Trouble w 3840x2160 res on 4K TV

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Papa,

  I agree and I was happy to see this post about the display!

  Presently I use a 55" LG 120hz tv to play AH on,I was using a 24" widescreen then got a 47" 3d smart TV but I had some issues with the smart and asked the wife if she would like it for the family room.....   She asked what I was going to use and I said I would buy a cheaper unit that should be better for the comp. I neglected to tell her it would be larger,stuff she didnt need to know....

   I realize there is a huge difference in some of the 4k units,I've been able to check out a couple and while I never did a side by side,you could tell the cheaper units werent as good.

   I hope they can overcome the blurr,thats the only problem I have with my TV,and it's only seen on the icons as I move views other wise it compares well with my "normal" 24" widescreen computer monitor.  One thing of note,it would take 6 monitors like my 24 to equal the screen size of the 55,3 across and 2 high so there's no comparison as far as realestate area. 

   Ideally I'd like an 80in monitor,that would give me close to lifesize,maybe even better and I can sit back about 5 or 6 feet from the monitor so I can see it... ya I cant see inside 3 ft very well.....if at all!


   Keep us informed,I might have to send the wife on vacation......  She's not allowed in the mancave!!




   

The blur you experience is due to the slow (and probably cheap) panel used in your LG. I would never buy a TV for computer use before verifying through reviews that it's suitable for gaming. Very few TVs are. Also with TV:s you have to be extremely careful when comparing them. Two shops can have a, say, Sony flatscreen TV with matching 6 model numbers, but the last 1 or 2 numbers can mean it's internally a totally different TV even though it looks the same and has the same model branding.

[morfiend]

The blur you experience is due to the slow (and probably cheap) panel used in your LG. I would never buy a TV for computer use before verifying through reviews that it's suitable for gaming. Very few TVs are. Also with TV:s you have to be extremely careful when comparing them. Two shops can have a, say, Sony flatscreen TV with matching 6 model numbers, but the last 1 or 2 numbers can mean it's internally a totally different TV even though it looks the same and has the same model branding.

  While the LG may not be the"best" panel out there it has one of the best response times on any TV,I did my research and have been using a LG for several years!

   The only blur I see is on the text of the icons and it's only when I switch views using a hatswitch,with TIR you dont see it!

   I have it setup beside my 24 in monitor and have check delay and input lag running AH on both and I cant see any difference and even my samsung comp monitor has a slight blur,tho not as noticable when you change views. I understand most if not all LCD screen have this effect to some degree or another!


   YMMV.


   

[MrRiplEy[H]]

  While the LG may not be the"best" panel out there it has one of the best response times on any TV,I did my research and have been using a LG for several years!

   The only blur I see is on the text of the icons and it's only when I switch views using a hatswitch,with TIR you dont see it!

   I have it setup beside my 24 in monitor and have check delay and input lag running AH on both and I cant see any difference and even my samsung comp monitor has a slight blur,tho not as noticable when you change views. I understand most if not all LCD screen have this effect to some degree or another!


   YMMV.


   

Are you using a 'computer mode' on the TV or if it hasn't got one, disabled all image enhancing features? Those may cause blur and lag also.

[PapaFox]

Morfiend- Your story about the TV swap reminds me of a maneuver a pilot friend of mine did with his wife. He told her he was considering buying a P-51 Mustang. She asked how expensive. He replied "about a million dollars" (this was many years ago). She said, "Ouch". Then he said, I'm also thinking of buying a Stearman Biplane instead. She enquired about the price and he said "$100,000.". She said, "Buy the Stearman", so he did.

Mr. RIPley- You have a good point about monitor vs. TV and monitor is typically the best choice when both are reasonably priced. At the moment, there aren't reasonably priced 4K monitors in the 50" size, and so it makes sense to take a close look at the TVs. Text looks better on a monitor than on a TV, for example, but I'm happy with what I have at the moment and wouldn't trade it in. That said, most gamers won't want to consider the 4K option until graphics cards with HDMI 2.0 ports are released.

[morfiend]

Morfiend- Your story about the TV swap reminds me of a maneuver a pilot friend of mine did with his wife. He told her he was considering buying a P-51 Mustang. She asked how expensive. He replied "about a million dollars" (this was many years ago). She said, "Ouch". Then he said, I'm also thinking of buying a Stearman Biplane instead. She enquired about the price and he said "$100,000.". She said, "Buy the Stearman", so he did.

Mr. RIPley- You have a good point about monitor vs. TV and monitor is typically the best choice when both are reasonably priced. At the moment, there aren't reasonably priced 4K monitors in the 50" size, and so it makes sense to take a close look at the TVs. Text looks better on a monitor than on a TV, for example, but I'm happy with what I have at the moment and wouldn't trade it in. That said, most gamers won't want to consider the 4K option until graphics cards with HDMI 2.0 ports are released.

   


   Your friend is a smart man,always give them a choice,just be sure it's the choice you'd make....



     Rip,   Yes I run it in computer mode and have a DVI input setup,I could go HDMI but I dont use the speakers so I dont need the sound.


     As I said I have done a side by side test,granted the computers were slightly different and so were the vidcards but I could see no noticeable difference between the 2 screens. I can run the 24 at 1920x1200 and the 55 is limited to 1920x1080 but the response time is actually better on the 55. Well according to the specs it is and as I said I cant see a difference except for the size.  Maybe someone with better vision than mine may see things differently,however I have it setup for me not anyone else......


   As soon as you can get 60FPS or better out of a 4k display I will be "shopping" around and I'm afraid I'll have to send the wife to an island down south so I can sneak it into the house....   Do you think she'd notice if I change the 42" screen I have in the bedroom for the 55????



     

[terrydew]

Papafox this is a sample of what I was referring to. It says it supports 2.0 but would only do you any good if your tv was hdmi 2.0. This I think also assumes your card has the latest displayport?

http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Displayport-Adapter-Black-Supports/dp/B00COEBCXY

[BoilerDown]

A thread I found on HDMI 2.0 on the GTX 900 series: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/776251/linux/343-22-gtx-970-980-support-hdmi-2-0- .  Although nowhere in the documentation included with my 980, nor on the box, nor anywhere else official that I can find does it indicate that HDMI 2.0 is a feature of this video card, the last post in that thread from sandipt seems to indicate they think its a bug that HDMI 2.0 isn't working in the latest drivers.

[PapaFox]

So my Nvidia 970 arrived today and I slammed it into the computer and cranked up Aces High. Guess what, everything works great this time. I am using the same HDMI cable I used before but the 2.0 specs in the Nvidia 970 allows my Sony 48" 4K TV to work great in Aces High now. I have terrain distance set on max, anti-aliasing set on max (I don't need it there but I was curious) and I'm at 59-60 fps solid. I will have to fly more to check for ghosting or blur, but so far the picture strikes me as excellent. Very pleased at the moment.  

I believe Aces High or my old Nvidia 760 weren't happy with the slower 30fps refresh rate. Once the Nvidia 970 and HDMI 2.0 arrived. all was good.

The great thing about 3840x2160 res on a TV is that you can pick out the details of cons way out and better judge what they are doing.

[zack1234]

 

So a 970 is a lot better than a 680?.

[Skuzzy]

<snip>

I believe Aces High or my old Nvidia 760 weren't happy with the slower 30fps refresh rate. Once the Nvidia 970 and HDMI 2.0 arrived. all was good.
<snip>

Aces High has no idea what refresh rate is.  That is all managed by the video card and its driver.

If it is working with the new card, it simply means the old card, or its driver, had a problem.

[PapaFox]

So a 970 is a lot better than a 680?.

When you reach 3840x2160 resolution, HDMI 2.0 is the only reasonable way you want to connect your display if you want more than 30fps, and HDMI 2.0 was not available on Nvidia cards until the 900 series cards made their debute. I see a substantial difference between my Nvidia 760 and the Nvidia 970. I see no advantage with the Nvidia 980 because everything can be maxed out with the 970 at full 3840x2160 res. As always, a faster graphics card only makes things better if your CPU can deliver the necessary fps. In my case, performance was restrained by the graphics card, and a better card made an incredible difference.

Personally, I would not hesitate to use the Sony 4K 48" TV as primary monitor for flying Aces High. The greater size and greater resolution makes a noticeable difference.

Skuzzy- I offer this update and the original message as a service to others who will inevitably try using a 4K TV as monitor with Aces High. If someone cannot get Aces High to work at 3840x2160 res, even though some other flight sims work at that res, the answer is simple now: buy a graphics card that support the HDMI 2.0 standard. Hopefully, the reader was careful enough to have purchased a TV with HDMI 2.0 support as well. The Nvidia 970s are selling for a little more than $300 now, anyone who can afford a 4K TV can afford a graphics card to run it properly.

[morfiend]

When you reach 3840x2160 resolution, HDMI 2.0 is the only reasonable way you want to connect your display if you want more than 30fps, and HDMI 2.0 was not available on Nvidia cards until the 900 series cards made their debute. I see a substantial difference between my Nvidia 760 and the Nvidia 970. I see no advantage with the Nvidia 980 because everything can be maxed out with the 970 at full 3840x2160 res. As always, a faster graphics card only makes things better if your CPU can deliver the necessary fps. In my case, performance was restrained by the graphics card, and a better card made an incredible difference.

Personally, I would not hesitate to use the Sony 4K 48" TV as primary monitor for flying Aces High. The greater size and greater resolution makes a noticeable difference.

Skuzzy- I offer this update and the original message as a service to others who will inevitably try using a 4K TV as monitor with Aces High. If someone cannot get Aces High to work at 3840x2160 res, even though some other flight sims work at that res, the answer is simple now: buy a graphics card that support the HDMI 2.0 standard. Hopefully, the reader was careful enough to have purchased a TV with HDMI 2.0 support as well. The Nvidia 970s are selling for a little more than $300 now, anyone who can afford a 4K TV can afford a graphics card to run it properly.

   


  Now I have 2 things to ask Santa for.....




   

[NikonGuy]

I would just like to report that I am running a GTX760 and today plugged it into a 4k 58" TV and have the same issues as PapaFox.

Flashing white screen and AH will not run.

I too might need to look at a bigger card.

[Skuzzy]

I would just like to report that I am running a GTX760 and today plugged it into a 4k 58" TV and have the same issues as PapaFox.

Flashing white screen and AH will not run.

I too might need to look at a bigger card.

Did you connect it through the display port?  That is the only connection on an NVidia 7 series video card which can support 4K resolutions.

See if this helps: https://developer.nvidia.com/4k-ultra-high-resolution-development

[NikonGuy]

No I haven't got an adaptor yet for display port, so was running using HDMI.

Thanks Skuzzy, yes have seen that link

I did get it running at a reduced resolution of 2560 x 1600 as did PapaFox, albeit at 30Hz though .. was ok for just today
Will pop out and get a Display Port Adaptor in the morning.