Had in my mind to go for the beautiful 1920x1080 Samsung syncmaster after posting; http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3316368/4.html but reading all the comments here about 1920x1200 I'm confused now.
Still wanting to know what type of screen would be the best for flying Rise of Flight flysim.
The Samsung 27" syncmaster
http://www.samsung.com/nl/consumer/pc-pe...b=specification
Or the Hanns.g
http://www.hannsg.com/EU/EN/Products/LCD%20Monitors/Common.aspx?categoryID=347
both Hanns.g 27.5" monitors seems to be same in performance btw.

I'm using a head tracking device so I guess to look around a 16:9 Samsung would be a better choice here.
On my work I have a 22" Dell 16:9 screen which suits me well and right know a 19" square at home.

Since both are the same horizontally (1920), i'd go for the one that has more vertical pixels (1200). More pixels is always better imo as long as vidcard can support it.

The HannsG is a terrible choice. I have seen it in person and avoid lowquality hardware like that.

1920x1080 is a newer format than 16:10 and 16:9 is to prefer as it is being standard. The problem is that some people recommend what they use them selves instead of looking at the facts.

Just as an example you often run into problems using 16:10 monitors while gaming because games today are programmed for 16:9. Many games does not support 16:10 and even if it does support 16:10 you will get a cropped picture.

In Rise Of Flight you will get a cropped picture using a 16:10 monitor so a 16:9 monitor is the obvious choice for you.

16:10


16:9

Thanks, I think also that using a head-tracking system the 1920x1080 is the way to go because the angle of horizontal view is wider, or do I have this wrong.

16:9 is the digital standard.

For gaming (Or mostly gaming) 16:9 is the way to go. For a bit of gaming but a lot of forum browing, document editing and so on 16:10 is the way to go.

1920x1080 can die in a fire for all I care. If it's a monitor of that res that can't fit a 1600x1200 image, it doesn't belong in the PC monitor market.

Go 16:10. You can still run 1920x1080 letterboxed on a 1920x1200 monitor, but you can't do the reverse!

Avoid hansg.

We have both 1080 and 1200 in the house. I use 1200 H-IPS screen (my center monitor) and my wife uses 1080 cPVA screen. Once I'm using one or the other for a few minutes, it seems right. We have 10 monitors in the house -- Samsung, Dell, HP. We've had ASUS LED and ACER cheap gaming monitors -- which we gave away.

The extra pixels of the 1200 come in handy for non-gaming applications (as others have mentioned).

Also, the bigger the monitor and the closer one sits, the higher the resolution needs to be. Our 27" 1080 monitor looks great for size. But, the pixels tend to be visible up close -- its better at a distance which is how we use it. Overall, I like it though -- 27" beats 24" for gaming. Still, if exceeding 24", one might want to go 1200 -- a matter of personal taste.

Mainly, get a good quality monitor. We DO see the difference between our normal-quality monitors and our higher end monitors -- in color mostly -- but also in black level and off-axis viewing.

Most monitors come with poorly adjusted colors. One can download free test charts one can use to "eyeball" the colors into better adjustment.

For what its worth. Just personal taste in monitors. Each person sees things differently.

Nothing wrong on Hanns.g read your self
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=654&Itemid=68
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/1579/21/...roter-conclusie
Last link is in Dutch btw.

But would that 1920x1200 bring me some benefit for RoF. Still think when using Head-tracking, like Face-track or Track-IR the 1920x1080 is the better choice, because of the wider horizontal view.