Anyone play on a big screen?

[arby]

As of yesterday I'm playing on a 50" screen from 1m away, it's pretty fun but my times are way slower. Anyone else finding this? I know the obvious answer is to move back a little, but at the moment I'm not worried, I'm just having fun. Is there a theoretical optimum distance? I remember simmers talking about setting their FOV based on screen size or distance- does that actually help?
Input lag is measured as the same as my standard monitor so it's not that
I hope I've been around here long enough that this isn't considered a bragging thread

[dynt66]

WAY way better on big screen and to be honest I am way faster 2, maybe its because peepers are on there way out.

[tunaphis]

32"tv @ 5 feet.Tried 43"tv @ 5 feet but got carsick.Am trying 41.5"@ 5 feet on 4K (Di ck Smith has folded so I hope the tv will show up).Peepers also in need of tune up. FOV:1.0 (bumper)

[EXR_Jon]

I use projector on a 100" screen. Pretty neat :)

[Marius]

Oh Arby,

Dis is what you need: http://www.projectimmersion.com/

[eddskitz]

Originally posted by Rally-RacingIvysaur:

Oh Arby,

Dis is what you need: http://www.projectimmersion.com/

I was literally here to post this, lol.

[Meszes]

Been using 40" TVs from 1-1,2m distance for two years now. 1080p display was a real strain on the eyes as you could see every single pixel. Having that much of your field of view covered made me want to never go back.

Bought an UHD TV for work mainly but served me well in any game, despite not running at native resolution (lacking GPU grunt).

[arby]

yeah, i just went 4k, dirt rally is fine for me at that resolution but other games are way more demanding so at some point i'll have to work out what is best, turning down graphic options or dropping resolution and letting the screen upscale.

@ivysaur, thanks for the link- that was what i was looking for. i think my fov was pretty much fine, but it's hard to change anyway after so long stuck with one as of course it'll feel wrong.

[BadNyga]

4K 55'' here, playing on 1080p/60fps. The distance between the screen and me is roughly 2m, maybe a bit less. It's perfect - I can play for hours and I can get decent times no problem.

[Julio Sousa]

Is there any lag issues by using Led TV's as a monitor? Will they be almost as fast as the regular gaming monitors?

[arby]

every brand and model are different.
typically 4k tvs have more lag than 1080p tvs which in turn have more lag than a real monitor, however, there are now quite a few large 4K tvs with input lag less than 30ms which most people would think was fine.
Samsung are generally the best for it in 2015 (and Sony in 2014)

[Meszes]

Originally posted by Julio Sousa:

Is there any lag issues by using Led TV's as a monitor? Will they be almost as fast as the regular gaming monitors?

Input lag was one of the major factors I considered before purchasing my TVs. The 1080p (2011 model) had 16ms, the current 2160p (2014 model) has 40ms input lag. Both Samsung and set to PC mode.

40ms is noticeable in fps games and can't deny that it needed some time to get used to. For games like CS:GO an UHD TV is a no GO (pun intended). For everything else it's absolutely fine, even in 3rd person shooters or action games. In racers, like DiRT Rally I'd say it's impossible to tell the difference.

Here's a great site that lists input lags:
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/

When purchasing an UHD TV make sure that it supports 2160p @60Hz and 4:4:4 chroma subsampling. Also note that currently out of all the graphics cards available only the Nvidia GTX 900 series support HDMI 2.0, that is required for such TVs.

[BadNyga]

But they say that the new AMD Polaris cards that will see the daylight in the second half of 2016 are supposed to support HDMI 2.0 [very important, because without that port in your card you can't get 60fps on your TV in resolutions higher than 1080p].

Good news for people like myself stuck with a 4K screen and an older AMD card . The new cards are supposed to be very powerfull and have a reduced energy usage.

[arby]

Originally posted by r3pr3z3nt:

But they say that the new AMD Polaris cards that will see the daylight in the second half of 2016 are supposed to support HDMI 2.0 [very important, because without that port in your card you can't get 60fps on your TV in resolutions higher than 1080p].

Good news for people like myself stuck with a 4K screen and an older AMD card . The new cards are supposed to be very powerfull and have a reduced energy usage. [/quote]

So only 18-24 months behind nvidia?
I don't know what you're referring to about how nvidia treat the market, but if they're that far ahead of the competition then maybe they deserve to.... :P

Would a simple displayport to hdmi adapter work to get 4k@60hz though as DP on these cards does that resolution?

edit: the amd/nvidia comment is just meant to be fun- i never bought into the war, i switch almost every time between the two depending on which has the product that meets my needs best.

[eddskitz]

Nvidia all day...

[Marius]

AMD!