn't matter what size screens you have or how far they are away from you, if you set them up as "true to life" it will look the same to your eyes as you move them across the horizon. Hence if a 27" was sat exactly where my 32" is mounted, it would display that exact portion of the screen - so I feel the comparison is still fair. Now your comment describes the "optimal FOV for a 27" monitor" - are we talking about realistic FOV (there's only one) or a "competitive FOV for a 27" monitor" where we set an artificially wider FOV so we can see more? Nothing wrong with that, if I only had a single 27" I would definitely do that since a realistic FOV would show very little (as demonstrated). I'm really glad you commented. It gave me a good opportunity to revisit my thinking and reassess my conclusion.

@@DrAlanQuan There are many FOV calculators to give you a better FOV, self explanatory, but these can help a lot for certain cases, like this one. But I haven't used one, as my rig is currently not setup, and wont be for a few days. But realistic FOV should be considered, but with how small it is, you should also probably show a more competitive FOV, so you can actually see the cars around you

Having literally ditched my VR at the last minute before a community race yesterday (vr random disconnects) for a single 27” screen at the standard ACC viewpoint/FOV, I can categorically say that correct FOV as set with FOV calculator is waaaayy better for lap times and consistency than and artificially “zoomed out” wide FOV. I think this would be less noticeable with a larger (>27”) screen size and ofc wider screen ratio (21:9 or better as compared to 16:9) but simply put, correct FOV allows you to more accurately spot and nail your braking and acceleration points and apexes. When I finished my rather disastrous race, I then set the “correct” calculated FOV and within a few laps in a new race, I was way quicker and more consistent. Rather more annoying was that I was posting faster times than I was on VR (Pico 4 @ 90fps) on the single 27” QHD screen!

@@JimboJet737 thanks for sharing your experience. I'm surprised that the wider FOV was not advantageous - I thought seeing competitors nearby as well as more of the track around you would be beneficial - I guess in your case you found real benefit in the accurate FOV. VR sounds fun though, competitiveness be damned!

Hi Tom. I think 3 of the exact same monitor is the way to go. I think flat/curved is a non issue that people like to make into a big thing for some reason

@@DrAlanQuan thank you for your advise. Is it a problem if i have to buy two different monitors because the monitor i currently run is not available?

Probably not. There might be little issues like the screens might be a few mm bigger/smaller, colour rendition may be slightly different - these probably don't matter once you're racing. But be on the lookout for major issues like if the VESA mounting holes are in completely different areas (most will be dead centre of the monitor but some brands put their mounts right along the top or bottom edge)

Hi, I wouldn't say you are wrong - but my goal when seeing up monitors is to make it look as realistic as possible, so my monitors are like windows into the virtual world - with the mirrors, dash, steering wheel etc looking 100% scale If you have a smaller monitor displaying the same image, everything is smaller and it's no longer an accurate scale A smaller monitor is like a smaller window, so if we do keep things at real life size - the smaller monitors will show less. But of course everybody is free to do as they please! What are your thoughts after reading my take on it? Thanks for commenting!

The solution is to start from pole and then just skip forwards to winning 😂 I'd love to play with VR, just hasn't been the right time for me to get into it

They do work well, I actually show triple 35" ultrawides in this video :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eamZltSAzN3Ifas.html

@@DrAlanQuan ok cool thanks for that 👍🏻 now need to figure out if my pc is powerful enough 😄

Hi Wolfdog, this topic has come up a lot in the other comments. I'm still 100% convinced screen size, and not resolution, is what influences FOV. In iRacing's graphics settings there is a "screen width" dialogue after all. The entire reason FOV calculators exist (including those in the graphics engine for iRacing or other sims) is to figure out a true to life perspective from the drivers eye - this is why I'm still convinced my virtualisation is pretty close. There is only one true to life perspective - the size of the screens is our window into that virtual world, and the larger and/or closer they are to us, the greater the FOV. Resolution doesn't come into it at all. This is why I can overlay these 'cut outs' on my video with fair confidence that is a fair fight. You mentioned a 27" screen would be the same but smaller than a 32" screen. Whether we go up or down in size, if the displayed image stays the same we are deviating from a realistic perspective. Can you imagine a 7" 1440p phone screen displaying the same image? Yes you can do it but it is no longer a lifelike projection, and it stopped being one the moment it started shrinking from 32" (even at 31"). You've got to adjust the FOV as the screen size changes if you want to maintain a life-size perspective. Size, not resolution, is what matters for FOV.

Hi Spinelli, thanks for your kind words and taking the time to write your comment :) Regarding your first point - the limiting factor for the field of view below the horizon is going to be how low your monitor can mount. For any monitor that is above your wheelbase, that limit is going to be the same - whether you have a 24" or a 75" monitor, it is limited by how close to the wheelbase you're willing to mount it - hence going from 32" to 27" you really only sacrifice sky since the lower edge of the monitors will be in the same position. The alternative is to move the monitor further away so it can be behind but also below the wheelbase - but that will sacrifice both vertical and horizontal field of view since the screens and viewports are moving further away from you - a big problem if you're using a 32" or smaller monitor - not such a problem if you run 40+" monitors. I agree that wide FOV VR would be a "gold standard" - my only experience with VR has been PSVR which was decent, but narrow FOV and I get particularly sweaty underneath it. But the idea of crisp visuals, wide field of view, and 3D sounds amazing. The compute power needed to run triples vs 8K VR must be substantial as well. Until I have something like this in my hands, the triple 32s are a nice sweet spot though.

@@DrAlanQuan Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. What you said about the bottom of the screens matching regardless of if it's a 32" or 27" monitor is only true if you raise the in-game cam/seat/view higher for the 32" monitor but that'll mean you're now viewing the world from a different perspective, as if your in-game seat or body/neck/head got taller. Regardless of how high/low you have your screens placed and how your real wheel matches up with them or with the in-game wheel, there's only 1 realistic in-game view (ie. seat position) location. That exact view would be dead-centre in between the in-game drivers' eyes. Adjusting that point any further up/down, forward/back, left/right would mean the visual representation of what's being displayed on your screen is not that which you would be seeing if you were actually in the car. This is why I've been saying on various sim racing forums for 10-15 years that we need a 3D rendered option to change our in-game view (ie. seat position). That way, we could place the exact point, essentially a "dot", where the game's camera view is located (it should be exactly in-between the virtual drivers' eyes) and spawns outwards from. Ideally and technically speaking, there should be no view/seat/camera changes when switching from, let's say, 24 to 27, to 32 to 80 inch monitors/TVs because the location of the viewpoint/camera/seat should be exactly dead-centre in between the eyes of wherever the virtual drivers' eyes would be in that particular car. That's the only 100% technically correct way to do it. Anything other than having the camera/seat located at that exact point will mean what the real life player is viewing on their screen is not the perspective of the driver as the real life player's perspective will be too high/low and/or too forward/backward. Think about it this way. Imagine your example of raising the in-game view/seat/cam higher when going from a 27" monitor to a 32" so that the bottom of the rendered image is identical on both screens. Exaggerate that example to, let's say, an 80" screen instead of a 27". With an 80" screen, to get the bottom of the rendered image to match the 27" screen, you'd have to move the in-game view/seat/cam so high that the location (or coordinates) of that camera would probably be on top of the roof of the car. So then you'd be driving around with the rendered perspective as if your head was somehow on top of the car's roof rather than from the virtual driver's eyes. Moving the in-game cam/seat/view around to try and match your screens, the position of your wheel, etc. is, although common (and understandably so), technically incorrect & flawed. The in-game cam's coordinates should be located exactly in between wherever the drivers' eyes would be located for the particular car being driven. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if your monitor is 27" or 80", if your monitor is very high relative to you or eye-level, if your real wheel is near the bottom of the monitor or in the middle, etc.

@@Spinelli__ When changing monitor size, no significant camera setting changes are needed IF the middle of the monitor remains in the same position. If your monitor is constrained on one side (for example a wheelbase underneath) a bigger screen will need to move upwards to be able to mount. If the whole monitor is moving up, your viewport is moving up (since your head stays in the same position, you'll now be looking relatively upwards at your bigger monitor compared to the smaller one). My low down seating position means my monitors are above me - I adjust the horizon setting downwards (without adjusting tilt) so it is level with my eyes - this way I still look straight forwards from the driver's perspective when I race - but the total viewport is still aiming upwards and showing lots of sky. The formula position exaggerates this, but the principles are the same for any position - the key point is that the monitors are mounted as low down as physically possible in all scenarios.

@@DrAlanQuan I totally get what you're saying but, in the end, for a technically correct view (if that's truly what someone is looking for), then the point in the virtual space where that view is located and spawns from would be the exact point in between the 2 eyes of the virtual driver sitting in the virtual car. Any position that's moved forwards, backwards, upwards, downwards, (ie. seat/cam adjustments) etc. is not the technically correct/realistic view because what the real life player then ends up seeing on his computer screen is not the view through the eyes of the driver but, instead, the view from some other point in the virtual game's space. It has nothing to do with monitors, where you are relative to your monitor, where your real-life wheel is relative to you or your monitors, etc. Of course we want to try and align all that so it aligns as naturally and comfortably as possible but that's regardless of the game's view. Here's an extreme & ridiculous example. If, for some reason, I had to have my monitor 5 feet below my head, that doesn't mean I should lower the in-game view or tilt the driver's eyes/head (AKA horizon adjust) so that all I see on rendered on the screen are the in-game driver's feet and pedals and the floor of the car. The view of the game, if going for a technically correct first-person view, needs to be located in the exact position between the in-game drivers' virtual eyes and with the same head-tilt (ie. horizon adjust) as the tilt your head or eyes would generally be if you where sitting in that car. That means what you're seeing on your monitor is the exact view from the eyes of the driver as if you were in the car. Regardless of where you may happen to place your monitor and/or wheel in real life. With regards to the driver's head's tilt (or, as some games call it, horizon adjust - I'm pretty sure these are the same but I could be wrong) then that's just how downwards/upwards the driver's head (or eyeballs) are tilted and pointing towards. Are they looking completely straight ahead? Are they looking slightly downwards to the ground in front of them? Etc. That should be tilted to where you eyes in real life would generally be pointed for the most part, not tilted in a complete opposite direction (like towards the sky).

@@DrAlanQuan "My low down seating position means my monitors are above me - I adjust the horizon setting downwards (without adjusting tilt) so it is level with my eyes - this way I still look straight forwards from the driver's perspective when I race - but the total viewport is still aiming upwards and showing lots of sky." Exactly. This proves my point. So the perspective that you are seeing in your monitor is that of a driver who is staring up into the clouds and therefore isn't technically correct because no driver stares into the clouds while they drive yet that's the "view" or the "eyes" you are looking through so it's not technically realistic. Obviously in the end this is all total knit-picking and doesn't really matter because we have the freedom to set all this stuff up according to our own personal preferences but I just wanted to point out that the whole method of adjusting in-game views / seating positions / camera / eye/head-tilt to match our real world's physical setup is a backwards approach if trying to view exactly on screen what you would view if you were the driver sitting in that virtual car.

VR sounds fun, I haven't put on a VR headset in about 3 years. Any recommendations on which headset to buy in 2023?

@@DrAlanQuan there is about to be a turning point of new VR tech, and we're about to see it take some huge leaps, so best bet is to find a HP Reverb G2 in a sale for 300 bucks, and you'll have a great time. I only race in VR now

You're right, I didn't mention resolution, but it's because I don't think resolution plays into this at all. The physical length of the monitor is what allows you to see competitors alongside you. 32" triples at 720p would show the same FOV as 32" triples at 4K, the pixel density and hence image clarity would just take a dive. Those same 32" triples at 720p would certainly show more field of view than 24" at any resolution, since the 24s aren't long enough to even reach my ears, much less past them like my 32s. That said, I appreciate your comment for highlighting the fact I didn't address this aspect! Thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next video :)

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

Any monitor of the same aspect ratio will show the same image regardless of size or resolution. This makes your analysis quite flawed.

You've ignored the fact that FOV is a setting that can be changed. I can show you a single 32" monitor with a 40° FOV, move the FOV slider to 60° and demonstrate a wildly different image even though the monitor aspect ratio and dimensions haven't changed.

@@DrAlanQuan Great video production and editing! Thanks for getting us to think about this. But the main premise is flawed. A larger screen does not show more field of view. If that was the case, then a 12 inch monitor would only show the driver’s hands (in cockpit view). Rather, a 12 inch monitor would show the same view as a 32 inch monitor (with the same aspect ratio). Triple 27” monitors would show the exact same image as triple 32” monitors, just smaller.

That's exactly right. Smaller monitors have smaller FOV. With the correct FOV setting (as you described), from the driver's perspective the outside world looks the same whether your screen is 24" or 75" which is why this analysis works 👍

Hi Koffiato, thanks for commenting. I love Adventure Time by the way! I actually just finished editing a follow up to this video with a real 49" monitor and I have to say, the simulation is pretty close. The new video will release in a few days, I hope to get your feedback on that one too! I've sat in front of the 57" 1000R monitor (albeit at a showroom and not in a simrig) and although it's an impressive monitor, the FOV is significantly lacking compared to a triple monitor setup. The 57" 1000R is certainly the best single monitor so far, but you said it yourself it won't be as wide as a triple. As for how much that deficit is, by my assessment it is still substantial. Does that mean the 57" is a bad choice? Certainly not! But I feel like if you want to justify the 57" purchase by saying it provides similar or near-similar FOV to triples you are kidding yourself. My triple 32s approximate a single curved monitor with a depth (from centre of screen out to edges of screen) of 660mm The 57" offers a depth of about 251mm That means triple 32s offer an additional ~400mm of reach along the sides of the driver. It's not even close

@@DrAlanQuan nice to hear that. Looking forward to watch the follow up video!

Stop thinking about that 57", my friend. No single screen gives competitive FOV, period. Upgrading from 49" to 57" will give you near zero improvement in FOV, if my assessment is correct. And have you SEEN the price of the 57"?!?! Super ultrawides look great. Triples function great. That's it!

Assuming your 49" is exactly 62 cm away & has a 1000R curvature; your horizontal would be FOV 101.3° and vertical FOV would be 30.2°. Odyssey Neo G9 57" will give you exactly 117.9° horizontal FOV and 35.1° vertical FOV. You'll gain 16.6° of horizontal viewing area if you switch to a 57". This actually puts it above the view you get with the helmet supporting sport seats irl. Unless you're extremely hardcore sim racer that only and purely care about competitive advantage; it's not worth it in my opinion. Bonus points for not dealing with the entire bezel free kit debacle as well.

Thanks for leaving a comment! It's not a perfect simulation, but a pretty good one I think. I actually have a 49 SUW monitor in the studio now and the racing experience is exactly as I predicted as compared to triple 32s - sub optimal. That said, I am redoing this video with the real deal next week - no fancy computer graphics, just real monitors and a camera and I promise you, the exact same outcome. 49s look nice but that's it!

Totally worth it for the price imo Easily one of the most regret free purchases I've made in my life

@@DrAlanQuan I trust you, problem is the PC costs to handle that in a acceptable resolution/fps

Hey man thanks for commenting. If you listen to my description I talk about how the screens are more or less at the closest reasonable distance possible, so we can consider the distance to driver fixed. Hence I came to the conclusions that I did, and I stand by them. Also my eyes are not what they used to be, so longer distance to screens is definitely a plus as I get older! See you in the next video 🤟

@@DrAlanQuan the problem is that its incorrect, and to an already ill informed sim racing community, its somewhat misleading. FOV 180 as a maximum should be the goal for any triple set up. If not, then it doesn't matter what monitors you use, just to get the most realistic mathematical FOV. If not even that, You then adjust to whatever you want/feel comfy with, and play like that. But that disqualifies any further discussion/comparisson whats right or wrong or good/bad.

Hi Lucas, thanks for your input. I tailored my comparison around accurate FOV settings to match a real world perspective as I look around the cockpit - a realistic FOV setting would not include the mirrors within the frame of a 34" UW monitor. That said, if I was running a single 34" I would absolutely do as you do and tweak the FOV setting to see more - the perspective would be slightly distorted but the benefit of seeing more outweighs that. The distortion would be hard to discern on a single screen - the real test would be if you ran triple 34s, adjusted the FOV to include the mirrors in the central monitor, and then observe how the world looks in the side monitors - it would be like a fisheye lens.

😪 if this is your experience, I am not going to tell you otherwise. Let me ask you this though - if you're in a cafe and there's a large window and a small window, is your field of view through the 2 windows the same? Is it the resolution, or the window size that changed?

I am new to this and I was also confused about FOV and resolution. I also used to think you should see the same amount of content since the resolution is the same but after checking a few videos I learned that most sim games take into account how big your monitor is, and then, automatically calculate how much "size" of content you should see. I think this is for good racing experience. I also found that these parameters can be adjusted in some sim games. May someone correct me if I am getting this wrong. I think I also understand it from the distance away from the monitor and the size of the monitor factor.

Simon you've nailed it 🎉

@@DrAlanQuan Thanks Dr. for the confirmation ❤

let me add just a little bit explanation. the triple 27 can project the same _visual_field_ only in case it is put closer (maybe using wheel shaft extender) than 32. And this is exactly which @DrAlanQuan video shows. This is very very important to understand - 27 CAN provide SAME visual field as 32, but on closer VIEW DISTANCE.

Interesting take. I guess to a certain extent I'm aiming for accuracy (1:1 perspective) but also competitive advantage (peripheral vision)

@@DrAlanQuan sorry I guess it’s like asking for a FPS to hit you with a “baseball bat” every time you get shot. I haven’t seen the rest of your videos, but have you considered a VR headset?

​@@stijillI don't think that's an appropriate analogy. For an FPS analogy I think it's closer to "I want to see in my peripheries while I game" vs "I want helmet restricted tunnel vision". These are video games after all and competitive advantage can bring enjoyment, more so than being actually shot haha I haven't tried VR since I bought a PSVR in 2017 (still have it) but haven't used any headset for competitive racing ever. I sweat a lot and fogging has always been an issue for me. Would love to try it with iRacing some day though

@@DrAlanQuan sorry I was just making a joke about my stupid helmet rant, but on serious note, VR has exponentially improved and you should consider revisiting the idea of using a VR headset.

​@@stijillI'm certainly open to VR - do you have any recommendations for headsets? My PC only has a 3070 so not being sure of getting good performance has been a factor in sticking with monitors as well