What monitor is better for Arma 3

[ruPal 143]

I am going to buy a new monitor.

I have this 3 variants on IPS:

24" 1920x1080

24" 1920*1200

27" 1920*1080

I have a poor eyesight (-2 or -2.5 on both eyes). Hope you will help me to make a decision.

[IT07 10]

A good monitor can not help you with your poor eyesight. Only glasses/lenses can.

I would go for the 24" 1920x1200 because 24 is the most awesome size you can get; not too big, not too small.

Can you give more detailed info about the monitors? (like brand, type, response time, etc. etc.)

[ruPal 143]

Sure, here they are:

1. Iilyama xb2483hsu

2. LG 24mb65py

3. LG 27mb65py

I don't know will I get more FOV with 1920*1080, cause it has more length than 1920*1200 monitor?

P. S. 27" with 1920*1080 has larger pixel size so I think my eyes will get less strain or is it false?

[IT07 10]

27" at 1920x1080 is horrible if you sit relatively close to it. So don't buy the 27.

I would go for the LG24mb65py because of it's resolution (1920x1200) and options. That 1ms difference you have on the Iilyama is not worth buying it for.

[spanishsurfer 58]

Dude forget about doing 2-3 monitors you'll just crush your FPS. I bought a 39" 120hz monitor/tv and adjusted the FOV (in the profile settings file) to make it wider. Works like a charm and I have noticed ZERO difference between this "tv" and my old ASUS monitor that was designed for gaming. I thought 39" would be too big, but it's def is not and now I almost feel like I'm in the battle.

[Hud Dorph 22]

Why dont you go for a 21:9 monitor - that format are just so nice for playing arma.

I bought one some time ago, never going back to 16:9/16:10 when it comes to gaming.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95560311/arma3perf4%202014-08-14%2016-20-27-63.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95560311/arma3perf4%202014-08-14%2016-20-30-35.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95560311/IMAG0080.jpg

Edited August 14, 2014 by [HUD]Dorph

[ruPal 143]

Thank you very much guys! I don't have much money for a new monitor so I chose these three monitors with the same price. The last question - will I gate the same horizontal FOV with 1920*1080 and 1920*1200?

[IT07 10]

yes. 1920 is not wider than 1920 so you will get the same.

[IT07 10]

Although some people actually tend to have less motion sickness when the monitor is wide and not tall.... (I need higher fov on a 1920x1200 to prevent motion sickness compared to a 1920x1080 monitor)

So yeah, you might as well take that into account if you need that higher fov because of motion sickness.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

I'd go with the 16:10 monitor, just simply because it's better suited to everything outside of gaming, unless you plan to watch a lot of movies on a 24-27" screen. (but why, when 40" TVs are so damn cheap now?)

16:10 is by far the most comfortable aspect ratio for me to do simple things like web browsing, word processing, coding, etc. And you don't lose any horizontal rez from going with 1920x1200 rather than 1080, so there's no downside in gaming.

Edited August 17, 2014 by TheCapulet

[IT07 10]

Yes, 16:10 is indeed an awesome resolution. I had a 25,5" 1920x1200 before and it was way better for web browsing (amongst other stuff) than 1920x1080.

And I did not give a shit about the black borders while watching a movie. I actually like black borders.

[ceeeb 147]

The last question - will I gate the same horizontal FOV with 1920*1080 and 1920*1200?

It's a bit surprising, but the answer is no for Arma 3 (values are the default soldier field of view):

[table=width: 500]

[tr]

[td]Aspect Ratio[/td]

[td]Horizontal FOV[/td]

[td]Vertical FOV[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]16:10[/td]

[td]83.97°[/td]

[td]52.48°[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]16:9[/td]

[td]90.000°[/td]

[td]50.625°[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

I also recommend 16:10, it's a more useful ratio for everything other than watching widescreen movies.

[KingScuba 1]

i would stick with 1920x1080, since it's the most universal format. If you get the 1920x1200 you'll experience some screen stretching, which can be ugly in some games. Alot of people don't notice such a miniscule stetching, but I do.

I run 3 1920x1080 monitors. Arma doesn't stretch, I simply see more arma.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

whatever you do stay away from 27" monitors below 1440p, the pixels will stab you in the eyes til they bleed ;)

seriously though anything below 1440p on 27" will be a lot more pixelated than on 24", it's very noticable

[IT07 10]

whatever you do stay away from 27" monitors below 1440p, the pixels will stab you in the eyes til they bleed ;)

seriously though anything below 1440p on 27" will be a lot more pixelated than on 24", it's very noticable

I can't say more than: this is very true. If you buy a 27", something in the range of 2560x1600 would be ok.

[Harzach 2518]

i would stick with 1920x1080, since it's the most universal format. If you get the 1920x1200 you'll experience some screen stretching...

You'll only see screen stretching if you run the game at the wrong screen ratio/resolution.

Join the 16:10 master race.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[MrHuachuca 10]

I'd go with the 16:10 monitor, just simply because it's better suited to everything outside of gaming, unless you plan to watch a lot of movies on a 24-27" screen. (but why, when 40" TVs are so damn cheap now?)

16:10 is by far the most comfortable aspect ratio for me to do simple things like web browsing, word processing, coding, etc. And you don't lose any horizontal rez from going with 1920x1200 rather than 1080, so there's no downside in gaming.

[IT07 10]

Even if you would watch movies on a 16:10, who gives a shit about those black bars anyways??

[killswitch 19]

Strange...in the OP I see a list of two under-sized TV sets with missing receivers and only one computer monitor.

16:10, of course.