Best monitor for FSX : resolution vs smoothness

[seaman 0]

I will soon be upgrading my 22 Samsung monitor to a bigger and better one. I was targeting a 26-27 inches IPS and a good candidate is the Dell Ultrasharp U2711.However, I am now getting confused.My system is P8P67 PRO B3, i2600K@4.2Ghz, 8Gb RAM, GTX 560 Ti, 2x128 Gb SSD, 2TB storage, CM690II Adv, and using NGX, UTX, UT2, REX, GEX and would be using the monitor also for photos and movies occasionally.OK now why am confused and what I am considering:- 2560x1440 vs 1980x1080 vs 1920x1200: I would prefer a 1980 resolution as I don't believe the loss of frame rates / smoothness in FSX is compensated by the increased quality and resolution in 2560x1440. I believe 1980x1080 or 1920x1200 is the right compromise for flight simulation.- 2560x1440, 1980x1080 (widescreen 16:9) vs 1920x1200 (16:10): I tend to prefer 16:10 as also read this is suggested for FSX due to 2D panel "stretching" issue, although it should not be really a big issue and understand NGX has a 16:9 panel as well.- IPS for FSX: worth it?In a nutshell, what do you recommend? Is the U2711 OK and perhaps downscaling FSX to 1980x1080 is still feasible and a solution without having a significant loss of quality (while retaining the highest 2560 res for other tasks e.g. photos)? Is the anti coating issue significantly affecting quality for this monitor?Or do you have any other suggestion of a good to very good 27 monitor for FSX (16:9 or 16:10)?Thanksm.

[Bob Scott 7,719]

I use an IPS 2560 x 1600 (16:10) 30" Dell U3011 monior (two of them side-by-side in clone mode, actually). The IPS panel is worth having...the much improved contrast/color saturation is very nice when looking at a good panel--for example the magenta flight director bars and red annunciator lights are much brighter and really jump out on the IPS display.The frame rate hit with a 2560-pixel monitor with your CPU and video card will be moderate...I get about 5 fps less with the 30" monitor than I did with the previous 1920x1200 TFT panel on a water-cooled GTX580 at 975 MHz core clock. No way I'd revert back to a 1920 pixel display after using a good 2560-pixel-wide SHD display.The increased screen height with a 16:10 panel makes a significant difference in FS...you can get a lot more of the outside world into a panel view at 16:10.Downscaling from the monitor's native resolution is almost never a desirable thing--the pixel interpolation will make things fuzzy and/or jaggy where they're crystal clear at native res.

Edited January 4, 2012 by w6kd

[seaman 0]

Thanks,I guess I should be deciding between a 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, 16:10. I am sure 2560 is awesome but I would probably like having a few fps more and a smoother experience rather than best possible quality.Is there any really good 1920x1200 26 or 27 out there that is worth considering?Thanksm.

[megs8888 20]

Hey guys if money was no object within reason what would be the best screens and biggest you could go without losing too many fps? Wayne

Edited January 4, 2012 by megs8888

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Remember also about the dimensions, a big concern if you go for the LCD TV monitors that seem to be in vogue at the moment. The larger TV monitors are pushed as Hi Def ie, 1920 x 1080 resolution, which is 16x9 but in fact PC monitors have a different format ie, 16x10 and of course this will have an effect on screen. For example, if you run with the NGX, which has been designed for PC monitor use (surprise) it has been designed with a 16x10 format ie, a 1920x1200 resolution, or any other resolution which is the equivalent dimensions. The resulting image, if used with a monitor that has a 16x9 format and not a 16x10 format is that the vertical properties of the image will appear squashed. So things such as dials and circular objects will be slightly oval, or squashed in shape. I use an HP ZR 24W which runs at 1920x1200 and is superb. There is another monitor on the market that is, I think 27" and that also offers the same resolutions and beyond, up to 2560 I think. But as has been said, 'up' your resolution and monitor size and you'll get hit with frames. Personally, I think 1920x1200 on a 24" monitor is almost perfect. If you run three, side by side, then that must be awesome. I think it is very easy to get sidetracked with the size of screen, sure, it must be great to have a 42" screen only a couple of feet in front of you, but that will come at a possible cost of either frames, or more importantly for me, quality.

[megs8888 20]

So 3, 24 side by side what would you recommend then? and do you need anything else to connect them all?

[Rocky_53 1,579]

So 3, 24 side by side what would you recommend then? and do you need anything else to connect them all?

I have not done this but there are lots of guys around here that have. EDIT: Rather than offer advice that may be incorrect I suggest you hear from someone who has experience with this. Edited January 4, 2012 by Rockliffe

[yurikov 0]

I've recently upgraded from a Eizo 22" (1680x1050) to this Dell 2711U. Both were IPS panels anyway, because I use it too for photo editing. I have nearly the same config, only a slight better GPU (GTX570) and 4.7 Ghz 2500K.Image quality is very good and the wider view is very nice.I had a small frame rate hit (3-5fps), but it depend very much on your AA settings and settings. Now, the nice thing is that the dot pitch is much finer (more dots per inch) so I can live with much lower AA settings. On my 22" i used 16xS + 2xSparsegridSampling , on the Dell I get a nice quality with 4x + 2x SparsegridSampling.I guess that you will do fine with the 560 Ti if you keep the AA on a decent level.No problems with stretching of panels.

[Ben Cap 89]

I used to run 3 displays @ 5670x1080. Performance was awful in FSX. I finally sold off my 3 monitors and I am running 1 monitor @ 1920x1080. FSX performance now is great.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

OK, now this is something that you guys can help me with. I understand that if the resolution is increased then it is naturally a pull on CPU resources. However, if the resolution remains the same but three monitors are used instead of one... is there still a hit on performance? In otherwords, single monitor increased in size from 1920x1200 to 2550 x (whatever) = performance hit / three monitors each of 1920x1200 = no performance hit. Is this correct ?

[Bob Scott 7,719]

OK, now this is something that you guys can help me with. I understand that if the resolution is increased then it is naturally a pull on CPU resources. However, if the resolution remains the same but three monitors are used instead of one... is there still a hit on performance? In otherwords, single monitor increased in size from 1920x1200 to 2550 x (whatever) = performance hit / three monitors each of 1920x1200 = no performance hit. Is this correct ?

It's the total size of the video array (in pixels) that matters for performance. In a triple 1920x1080 monitor configuration, the three monitors are treated as a single 5760 x 1080 array (6220800 pixels total). And yes, three times the bandwidth means there will be a significant hit on performance over a single 1920x1080 (2073600 pixel) display.Likewise, a single 2560x1600 (4096000 pixel) display requires almost double the video bandwidth of a single 1920x1080 display.A fast CPU and GPU are needed to keep performance out of the weeds if you want to drive a large video array...doesn't matter if it's a single SHD monitor or multiple lower-res monitors. Edited January 6, 2012 by w6kd

[Rocky_53 1,579]

It's the total size of the video array (in pixels) that matters for performance. In a triple 1920x1080 monitor configuration, the three monitors are treated as a single 5760 x 1080 array (6220800 pixels total). And yes, three times the bandwidth means there will be a significant hit on performance over a single 1920x1080 (2073600 pixel) display.Likewise, a single 2560x1600 (4096000 pixel) display requires almost double the video bandwidth of a single 1920x1080 display.A fast CPU and GPU are needed to keep performance out of the weeds if you want to drive a large video array...doesn't matter if it's a single SHD monitor or multiple lower-res monitors.

Thanks a bunch Bob, that's incredibly helpful. As performance and visual quality is of utmost importance to me, I will now have to consider my thoughts on going triple monitor. Maybe with P3D there may be some benefit, only a thought. While you're here, is there any way I can take advantage of a second computer, not sure how, but is there some way, if I were to use three monitors to somehow spread the load?

[Bob Scott 7,719]

Thanks a bunch Bob, that's incredibly helpful. As performance and visual quality is of utmost importance to me, I will now have to consider my thoughts on going triple monitor. Maybe with P3D there may be some benefit, only a thought. While you're here, is there any way I can take advantage of a second computer, not sure how, but is there some way, if I were to use three monitors to somehow spread the load?

Not easily. I use a second PC when simming to do peripheral functions, such as weather (AS2012), ATC (Radar Contact or VATSIM), moving map (Aivlasoft EFB), and display of approach charts.It's possible to put the panel on the primary PC and run multiple exterior displays from a second PC via WideView, but not very practical if you use the VC.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Not easily. I use a second PC when simming to do peripheral functions, such as weather (AS2012), ATC (Radar Contact or VATSIM), moving map (Aivlasoft EFB), and display of approach charts.It's possible to put the panel on the primary PC and run multiple exterior displays from a second PC via WideView, but not very practical if you use the VC.

Mmm, so OK if in 2d but not flying in VC...

[Clutch Cargo 384]

I'm in the same boat as you Howard, trying to decide what display(s) to get. I know basically what I want... a 3 display wraparound setup, 25-27" each, and LED. But I can't justify $3000 USD for two of those to be "side" displays which are really for immersion purposes only when in VC. I do plan to add a 2nd 580 card with 3GB to help take up some of the slack but even with my CPU at 5GHz I think trying to push too many pixels will just give an underwhelming experience. I think as I type I may just go for 1920x1080x3 as that will give my the best overall performance/cost ratio for what I seek.