Does a better monitor improve the flightsim experience

[jfri 42]

I now have a 17" Belinea monitor bought 5 years ago. I wonder if I would get a 19" monitor how much would that enhance my flightsim?I now use 1024*768 32 and 85 Hz. With a 19" I read that 1280*1024 is the recommended resolution and they often have a update frequence around 100 Hz. How much does this make?Also if I run FS9 at 1280*1024 instead of 1024*768 how much will I lose in performence?I think Fs2002 was designed with an optimal resolution of 1024*768.What is the case with FS9?

[siggy 154]

When I switched from a 17" monitor to a 21" monitor, the feeling of immersion increased a lot. Initially I ran at 1280x1024, but as far as I remember, the graphics were a bit distorted since 1280:1024 is 5:4 and 1024:768 is 4:3 and your monitor is also 4:3. It may be better to use 1280x960 which is 4:3 like your monitor.85 Hz is normally enough. If you go to higher resolutions you may not be able to run at 100 Hz. Running at higher than necessary vertical refresh rates only increases energy consumption and can potentially reduce life time as it is more stress for the monitor's electronics.Currently I run FS2004 at 1600x1200 with 85Hz. It saves me, I think, a bit from using Antialiasing, which would impact frame rates slightly. I must admit I did not do any measurements reagrding frames rates between the resolution I run it at and lower ones.Regards,Siggy

[Guest heinzwerner]

Hi,both Simulators a not designed for an optimal Resolution. Only the Instrumentpanels in the 2D-View are Pixelimages, that show best at a specific Resolution (otherwithe theyre rescaled to the real Screenresolution). In FS9 i can use all Panel-Functions in the 3D-virtual Cockpit. So for me (and many other FS9-Users) there is no need left, to use the (older) 2D-Panels. The Rest (3D-Scenerys and Cocpits) will only win quality, if the Screen-Resolution will be expanded. Everytime (in every Screenresolution) the Simulator only tells the Videocard, wich Objects and Textures should be diasplayed. This only depends on the complexity of the used Sceney, Textures and Aircrafts, but NOT by the Screenresolution. In this point the only Brakes for your Simulator are maybe your CPU, your RAM and/or the performance of your Harddisk.The real Job for Displaying must be done by the Videocard. And THIS Job depends massive on Screenresolution and also on all image Quality Settings (Antialaising, Reflections, Filters, Ammonunt of used Lightsources, Size of used Textures, Directx-9 support).So the most important Question maybe: Has my Computersystem a good balance of CPU-Power, Ram, Diskspeed, Videoperformance and used Resolution to generate a powerful Simulatorworld.After this the second important Question maybe: Has my Videocard enough performance for a real powerfull Simulation Display in the Screenresolution, you want ?After this the third important Question maybe: Do i see this brilliant 3D-World on an optimal 2D-Screen, that support my wanted Screensize and Screenresolution ?To answer the second Question, start yor Simulator, climb in the air, switch off your Instrumentpanel and put your Head simple for 1 Minute nearer to you Monitor. The effect is surely not very impressive (unsharp and unconfortable to sit). Trust me, to view the Flightsimulator in a higher Resolution with a massive higher Framrate on another PC with an (maybe poorer Monitor) is anyhow very impressive. The Monitor helps much more for your health, than for your 3D-Feeling.I changed from a 17" CRT-Monitor (1024*768) to an 18,1" Flatscreen with constant 1280* 1024 Pixel (all Flatscreens display this Resolution correct in 5:4, because theyre higher than CRTs) and a new (better) Videocard.The positive Results:- 40% More Pixels = 40% more Scenery-Details, you can view- A new "Big Fat" Screen - Feeling (The visibile screenarea compares to an 20,1" CRT-Monitor) without haveing a big fat and heavy Monitor.- 1A brilliant sharp and absolute Flat Image (Massive Enhance of the "beeing in Simulator" Feeling)- No Refresh-Flickering from a CRT-Monitor (only from your possible Simulator Framerate)- Never again rounded Screencorners and big Monitor-Frames- Minimal Reflections on Screen, because its flat and not arched- More Workspace on my "real" Desktop for Keyboard, Joystick, Mouse, Maps eg.- My Eyes need no Glasses to read small Cockpit- Instruments or far and small Scenery-Objects- My eyes will resist longer the glasses, i have to expect in the following 10..20 Years- No Xrays from a CRT and much less Dust (<5%) on the Screen, cause the electromanetic CRT-effect is missing (I miss nothing!).- Never again Stress for my spinal column, when i have to carry my Flatscreen- Reduced current consumption (25 Dollary/Year = 75 Dollars in an Monitor Lifecycle)The negative Results:- The Framerate Reduces to 60% (So i also bought a new Videocard)- You have to buy a Flatscreen with less than 18ms Reaction-Time for Pixel-Changing (equals to Refresh- Rate for CRT-Displays) and this is expensive (more than 500 Dollar)Under the Line:If you also have to change your Videocard (my new Card is Radeon 9600 Pro) and you can Spend 700..750 Dollars for your Computer-Hobby, than it

[jfri 42]

>>(in every Screenresolution) the Simulator only tells the>Videocard, wich Objects and Textures should be diasplayed.>This only depends on the complexity of the used Sceney,>Textures and Aircrafts, but NOT by the Screenresolution. InBut I higher resolution means more pixels and therefore more bits to process.>So the most important Question maybe:> Has my Computersystem a good balance of CPU-Power, > Ram, Diskspeed, Videoperformance and used > Resolution to generate a powerful Simulatorworld.>I have Athlon XP 1800+ Asus V8170 64 M DDR GeForce4 MMX graphics cardand 512 M DDR 333MHz of RAM and a Belinea 17" CRT monitor.>After this the second important Question maybe:> Has my Videocard enough performance for a real > powerfull Simulation Display in the > Screenresolution, you want ?>Maybe I should first replace my graphics card.>I changed from a 17" CRT-Monitor (1024*768) to an 18,1">Flatscreen with constant 1280* 1024 Pixel (all Flatscreens>- A new "Big Fat" Screen - Feeling (The visibile > screenarea compares to an 20,1" CRT-Monitor) without I am aware that a TFT screnn should not be compared with a CRT of the same size, but is the difference so great? 18" equivalent to 20" CRT?>- No Refresh-Flickering from a CRT-Monitor (only from > your possible Simulator Framerate)I run my CRT at 85 Hz and see no flickering. Can it be better?>- Never again rounded Screencorners and big Monitor-FramesHave never noticed that>- Minimal Reflections on Screen, because its flat But reflections I do have noticed and been annoyed over.>- No Xrays from a CRT and much less Dust (<5%) on the > Screen, cause the electromanetic CRT-effect is > missing (I miss nothing!).I won't worry for the X rays>- Never again Stress for my spinal column, > when i have to carry my FlatscreenI never carry my monitor.>The negative Results:>- The Framerate Reduces to 60% (So i also > bought a new Videocard)That was a big problem. Did the new graphics card got you back to 100% framerate?>- You have to buy a Flatscreen with less than 18ms > Reaction-Time for Pixel-Changing (equals to Refresh-> Rate for CRT-Displays) and this is expensive (more > than 500 Dollar)>I havn't found a TFT monitor with less than 25 ms. And even theese are much more expensive than a 19" CRT.>1. Buy a good Videocard with 3D-Glasses (also very>impressive!)Will that work fine in FS9?>2. Spend your Money to learn real Flying (maybe soaring for>little money..)>Of course I would love to but that would many TFT and even more.>1. Buy a precise 3 Axis Yoystick instead of a cheap > 2 Axis one or using only the Keyboard. The Airspace is> 3-Dimensional and so you should steer also in 3 Axis.>I have the CH Flightsim Yoke and rudder pedals.>2. Buy a force Feedback Joystick and feel Turbulences > and bumpy Grassrunways in your Arms and Fingers>I have been told that FF don't work well with FS.>5. Plan extensive Flightadventures (Select your Start and I have tried that to.

[Guest heinzwerner]

> But I higher resolution means more pixels and > therefore more bits to process.Yes, for the Videocard and its Access to RAM and HD-Ressources. No for the Simulator. The Simulator only tells (via DIRECTX) the Video Card to draw Polygons with the Coordinates of its Corners and the Texture shown on with its Coordinates of the Texturecorners to draw. This depends not on the Real size of the Polygons on the Screen and also not on the ammount of Pixels, that is necessary to draw in different Screen-Resolutions or Windowsizes.>>So the most important Question maybe:>> Has my Computersystem a good balance of CPU-Power, >> Ram, Diskspeed, Videoperformance and used >> Resolution to generate a powerful Simulatorworld.>>> I have Athlon XP 1800+ Asus V8170 64 M DDR > GeForce4 MMX graphics card and 512 M DDR > 333MHz of RAM and a Belinea 17" CRT monitor.> Maybe I should first replace my graphics card.Yes, its the smallest "eye of a Needle" in your System.You can actual buy good Cards for maximum 1280*1024 Pixels above 120 Dollars:Examples:- Radeon 9600 XT or higher- Geforce 5 5600 or higherI prefer ATI at the Moment. In the same Pricesegment they have the better performance in higher Screenresolutions with antialaising active. Memory is very important for the Flight Simulator, when you want to fly in detaild Scenerys or detaild Aircrafts. Today min. 128MB, better 256 MB.> I am aware that a TFT screnn should not be compared > with a CRT of the same size, but is the difference > so great? 18" equivalent to 20" CRT?Yes, the CRT Size has to be measured inclusive parts of the not by the Screenunit acessible "black" and partial hidden frame. If you have a 20" CRT, then the visible Screenarea is 18..19" (depending on the Manufactor and Price)Flatscreen Sizes depends on the visible Area of the Display. If you buy 18.1", there is also 18.1" visible and mesurable Screensize. And it is Flat. The Outer Areas are not bent away from you. They appear nearer (greater) to you.Under the Line all technical differences between Price and Size make the difference between TFT and CRT. In Germany (i live in) 2003 were for first time more TFTs, than CRTs sold. The consumers knew, why.> I run my CRT at 85 Hz and see no flickering.> Can it be better?Surely on an CRT with 100 Hz, but will you notice that ?Or try to buy an 21" CRT with 85 Hz in 1600 x 1280 Pixels Resolution. This is realy heavy Money.Every CRT has to refresh the whoole Screen Point for Point, line for line, because every Point glows only for a few Miliseconds and directly after its switch on it gets constantly darker and darker and darker... So there is an systematic flickering effect. 70, 85 or 100 Hz can reduce this effect, but it

[jfri 42]

>> I run my CRT at 85 Hz and see no flickering.>> Can it be better?>Surely on an CRT with 100 Hz, but will you notice that ?>Or try to buy an 21" CRT with 85 Hz in 1600 x 1280 Pixels>Resolution. This is realy heavy Money.>I have asked that question. If I increase the refreshrate from 85Hzto 100 Hz, will I notice a better picture? Also 21" CRT are very expensive. For me to buy something different than a 19" CRT the prices must change. How long will I have to wait?>Every CRT has to refresh the whoole Screen Point for Point,>line for line, because every Point glows only for a few>On a Flatscreen Panel the Pixels only have once to swich to>the wantet brightness. After this they will stay in this>brightness as long, as the Screenimage makes this possible. No>Flicker effect at steady Pictureareas. The only Problem is, if>there is Movement on the screen. It takes time (ie. 25..50 ms)>to change the brightness of one Pixel. Well known as the>Mousetrail on older or cheaper Laptop-Displays. But its not a>Flicker problem. Its a "smearing Image" Problem.>How annoying is this smearing effect? More or less annoying than the flicker on a CRT?>> I won't worry for the X rays>Will you say this also after 50 Years, working under minimal>X-Ray consumption and futhermore 50 Yeaers of medical research>?It's extremely unlikely that I will live for 50 years more, and the radiation from the CRT is negligible compared to other natural sources.>the next months). The more quick action on screen (ie Ego>Shooter), the more important is this Factor. You can also>notice this effect on TFTs, if you schroll a great Window Area>very quick. Normal in Flightsimulator there are only slower>continuusly movements. So i think, 25..29ms is enough for>this.>I sometimes run quick action games but I also read texts fairly often.>Mine works fine. I can hear AND feel the Wind- and>Groundeffects.>The Wind- and Groundeffects are good, but - Correction - i>meant wind effects and not turbulences. You can feel the wind>and its changings, but if youre follow an heavy airplane or>get in stall, there are no Turbulences :-( Maybe in further>versions of FS..>A real pilot has told me it's not possible to simulate turbulence in a meaningful way on flightsims.

[Guest heinzwerner]

> I have asked that question. If I increase the > refreshrate from 85Hz to 100 Hz, will I notice > a better picture? Also 21" CRT are very expensive. I don

[Guest allcott]

I also went from a 17" monitor (Belinea too) to a 21" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro. The difference in screen size is like night and day (Remember, on a bigger monitor even the same resolution gives you a MUCH bigger image).However, there is a downside - whereas 1024x768 with AA is acceptable on a 17" monitor, it won't be on a 21". The larger image also magnifies the glitches. Now the `obvious` solution is to run at a higher resolution "because Anti-aliasing affects frame rates so much" but that is said by those who simply don't understand what anti-aliasing is. For sure, higher res = better picture quality but now the whole picture is being pictured at the new, higher resolution. With anti-aliasing, the processing power of the GPU is being used to only modify lines and edges = less total processing power needed than simply displaying EVERYTHING at a higher resolution. So although my monitor will happily cope with 1600x1200x32 the fps hit is much more marked than 1280x960+2xAA so I am running at a resolution below that which I would prefer - CPU resources have more to do with display of the TOTAL picture in higher resolutions. FS cannot cope with higher resolutions as, noted previously, the 2d panels have an imposed resolution limit so don't scale with general increases in resolution as well as they might - your computer actually has to re-calculate the 2d panel to fit the higher res and this takes valuable CPU cycles and affects the resources available on the grpahic card, too.Also, bear in mind that the choice of a larger monitor may also dictate your choice of graphic card. My opinion, and it is only my opinion, is that the anti-aliasing performed by Radeon cards is superior at larger screen sizes and higher resolutions than that provided by NVidia cards. The two manufacturers use a different method of anti-aliasing, and the quality battle is clearly won by ATI. It is no surprise that the NEXT generation of NVidia card will use a different anti-aliasing algorithm entirely.There is another way - keep the 17" monitor,and use a Fresnel lens. Fantastic and cheap too!Allcott

[jfri 42]

>I also went from a 17" monitor (Belinea too) to a 21">Mitsubishi Diamond Pro. The difference in screen size is like>night and day (Remember, on a bigger monitor even the same>resolution gives you a MUCH bigger image).>When we talk about 21" (and not 19") there is also pricedifference like night and day.>However, there is a downside - whereas 1024x768 with AA is>acceptable on a 17" monitor, it won't be on a 21". The largerBut what about a 19". And what about 1280*960 with AA?>There is another way - keep the 17" monitor,and use a Fresnel>lens. Fantastic and cheap too!>What is a Fresnel lens?

[jfri 42]

>I forgot 1 negative Result. There can be unrecoverable>Pixel-Errors, if you buy a Flatscreen :-(>I forgot to ask about this. What do you mean? That a segmenton the screen breaks down defenitely so the corresponding picture point is always dark?>Mine works fine. I can hear AND feel the Wind- and>Groundeffects.>The Wind- and Groundeffects are good, but - Correction - i>meant wind effects and not turbulences. You can feel the windHow do you feel the wind? Shouldn't it rasther be turbulence you should feel?

[Guest heinzwerner]

> I forgot to ask about this. What do you mean? > That a segment on the screen breaks down > defenitely so the corresponding> picture point is always dark?No, depending on Failure case and techniqe (LCD, TFT) it could also be one (or more) permanent glowing pixel in one or all of the RGB-colors parts.> How do you feel the wind? Shouldn't it rasther > be turbulence you should feel?For example changings of wind direction cause changings FF effects.To feel also turbulences in FF would be nice. Maybe in futher Versions ?Recapitulating this both effects are - in real live - anyway parts of the same molecular basics. In contrast to the real Life in the simulator each part of this molecular effect has to defined and coded in a specific (quick computable) abstract model.

[Guest heinzwerner]

>However, there is a downside - whereas 1024x768 with AA is>acceptable on a 17" monitor, it won't be on a 21". The largerBut what about a 19". And what about 1280*960 with AA?A Radeon 9600 Pro or XT in 128 MB version give good results for AA in max. 1280 * 1024. So it sholud satisfy claims for 19" and 21" in this Resolution. For 1600er resolutions on more than 19" CRTs better buy a radeon 9800 Pro or XT in 256 MB version.Less than Radeon 9600 (without pro) (or your actual NVIDEA card) cause to slow AA results for more than 800*600er resolutions.>There is another way - keep the 17" monitor,and use a Fresnel>lens. Fantastic and cheap too!>What is a Fresnel lens?An optical lens to increase the visible screen Area or simple said - a magnifying glass for your monitor. Not more quality, but more quantity :-)

[jfri 42]

>No, depending on Failure case and techniqe (LCD, TFT) it could>also be one (or more) permanent glowing pixel in one or all of>the RGB-colors parts.>How clearly is this seen on the screen? How likely is it that you will encounter this problem?This could be a very significant disadvantage for the TFT if it is common and clearly seen on the screen.

[Guest allcott]

>>lens. Fantastic and cheap too!>>>What is a Fresnel lens?>>http://www.rickleephoto.com/rlcoll.htmAllcott

[Guest heinzwerner]

> How clearly is this seen on the screen? > How likely is it that you will encounter > this problem?ISO 13406-2: 1..5 Subpixelerrors per 1 Mio Pixels> This could be a very significant disadvantage > for the TFT if it is common and clearly > seen on the screen.Yes, depending on the failure type and TFT-Resolution more ore less. Buy this type of display at a shop, where you can view your Display in work, before you buy.On higher Resolution Displays black pixelerrors look like little dust partikles. you can see them, or ignore them. Maybe annoying. Permanent glowing pixels are more disagreeable. You can view them every time.