iRacing

I don't have any issues with the variable weather, it's like real life. Most series run free practise in the morning, qualifying around lunchtime. If you're practising to that much that you're optimising setups for a specific weather and complaining when it doesn't match then you're a hotlapper not a racer. ;)

I'll run a baseline and tweak the tyre pressure, maybe the ARBs if there's a significant change in temperature.
 
I don't change my set up at all in any car.

I just drive to whatever the weather is.

My general complaint, apart from the massive difference in times relative to temperature. It's the time you get to adapt to the difference between the practice server you spent ten minutes in before the race to the one you get in the race server.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
does anyone use a triple screen setup here? Just looking for a bit of advice on panel types and sizes
Click to expand...

The perfect combo is 3 x 27" high refresh rate (144hz +) Gsync monitors at 1440p.

24" is a bit too small imo, not as immersive... but the benefit is you can get 1080p monitors due to smaller screen size. I find 27" or over requires 1440p at a minimum, 1080p on anything larger than 24" just looks like ass imo.

Iracing runs very well with the 3 x 1440p screens rendered separately btw, I had that setup with a single 980 and never ran into performance problems despite having majority of graphics settings maxed out.
 
insideline said:
The perfect combo is 3 x 27" high refresh rate (144hz +) Gsync monitors at 1440p.

24" is a bit too small imo, not as immersive... but the benefit is you can get 1080p monitors due to smaller screen size. I find 27" or over requires 1440p at a minimum, 1080p on anything larger than 24" just looks like ass imo.

Iracing runs very well with the 3 x 1440p screens rendered separately btw, I had that setup with a single 980 and never ran into performance problems despite having majority of graphics settings maxed out.
Click to expand...

And no issues driving 3 1440p monitors? Isn't that way more demanding than a 4k monitor? Only card that can run 4k half decent at the moment is a 1080ti. I have a 1440p Freesync screen as I run 390 crossfire but I'm going to be getting away from MGPU setups now as it's just ass.


And yeah, I totally agree on 1080p looking like ass on a 27" but was concerned with pairing up two more 1440p screens to my existing 1440p freesync monitor
 
I'd agree that triple 24"s is too small. Triple 1440p is just over 11m pixels, whereas 4k is 8.3m, so a 30% increase. I'd suggest a 980Ti as a minimum.

Personally I run triple 27" 1080p monitors (these in fact), and while I can't argue they're pin sharp, they certainly perform more than well enough at arms length while racing. And definitely well enough so that there's no way for me to justify spending over £1000 on new monitors (lets not got down the VR route again). Triple 1080s also means it's enough for my single 980 to handle at ~100FPS with all the important settings turned on.

*Edit*
One other thing to consider with triples is bezel size. The cheaper monitors will tend to have rather large bezels which can be distracting. The BenQ's I use only have a 0.7cm bezel, which makes it barely noticeable - especially if you can set them up to overlap slightly.

Here's an old instagram post of them so you get an idea: https://www.instagram.com/p/3CjcC2BCg0gwMGAfEwhn8oWMSRqY1rjRS8TRI0/?taken-by=thatfeckineejit
 
Last edited:
I run 3 x 24" 1080p 60hz triples with a GTX 980ti, 8GB RAM and an i5 4960K @ 4.0Ghz.

I've uploaded my settings an more or less my view from my seat.

I'd say I never drop below 60 fps at any track, even on a full grid of GT3 cars. Most of the time my card is around 85% GPU usage.

Full size in game in spoilers.




 
60hz ok for racing? I'm so used to 1440p 144hz freesync now? I was thinking of buying 3 brand new 24" 1080p 144hz Freesync screens as I'm worried buying 2 different 1440p screens to match the one I have will look odd as this monitor was £600 alone. Plus, I'll then have the mismatch in colours also. Plus triple 1080p way easier to run than triple 1440p lol. Thats like 11 million pixels where as 4k is only 8 million.

I'll be playing Project Cars 2 and Raceroom as well as iRacing, but we know iRacing is nowhere near as demanding as the more modern racing titles.
 
It's all I've ever known so I don't have a comparison.

I run without V Sync so most of the time I'm over 100 FPS. I don't notice any input lag or tearing.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
And no issues driving 3 1440p monitors? Isn't that way more demanding than a 4k monitor?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned my old 980 ran 3 1440p screens (rendered separately) just fine. There are many people running the same setup if you look at iRacings hardware forum.

Performance is not an issue.

3 x 4k screens is impossible though if you want to maintain decent FPS.

Whatever you do though, don't downgrade to 60hz !
 
insideline said:
As I mentioned my old 980 ran 3 1440p screens (rendered separately) just fine. There are many people running the same setup if you look at iRacings hardware forum.

Performance is not an issue.

3 x 4k screens is impossible though if you want to maintain decent FPS.

Whatever you do though, don't downgrade to 60hz !
Click to expand...

what do you mean rendered separately?
 
Ah, I didn't realise that you already had a single 1440p 144hz monitor. In which case you'd definitely notice the drop going to triple 1080s at 60hz. Triple 1440s are the way to go.

In iRacing you have the option to render the view with one camera, eg. 1 x 7680 * 1440. This has the benefit of better performance, but the downside is that the side monitors will be skewed as they are not being rendered at the angle you're actually viewing - unless you have all three monitors in a line, which is pretty pointless for a sim rig. It will also mean that the bezel widths won't be corrected, so there will be some odd mis-alignment on screen edges (like this).

The alternative is to render each screen separately with three cameras. ie 3 x 2560 * 1440. This is around 10-15% slower last time I checked, but has the benefit of making the side panels align correctly, and not skewed at all. The FPS penalty is definitely worth it. The skew effect is too jarring otherwise.
 
Nope, that's rendered as a single monitor, Raceroom doesn't do separate screen rendering. You can tell by the air vent on the right which spans the two monitors. The top edge appears to bend around on the second monitor, instead of going in a striaght line, as it would IRL.

The setup itself is awesome though :)
 
I had my first drive using the rift yesterday and it's so different to a monitor. I'm glad I picked this over the triples, definitely in the short term anyway. Yeah it's not anything like as detailed as 1440p would be in triple but my mind seems to switch off from that as soon as I look round and I'm in my 3D car!
 
No real advantage to anything over 60fps. The physics runs on a fixed 16.6ms cycle, which co-incidentally is equivalent to ... 60Hz.

I'm running a similar setup to Barmy but with an R9 390 and mix and match monitors. 24" 1920x1200 in the centre, two 19" 4:3 at the side (they were free - and are close enough for it not to distract). Occasionally dips to 55fps with 60 cars in front of me, but otherwise it's usually a rock solid 60+.
 
MagicBoy said:
No real advantage to anything over 60fps. The physics runs on a fixed 16.6ms cycle, which co-incidentally is equivalent to ... 60Hz.
Click to expand...

The difference between iracing at 60hz and 144hz is night and day to most people... as is the difference between 60fps and 144fps.

Your argument about there being no real advantage to anything over 60fps has also been debunked literally hundreds of times on the iRacing forums, even by the devs themselves.
 
I'm just stating facts. It may well draw more frames, but the calculations between them haven't changed. Go argue with David Tucker on the forum if you know the software he develops better than him!
 
MagicBoy said:
I'm just stating facts. It may well draw more frames, but the calculations between them haven't changed. Go argue with David Tucker on the forum if you know the software he develops better than him!
Click to expand...

You said there is no advantage to having above 60fps, this is absolute nonsense. The game is significantly smoother at higher frame rates even on a 60hz monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom