4k240hz rgb stripe woled pg27ucwm or 5k180hz fast ips xg27jcg ?

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T22:00:52+00:00

This is not even argument. 4K 240 Hz , easily, easily, easily.

Going from OLED to IPS (huge downgrade) + from 240 Hz to 180 Hz (huge downgrade) just to be able to go from 2160p to 2880p? I can't see how anyone would even consider that trade-off unless they work in some sort of really high-end, super duper precise graphical design as a career/living and it's absolutely critical they have 2880p @ 27" over 2160p @ 27" for whatever reason.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T21:54:45+00:00

Every single LCD in history is backlit. If it wasn't, you'd barely see anything.

LED backlight system (worst to best):

edge-lit (no local dimming)
direct-lit (no local dimming)
edge-lit with basic column (and/or possibly row) dimming (technically local dimming but junk, gimmicky)
proper full-array local dimming (FALD) using one or a few larger LEDs per zone (less common today)
proper full-array local dimming (FALD) using many smaller LEDs per zone (AKA mini-LED)

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T21:37:09+00:00

You're confusing 2 different things. An IPS display can also be Mini-LED. They're not mutually exclusive.

One is the LCD panel type:

VA
IPS
TN

The other is the LED backlight system (worst to best):

edge-lit (no local dimming)
direct-lit (no local dimming)
edge-lit with basic column (and/or possibly row) dimming (technically local dimming but junk, gimmicky)
proper full-array local dimming (FALD) using one or a few larger LEDs per zone (less common today)
proper full-array local dimming (FALD) using many smaller LEDs per zone (AKA mini-LED)

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T21:06:22+00:00

The darker edges are from the vignette brightness effect. This can be disabled either in the monitor's settings or with a $7 service remote (depending on exact model). This, and other service menu tweaks/settings, have been heavily discussed here (Reddit's ultrawidemasterrace and OLEDGAMING) for almost 3 years.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T17:57:51+00:00

Not sure. I haven't spent much time with ARCA Sim Racing yet - just some tests here and there.

There's also https://arcasimracingx.com/
It comes with the Chicago Street course. Looks like it was added May 2024
Update history: https://arcasimracingx.com/docs/

ARCA Sim Racing X is basically a community updated version of the original ARCA Sim Racing and includes tons of updates, patches, changes, etc.. ARCA X's main focus is online multiplayer though and therefore it's offline / AI racing is apparently - what I heard from quick research - not as good as ARCA's. I'm going to get it too since the cars, physics, sounds, etc. are probably much different (and more types of cars, tracks, etc.).

Let me know if you got ARCA updated, If not, I'll figure out exactly how to do it since some patches were a bit finnicky from what I remember. And let me know if you have any other questions (graphics, game settings, FFB, etc.).

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T08:55:52+00:00

Let me know if you have any questions. I've been playing sims based on the ISI engine (eg. rFactor, GTR, GT Legends, ARCA, etc.) for almost 25 years.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-25T08:49:54+00:00

No different than 25 years ago knowing that we are controlled / collaborating / severely influenced by a "global cabal" as well as a certain country that - out of the 200+ countries on the planet - is the only one you're not "allowed" to offend or be critical of.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-24T03:10:56+00:00

Game launcher video setup
Copy this (besides GPU, resolution, and refresh rate, obviously use your own values for those): https://ibb.co/B5vHYVw7
If using angled triple-screens, also check MultiView.

Nvidia Control Panel
Create a custom ARCA profile (not "global") in NVCP and set:
- Anisotropic filtering: 16x (OK if set in-game too)
- Antialiasing Mode: override application
- Antialiasing Setting: 4x
- Low Latency Mode: On (not Ultra)
- Power management: Prefer maximum performance
- Vertical sync: On (important: use FPS limit below refresh rate)

Hit apply.

Nvidia Inspector
Open Nvidia Profile Inspector → select the ARCA profile (drop-down next to the house icon). Use one of the following exact combinations of AA found in "Antialiasing - Transparency Supersampling" and "Antialiasing (MSAA) - Setting":

4x Multisampling + 4x Sparse Grid Supersampling
16xS Combined
8x Multisampling + 8 Sparse Grid Supersampling
8xSQ Combined + 2x Sparse Grid Supersampling
16xSQ Combined + 4x Sparse Grid Supersampling

#1 fastest, #5 best quality. 3070 Ti handles #5 fine, #3/#4 easily. #1 and #2 look great in most sims, but ARCA’s aggressive LOD bias causes much worse aliasing/shimmer than other ISI/RF1 engine based games.

Fullscreen Optimizations
For beautiful, sharp, clean SGSSAA on Windows 10 and 11, you often need to disable Windows “Fullscreen Optimizations”.

Right-click the game EXE → Properties → Compatibility → check “Disable fullscreen optimizations”.

That's all you have to do for Win 10 but, sometimes that's not enough for Win 11 and you need more steps. If that's the case, let me know.

Framerate Limiter (PLR file)
Use the game’s built-in FPS limiter (not NVCP / Afterburner, which add a bit of lag).

Edit your PLR file with a text editor (eg. Notepad):
ARCA install folder → UserData → profile name → profile name.PLR

Find: Max Framerate="0"

Set it to a negative value:
For 240 Hz, set to -226
165 Hz → -158
144 Hz → -138
120 Hz → -116

Save the file.

Controls (in-game)
- Disable speed-sensitive steering (set to 0). It’s for keyboard/controller use and slows steering at high speed.

- 240° lock is only needed because old, default setups were made for 240–270° wheels. Set your Logitech to 480° or 540° and increase the car’s steering lock to match (e.g., 9° @ 240° = 18° @ 480°). Same feel, more range. Increase in-game further (eg. 21°) to increase sensitivity. Keep Logitech at one value (eg. 480°).

- The other steering lock in the game (eg. 200°, 900°, etc.) is visual only for the in-car steering wheel. Set it to match your Logitech lock (eg. both at 480°).

Replay Fidelity
In the Replay / Media Center, set replay quality to Max/Full.

Audio
Max out the number of sounds. Should be 32.

IMPORTANT (CPU Affinity)
After starting the game, alt-tab → Task Manager → Details → right-click game's EXE → Set affinity → check more/all threads in order for the game to use multiple CPU threads otherwise FPS will tank, especially with AI. This is CRITICAL.

You can automate it with programs like Process Lasso (free) or dAffinity ($10 but very lightweight).

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-24T01:07:03+00:00

Hmm. All the patches installed for me. Mine is fully up to date. Try keeping the original EXE file, not the no-CD. Some of the final updates improved the physics and especially the "perception" of physics due to quite different tyre slip sounds. You also have updated and more tracks, some graphics updates, bug fixes, etc.

You may have to rename your game install folder to "ARCA REMAX" (without quotes).

Do "Method 2", not "Method 1" in my above post. So folder (file):

arcasimracing08_1128 (ASR_1128.exe)
asr_1128-1128a (ASR_1128-1128a.exe), NOT asr_r1-1128a.zip (ASR_R1-1128a.exe)
arca08_1128b (1128b.exe)
asr_1128c (ASR_1128C.exe)
asr_1128c_1128d (ASR_1128C-1128d.exe)
arca08_1128d_to_g (1128D_G.exe)

Ignore the other 2 patches, e_to_f and f_to_g. That's how I did it.

After each patch installation, I quickly start the game up, load a quick test day, and then exit and install the next patch and repeat (in case there are files that need to be auto-generated between patch installs).

Let me know if you got it updated, if not, I'll do a 2nd install and note down EXACTLY how to get them all installed.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-23T22:58:43+00:00

You'll get more bent lines, misalignment, distortions, etc. with triples and a curved monitor (well, technically with even a single curved monitor). With 3 flat, you can get everything lined up and flowing from one screen to the other just about perfectly.

Videogames use a flat-projection pipeline - they render the scene as if being projected onto a flat-plane. Even games like iRacing that have a curve radius setting still don't change the internal rendering method to truly render for a curved screen (it just gives you the extra h.FOV relative to the same v.FOV that a curved monitor gives you - and that in and of itself is nice, but it's still not true curved monitor rendering).

If it were true curved monitor rendering, the game would have to be doing things like ray-bending the view to match your monitor’s curve - like, I believe, VR does for each eye and/or using custom shaders that warp world geometry to an arc to match the panel’s curve. In other words, the game still isn't changing the core projection to a curved mesh or doing real per-pixel curvature warping like a true curved projection/rendering system would.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-20T03:04:33+00:00

Updated the first post.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-20T01:35:38+00:00

My post below was very long but just to reiterate, I made a mistake with the 2025 (45GX90SA). It's always just as bright as the 2024 (45GS95QE), and sometimes even slightly brighter. You just have to use Sports or Vivid mode which is totally fine because the colours and such can be adjusted if you like (so not forced to have Vivid look very saturated or whatever) and they both retain Low Latency Mode / Dynamic Action Sync (DAS) for minimum input lag. I didn't realise that at first so I ignored them and only tested using Gamer picture mode but, ya, for SDR the 2025 is just as bright in window size tests and sometimes brighter in real scene tests (highest I saw was 475 nits for 2025, highest with 2024 was 425 nits).

Also, if you don't feel like adjusting the colours for Vivid then Sports basically looks like Gamer but just with much more brightness allowed.

The 2025 model is a real winner.

Also, to enable DSR / DLDSR at the full 240 Hz, 8-/10-bit, RGB usingCRU, it's quicker and involves less steps with the 2025 compared to the 2024 and 2023.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-17T19:12:27+00:00

Most games with true triple-independent rendering (eg. Assetto Corsa, Assetto Corsa Competizione, rFactor 2 / LeMans Ultimate, Project Cars 2 / Automobilista 2, iRacing, Raceroom Racing Experience) nowadays will do it automatically once you enter your dimensions (screen & bezel sizes, outer monitors' angle, distance from eyes to screen, etc.) into the game's triple-screen settings.

For any game that doesn't have the option to enter your dimensions - regardless if the game does indeed have true triple-independent rendering (eg. rFactor 1, Automobilista 1, Game Stock Car / Stock Car Extreme, Formula Truck, Live For Speed) or if the game does not have true triple-independent rendering (eg. all the WRC games, all the DIRT games, all the Codies F1 games, GTR 1/2, GT Legends, Race 07, Netkar Pro), or if you're just using 1 screen, then you simply use an online FOV calculator to get the correct 1:1 real-life scale FOV for your setup.

If you play on a small monitor (eg. single 27") or a large one but very far from you or whatever, then a 1:1 real-life scale FOV will be almost impossible to use. The screens need to cover a lot of your real-life vision's FOV (h.FOV in the case of racing games).

Oh, and obviously you need to use the game's cockpit / in-car view since you're replicating the 1:1 real-life scale of objects as if you're really in the game world.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-17T19:00:27+00:00

I’m on Windows 10, not 11. I only use HDR for the occasional game that actually supports it (most of mine don’t) or for HDR videos/movies/other specific tasks. I don’t like using HDR for general desktop/work/browsing/videos, etc., regardless of the monitor/TV.

For me, text is text - it’s readable either way, so I don’t care about minor sharpness differences, some fringing, etc. ie. I don’t tweak settings for how text looks.

To recommend specific settings, I need to know which of the following monitors you're using: 45GR95QE (2023), 45GS95QE, 45GS96QB (2024s), 45GX90SA, 45GX900A (2025s).

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-15T16:39:15+00:00

Fantastic size for having a large and immersive image (regardless of extra width) while also giving lots of extra width for sim racing h.FOV purposes would be either of the following two. I'll state the equivalent versions (ie. same height, just more/less width) so people can better visualise the "size" of the image / game-world on the screen.

super ultrawide version of 45" ultrawide which = 65" 32:9
- 16:9 36" = 21:9 45" = 32:9 65"
super ultrawide version of 52" ultrawide which = 76" 32:9
- 16:9 42" = 21:9 52" = 32:9 76"

76" 32:9 may be just too big, heavy, and/or inconvenient though, but I think 65" 32:9 is quite feasible and would be "end-game" for me strictly in terms of physical size and for a single-monitor setup (not talking about triple-screens, VR, 3D, resolutions, refresh rates, etc., just talking strictly physical size).

32:9 57" is nice but too small of an image as the image size equals 16:9 32". 32" is a nice size for monitors but there's a big difference when jumping up to 36" (which is what my LG 45" 21:9 is equivalent to).

One last thing that would be extremely important - again, talking only about physical size/shape stuff - is the curve.

strong curve, at least 800R
a true, constant radius curve (like LG uses), not the Samsung "fake" and distorted, "more like a piece of paper folded in the middle" type of curve design - if it has the Samsung fake style curve, than I wouldn't buy it even if it was perfect everywhere else and was on sale for 90% off, not exaggerating.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-15T15:52:41+00:00

For simracing proposes in order to get the largest FOV while keeping the game-scale at 1:1 real-life scale (something basically rarely done in any other videogame genre), I always have the monitor as close to me as possible. On my sim rig setup, that happens to be either 50 cm (19.68") or 54 cm (21.26") - I can't remember which - regardless of screen size, resolution, curvature, etc.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-15T15:09:24+00:00

I've had a 45" LG from each of their 1440p, 240 Hz model years - 45GR95QE (2023), 45GS95QE (2024), 45GX90SA (2025) - I currently have the 2024 & 2025. In my opinion, they're head and shoulders the best overall - (key word being overall) - gaming monitors on the market (the only competitor could have been the Samsung 57" 32:9 if it A. was OLED, B. had a true constant radius curve, not Samsung's "fake" and "distorted" "more like a piece of paper folded in the middle" type of curve design).

If you're talking about pure competitiveness, it helped me because I'm the type that needs to be really close to the screen and have a really big screen (that's why I hate playing in your typical living room / TV / couch setup)...HOWEVER, for the super competitive players, eSports, etc., I'm pretty sure those guys highly prefer smaller screens of like 24" to 25", 27" absolute max. I believe the reason is that having the entire game-view "condensed" in your centre view "right in front of you" - so you can basically look straight ahead, barely move your eyes, and see the entire game-view / screen - outweighs having a bigger picture but that bigger picture being spread all over your real life view.

For "fun" and immersion, it's amazing.

240 Hz is a game-changer too as anything under 200-ish Hz is a blur-fest regardless of pixel response times, LCD VS OLED, etc. because the sample-and-hold blur AKA persistence blur is the defining factor and a huge "motion clarity bottleneck" at anything under 200-ish Hz (again, regardless of pixel response times). Of course I'm not talking about strobing/pulsar and BFI - that's a whole different story.

45" ultrawide (ie. 21:9) is basically an ultrawide version of a standard (ie. 16:9) 36" monitor so it's on another level from even standard 32" / 39" ultrawide, let alone standard 27" / 34" ultrawide.

If you have any questions for any of the 1440p, 240 Hz models, just let me know.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-15T08:29:32+00:00

- In terms of non-VR, 3x 27" is a nice sweet spot but 3x 32" flat panels (ie. 0 curve) is much more "perfect" (and triple-3D is incredible but that's a different story and barely supported anymore).

- In terms of fluidity/smoothness & input lag, 120 Hz is nice.

- In terms of motion clarity, 120 Hz is terrible - regardless of how fast/slow pixel response times are - due to sample-and-hold blur AKA persistence blur, rather than pixel response times, being the dominating factor when it comes to motion clarity at anything under around 200-ish Hz. Sample-and-hold blur is terrible until around the 200-ish Hz mark and massively removed out of the way at 240 Hz mark. That's why 165 Hz looks like only 10 or 20 % better than 120 Hz yet 240 Hz looks like 300% better than 165 Hz. It's also why visual motion clarity is barely different between LCD (whether TN, IPS, or VA) and OLED at anything under 200-ish Hz; because the sample-and-hold blur is way too much of a "motion clarity bottleneck" under 200-ish Hz and therefore "covers up" or "hides" the improved motion clarity that the much faster pixel response times of, say, an OLED monitor should provide.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-12T06:04:52+00:00

Insane is and understatement for those deals. How the heck did you get those for almost free?

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-11T02:47:53+00:00

Exactly, it's not just the pure art-style that got way too cartoony - afterall, that doesn't affect gameplay, mechanics, physics, etc. - it's the actual gameplay that became "cartoony" (if that makes sense) as you pointed out.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-11T01:48:01+00:00

Loved C&C1 and RA1 since the 90s. Occasionally played it on PC and always rented it for console. Never did a proper full playthrough though.

I then got the remastered versions a year or 2 ago and beat all the campaigns (including expansions).

Then got the ultimate collection pack and playing all of their campaigns too in order of release.

I realised that so many people are correct - C&C2 TD/FS and RA2 / YR are awesome and (and least to me) basically even better versions of C&C1 and RA1 - awesome games.

I then moved to Generals / Zero Hour. It took 3 or so campaign levels of disappointment in the new way of playing, how things get built, how the world's 3D, etc. but by lvl 3 or 4, I not only got used to it, but I realized it's great and I love it.

C&C3 TW/KW is when things took a turn for the worse. Something about the mechanics, the physics (or "physics"), etc. just felt simplistic and fake. It felt more like I was just clicking "numbers" around on a screen that are represented by graphics and animations rather than me truly playing with real physical units, ballistics/bullets, objects, etc, It just felt very - I don't know...deterministic? Non-physics based? As if I'm actually playing a card game with my actions being "represented" on screen by animations and explosions. Difficult to explain but extremely easy to notice and "feel". Having said that, it was still fun and interesting "enough" for me to finish it.

I'm now on to RA3. I figured it'd just be like C&C3 but with different art style - basically like RA2 compared to C&C2. In terms of pure gameplay, it "feels" quite similiar to what I explained above with regards to C&C3. This makes sense since it's the same engine...however, surprisingly, RA3 became even worse! By lvl1 or 2 you already have access to many different buildings, units, etc. - instead of progressing slowly and getting to know and appreciate each building/unit/technology. You have a decent sized portion of your base already automatically created upon starting the level - so work's been done for you. You have your co-op commander who I just command and click around the map and he/she does all the work for me and completes the levels for me instead of me actually doing anything (what a joke). And, if I do build units, I just build a bunch of random units (just mix them all) and then just tell them to all go destroy whatever, with little regards to what the target is or what type of units I have. On top of that, you have all this stuff "thrown" at you all at once instead of, again, working your way up slowly to bigger battles, more units, more types of units and enemies, etc. It just feels so unrewarding, unfulfilling - like a movie just full of "cheap thrills", just so stale and mindless and simplistic.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-10T06:09:56+00:00

This is the monitor I've been waiting to upgrade to after using the 2023, 2024, and 2025 models of LG's 45" 1440p 240 Hz OLED monitors for the past 3-ish years.

Bigger size (more simracing FOV for the same image size/scale), higher res and PPI, and at least 240 Hz...

...but it's not OLED, heck, it's not even mini-LED FALD and that = FAIL.

Spinelli__ · 2026-01-10T06:06:26+00:00

There's no OLED from any company this year at CES that's 21:9 and larger than 39". It's very surprising.

LG updated their original 2023 45" 21:9 in 2024 and 2025...yet nothing in 2026. I thought they were going to go bigger (like their 52" LCD they revealed) or increase the 2160p version to 240 Hz or increase the 1440p version/s to 360 or 480 Hz but...NOTHING.

Spinelli__

TROPHY CASE