there have been some threads on problems with 4K monitors and scaling in windows.
My question takes a different approach so I decided to start a new thread.
It's more of a lengthy blog post than a forum question, but bear with me, I've tried to tackle the issue as completely as possible. I had prepared it for myself, so took a bit of extra effort as I guess this is relevant to a lot of you.
I'm currently working on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and I really miss more desktop real estate. So I've decided to buy a bigger monitor. There are many choices to be made:
1. ratio: 16:9 / 16:10 / 21:9
2. resolution: WQHD 2560x1440 (16:9) / WQXGA 2560x1600 (16:10) / 3360x1440 (21:9) / UHD ('4K') 3840x2160 (16:9)
3. size: 27" / 30" / 32" / 34" / 39.5" / 43"
All possible combinations yield different viewport sizes and pixel densities as you can see in the included spreadsheet (.ods & .xls in the zip).
The spreadsheet is very basic, but you can adapt it to your own workspace to see what it would look like on other screens.
What is important to me:
1. DPI - windows at 100% to avoid scaling issues - ideally around 100dpi. That reduces choices to the following available monitors:
2560x1440 @ 32" - 92dpi
2560x1600 @ 30" - 101dpi
3360x1440 @ 34" - 108dpi
3840x2160 @ 39,5" - 112dpi
3840x2160 @ 43" - 102dpi
2. viewport size/ratio/resolution - I have a lot of toolbars & pallettes open. The size, ratio & resolution of the viewport depends on the screen resolution and on the workspace layout.
If you have your tool info box at the top of the screen, it makes no sense to buy a 21:9 because you will have a long and narrow viewport. If, like me, you prefer to have columns on the left and right of the screen and maximise the height of the viewport, it makes more sense.
I made the spreadsheet to see if a 21:9 monitor made sense with an appropriate workspace. I measured the toolbars on my 24" screen, calculated the pixels width and translated that to different screen sizes and resolutions.
I've tried different workspace, you can see printscreens in the tabs 2-5 in the spreadsheets.
All 3 parameters have a different effect and importance to me:
*viewport size: the bigger, the more 'immersion', the more you are engaged with the architecture on screen (close all you toolbars so your viewport is fullscreen to see what I mean, huge difference in experience)
*viewport resolution: I use a lot of printscreens for communication, or paste 3D documents at viewport resolution in layouts. So upping the resolution from 1MP to 3 or 6MP will greatly increase the quality of my 'base material'. This is important with the windows rendering of linework. 1MP gives you staircase low quality lines...
AC also renders at 100% resolution in the viewport. At the current resolution you cannot see the complete image which is annoying.
*viewport ratio: that's a difficult one. I mostly work on A3 landscape layouts, so for layouting a viewport ratio of 5:7 is ideal.
For modelling and 'taking 3D pictures' it all depends on the project. For longer, more horizontal buildings, a wider viewport is a bliss. For small and high constructions - not so ideal...
In architectural photography, I shoot a lot of wide-angle portrait shots in order to fit the complete building. In that sense the viewport should not be too wide. I guess just like photo formats (4:3, 3:2, 16:9, portrait, landscape) it's a matter of personal preference and of the subject.
I shoot pictures in 4:3, so that might be a good ideal viewport ratio as well.
But if the screen is high enough and has enough resolution you could work with a wider viewport and use cropping.
With my current workspace, a 2560x1440 @ 32" or 2560x1600 @ 30" will already be a huge upgrade. The viewport will be the size of my current 24" screen and will have double resolution.
Plenty of choice, although the 2560x1600 choice is more limited and more expensive. I've always liked 16:10 (golden ratio:) more than 16:9 though.
If I go 21:9 @ 34" I can add an extra column on the left, make my favorites column wider (double row of icons), have my navigator on the entire height of the screen and add some extra pallettes. I might expand my workflow with new tools this way. But even with the extra pallettes, the viewport is still quite horizontal. And dropping my toolbars at the top and the bottom might not be the best idea as I'm used to them now.
But adding a row of columns is also possible with larger 16:9 monitors.
Con's: not ideal for other single screen apps like photoshop and the like
Doubts: straight (seems logical for architecture) or curved (easier on the eyes, more immersion)
Surprisingly UHD @ 40-43" turns out to be quite an interesting option. The higher the resolution and size, the less impact the workspace has on the viewport ratio. For the workspaces I tried, the ratio ranges between 3:4 and 5:8. Extra advantage: double resolution (a 6MP viewport!) and a big viewport.
Risks of UHD @ 40":
* The monitor will be at the same distance as my current 24" monitor as my desk is only 80cm deep. If it's too close I might have to consider a monitor stand/arm to put it a bit further. Which is feasible @100dpi I think.
* AC performance. I have a new quad core laptop with 32GB ram and a GTX1070. I have no idea if AC will work as fluently as it does now at a much higher resolution.. I work with point clouds (although I reduce their resolution to have them under 1GB). My models are not overly big or complex though.
Should be fine I guess, but it will put higher loads on the system.
* eye fatigue? Higher resolution should be better for eye strain, but the DPI, scaling and viewing distance will remain the same, the screen will just be much bigger.
* choice: lots of glossy screens with bad colour reproduction, bland design, no tilting... Haven't found a model here with the right specs for me.
I'm leaning towards 30" 16:10, but 43" and 32" 16:9 are still open as well. Next step is to go look at screens and test with my AC workspace.
So for all of you who have made it up to here:
- What are your experiences? Anyone using an ultrawide or a very large UHD display?
- anything changed in AC21? GS promised to fix the scaling in windows in a future update, but AC33 is also a future update. AFAIK it is not solved in AC21, correct? In that case, the choice is limited to +- 100dpi screens.
- anything important that I did not cover here?
cheers, patrick
Patrick actually 
Glad to be of help! I've learned a lot reading forum posts and blogs from people who take the effort of sharing what they found out. So while I was at it.. It took a bit more time than I had intended though!
I just made up my mind and ordered a 32" 16:9 monitor - the Asus PB328Q. It scores a bit better than the BenQ with the same panel. And it has the same foot and styling of the PA249 that I have now. A photoshop mockup of the workspace helped made up my mind, that spreadsheet was not the best strategy I guess..
16:10 30" was too expensive for similar quality, the dell was double the price of the asus. The cheaper Iiyama has some issues..
16:9 UHD @ 43" is still in its infancy. PWM screens, semigloss, bad color accuracy... some compromises I was not willing to make. And I was a bit afraid of the sheer size
As you can see on the workspace mockup, it's hard to fill the borders of the screen with pallettes and toolbars. AC needs more functionality to fill up all those pixels!
The model in the mockup is the existing part of a renovation project by the way, so it's not something I designed.
Glad to be of help! I've learned a lot reading forum posts and blogs from people who take the effort of sharing what they found out. So while I was at it.. It took a bit more time than I had intended though!
I just made up my mind and ordered a 32" 16:9 monitor - the Asus PB328Q. It scores a bit better than the BenQ with the same panel. And it has the same foot and styling of the PA249 that I have now. A photoshop mockup of the workspace helped made up my mind, that spreadsheet was not the best strategy I guess..
16:10 30" was too expensive for similar quality, the dell was double the price of the asus. The cheaper Iiyama has some issues..
16:9 UHD @ 43" is still in its infancy. PWM screens, semigloss, bad color accuracy... some compromises I was not willing to make. And I was a bit afraid of the sheer size
As you can see on the workspace mockup, it's hard to fill the borders of the screen with pallettes and toolbars. AC needs more functionality to fill up all those pixels!
The model in the mockup is the existing part of a renovation project by the way, so it's not something I designed.
My impression after a day with the new screen: it rocks!
I was disappointed at first by the quality of the viewport rendering. I'm familiar with the terrible AC anti-aliasing on windows in 3D view, but it just seemed a lot worse with a bigger viewport. Although the ppi is identical, it just felt different.
I opened AC21 in demo mode (local AC21 will be released next month) and was pleased to see that viewport rendering has improved a lot. It's still far from mac territory I guess. But with a 2px line in 3D style and a dark grey instead of black line, the result looks quite slick! A single pixel line still looks bad though.
Orbiting has also improved significantly. The lines stay on while orbiting and it all feels a lot smoother.
So with AC21, a 2560x1440 32" or 2560x1600 30" screen is highly recommended!
I was disappointed at first by the quality of the viewport rendering. I'm familiar with the terrible AC anti-aliasing on windows in 3D view, but it just seemed a lot worse with a bigger viewport. Although the ppi is identical, it just felt different.
I opened AC21 in demo mode (local AC21 will be released next month) and was pleased to see that viewport rendering has improved a lot. It's still far from mac territory I guess. But with a 2px line in 3D style and a dark grey instead of black line, the result looks quite slick! A single pixel line still looks bad though.
Orbiting has also improved significantly. The lines stay on while orbiting and it all feels a lot smoother.
So with AC21, a 2560x1440 32" or 2560x1600 30" screen is highly recommended!
![](</s><LINK_TEXT text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_r ... dards8.svg">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#/media/File:Vector_Video_Standards8.svg</LINK_TEXT><e>){kind=link}
Still looking?
