I do on an HTC Vive. Its very fun but more an experience than actual gaming. My eyes get exhausted quite quickly, so I will never play for more than 90 minutes. Arma itself does not have official support for VR. There is a mod that enables it but I would not recommend it because Arma is not know for its high frame rates and you want for VR a constant 90FPS without any dips.
Roger, its basically still generally better to own screen than VR, as most of the basic games are not VR compatible.
I was checking my games and there is only one actually supporting the VR. So, lets wait for next 2 years
(I ve recently got gtx1080 and some games run 140fps - IL-2 BOS, Rising Storm, CS GO +-300fps..) So it s waste of GPU on my 10yo 60mhz screen) But, yep, the Arma stays between 45-90.
I saw some videos on youtube with UHD 4k monitors and gtx 1080 running smooth stable 50-70 fps, even multiplayer.. CPUs around I-7 6700K... but who knows if it can be trusted.
The UHD big screen monitors 34"-45" are pretty interesting, just Im affraid about the FPS, but the 27" started be somehow small and it s possible see the age.
So, simply, the "bottleneck" of VR is that games usually does not support VR and that it s exhausting for eyes. On the other hand VR give you more "Live" feeling like you are there but screen is more like watching something on tv.
I have been looking for better screen solution for some time.. so the most upgrading thing looks like the UHD 34" - 45" monitors.
Posted Thu at 16:48
· Last edited Thu at 16:54
From what I snooped around the VR enthusiasts around me, it will take more years until we have enough power for reliable 80+Hz at 4K or more per eye, in "modern" PC games, so that you can replace a monitor + IR tracking with a VR headset and not get dizzy due to low FPS and resolution.
Until then, your best bet is probably a 1440p display with 144Hz or 160Hz refresh rate, optionally with G-sync/Freesync (however I keep mine off, it has its own problems). Don't get 4K for gaming just yet, a faster framerate makes for a much better experience than a higher resolution, also recently "proven" by LMG.
Make sure to read exhaustive reviews before you buy - I went with TN instead of IPS (even though I had IPS before) due to much faster response rates, less LCD panel faults and much less backlight bleed, .. and also it was half the price and, when color-calibrated, was reviewed to be pretty close to an 8-bit IPS.
Playing Doom (2016) at 1440p @ 150+ FPS, it is a hell of difference compared to 60FPS like you wouldn't believe. It is also noticable in games like Starcraft 2.
I was considering the higher refresh rate and would go for it.. but.. the thing is I have feeling like bigger monitor would be greate too.
140 would probably look smoother but monitors above 32" with above 75hz or more will be pricey and rare.
In gaming, it is bothering to get shot by somebody who is not on the screen (or just can aim smoothly with 140hz) just to show up in the moment Ive got the bullet. Was wondering for some time why it is so (if ping was not responsible in those cases)
Lets say the choice is between:
32" screen, 1440, 140hz, 5ms or 1ms response time or 43", UHD, 60 hz, 5 or 12ms
(32" and 43" almost the same price)
(input lags are unknown)
It s 32" quick or 43" big.
I believe it is needed consider the games itself too, as some are more laggy and some smoother.. and yeah I sometimes play cs:go but im not going to be esport pro (even if I would want ).
Posted Fri at 16:59
· Last edited Fri at 17:01
I have 27" and with 1440p at 40-60cm distance, it's plenty enough. Since I have it on a custom monitor arm, I sometimes bring it closer and even then, the resolution is still sufficient. So unless you want the screen very far away, 32" is plenty enough. If you go bigger, then 4K just makes no sense. And 60+Hz isn't all about competitive play, it's IMHO worth it just for the experience and there are many older, but still popular games that you could easily push at 140+Hz (Skyrim, CS:GO, basically anything non-Arma).
I own have 2 x 28'' 4K monitors and I agree with what Freghar said. Do not buy them for gaming. They are fantastic for work. I absolutely love them but powering them to play a game is very expensive. I own a GTX 1070 and can run modern games at most on medium settings. Sometimes I even have to lower the render resolution.
Find a nice 1440p high refresh monitor, its better for gaming. If you do more work you can consider a 4K monitor but the gaming experience is not great (yet).
I assume if the FPS run lower than 140hz, lets say on 60fps, so it will stop have sense to have 140 right ? Or even with FPS 60 the 140mz can make it somehow better ?
(how I was never complaining about my screen, and now Im checking the minilags and smoothness, so, I can say, i see things I habitualized to ignore for long time) - (but I have to say too, that it s just gaming thing - if I watch videos on youtube there are no lags at all - so it s not the monitor itself what is the problem.)
When I do see no lags on videos (movies) in 60hz but see lags in games on 60hz even when 150FPS (or V-sync on 60FPS) so what is the problem ? Is it really the 60hz frequency problem or is it simply the game what is actually lagging ?? Sync problems ?
So, If I see no lags in 60hz video but in games yes, how the 140Hz will be better ? Will just not the game be lagging how is lagging now ? Or videos and games are not match for comparison ?
Posted Sat at 14:25
· Last edited Sat at 15:17