Hello -

 

I am quite confused about which resolution I should be running for the best image and FPS.

 

I am running an EVGA Nvidia GTX 660 SuperClocked 2Gb GPU (will be adding a second GTX 660 SC next week SLI) and I am using a Vizio 42" Plasma 1080i for a display.

 

Currently I believe my resolution is set at 1024x768 @ 60hz. Even though this is listed as a PC resolution and not HD I have it set to this is because everything fits the screen perfectly and looks good. When I have tried selecting 1920x1080 everything is too big to fit on the screen even though everything I read says to use 1920x1080.

 

So, my question is which resolution should I be running? If I should be running a HD resolution like 1920x1080 then how do I adjust everything to make it fit and look good on screen?

 

Any help understanding this will be great!

 

Thank you,

are you using wideviewaspect=true in your cfg

I think that if you have your monitor running in its native resolution both in your NVidia setup and in the graphics section of FSX, you should be good. My works just fine that way.

You should be running your monitor's native resolution for desktop AND in FSX. Both running the same.

 

This is going to provide the sharpest images.

 

In FSX.cfg, as suggested, WideViewAspect=True.

 

I do have wideviewaspect=true added to my .cfg already. The resolution that I am currently set on is the native. I don't remember seeing a place in FSX to set resolution?

The resolution that I am currently set on is the native.

 

OK, now you have me confused Ben. You said you were running at 1024x768. If your display is 1920x1080 (standard hi def these days), then you're not running at its native resolution. BTW, you also said something about it being 1080i - is it really? Not 1080p? 1080i displays aren't that common these days, and if it is interlaced not progressive that may be part of your issue.

 

Scott

There is one ^_^

Look again.

 

I had to find a screen shot to remember where it was in FSX settings lol but I will check that it matches when I get home. Thank you Word Not Allowed.

 

OK, now you have me confused Ben. You said you were running at 1024x768. If your display is 1920x1080 (standard hi def these days), then you're not running at its native resolution. BTW, you also said something about it being 1080i - is it really? Not 1080p? 1080i displays aren't that common these days, and if it is interlaced not progressive that may be part of your issue.

 

Scott

Hi Scott -

Great to see a fellow Coloradan here on AvSim! The native resolution of my tv is 1024x768. I am running it at 1024x768 currently. I read that 1920x1080 was the common res for hd so I was wondering if that's what I should or could be using. My Vizio is about 5 years old and it is 1080i not p. I am not sure what you mean by interlaced or progressive?

 

here is a link to the specifications of my tv:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/vizio-vp422/4505-6482_7-33130544.html

 

Thank you,

Sorry Ben, but I'm still confused. Don't know what you're referring to as your "TV". You said your display was a Vizio plasma that was 1920x1080 - that would be it's native resolution. But...

 

"i' vs "p" (interlaced vs progressive) - 1080i means the display actually draws 540 "lines" from top to bottom per cycle (the 1st, 3rd, 5th and so on) and then goes back and draws the second interleaved set of 540 lines (2nd, 4th, 6th...) on the next cycle - hence 1080-interleaved. 1080p (progressive) draws all 1080 lines each cycle. Interleaved devices do not make for good computer displays, especially not for games due to motion artifacts inherent in the interleaving process.

 

Scott

Sorry Ben, but I'm still confused. Don't know what you're referring to as your "TV". You said your display was a Vizio plasma that was 1920x1080 - that would be it's native resolution. But...

 

"i' vs "p" (interlaced vs progressive) - 1080i means the display actually draws 540 "lines" from top to bottom per cycle (the 1st, 3rd, 5th and so on) and then goes back and draws the second interleaved set of 540 lines (2nd, 4th, 6th...) on the next cycle - hence 1080-interleaved. 1080p (progressive) draws all 1080 lines each cycle. Interleaved devices do not make for good computer displays, especially not for games due to motion artifacts inherent in the interleaving process.

 

Scott

Hi Scott - I actually edited my last post so not sure if you have re-read it. Sorry for the confusion in referring to my monitor as my TV. I use my tv for my pc monitor also and it is a Vizio 42" plazma 1080i with a native resolution of 1024x768.

 

Is it possible that using this for a display is causing poor FPS? My original cause for the resolution question is because I am currently getting poor FPS on a high powered system. Just curious.

 

Thank you,

Ben, obviously I don't know the specifics of your device, but I'm not aware of any plasma display made in recent times that would be 1024x768. To start, that's not a widescreen aspect ratio. And if your device is 1080, that 1080 refers to the vertical resolution. For a standard 16x9 display, that means 1920x1080 which would be its native resolution. Now, what your card is DRIVING it at is a different matter and honestly I don't what modes are available in your card for driving an interlaced device. Nvidia's drivers should support 1080i and I would start there, getting the driver set to drive the display from the computer at the proper resolution to start

 

Perhaps someone else who has direct experience might be able to offer more help.

 

BTW, it's unlikely your display itself is causing performance issues with FSX, especially if you're currently only running it at 1024x768. Video QUALITY is another issue, however. I can't imagine it looks too good like that and motion will always be an issue on an interleaved display device.

 

Sorry I can't be of more help,

 

Scott

Ben, obviously I don't know the specifics of your device, but I'm not aware of any plasma display made in recent times that would be 1024x768. To start, that's not a widescreen aspect ratio.

 

Scott -

 

You have been more help than you know. I pulled this information directly off of the spec sheet for my monitor:

 

"Unlike more expensive flat panels, the Vizio VP422 has a native resolution of 1,024x768, not 1080p. We don't consider that difference a big deal, however, because at the 42-inch screen size, the benefits of 1080p are nearly impossible to discern."

 

There are settings in the Nvidia control panel for 1080i options but none of them are for a 1024x728 resolution obviously. I think its just time for me to replace my display with a 1080p model.

 

So, since my monitor isn't a widescreen aspect ratio should I change my .cfg back to false until I get a new monitor?

 

Thanks!

So, my question is which resolution should I be running?

You already said that you were running 1024x768. Try 1366x768 as well and see what you think.

 

That screen of yours is a TV and not a monitor. A TV of the budget variety dating quite a few years back. The problem is that the pixels arn't square. I know loads of old plasmas that have rectangular pixels. Not as much of an issue when it's used as a TV as it will scale whatever input it gets to fit the screen and the rectangular pixels.

 

The issue is when you start using it as a PC monitor as a computer screen generally provides a lot more fine detail than a TV program does and a PC assumes square pixels. If you use a 1024x768 resolution the PC assumes 4:3 aspect ratio but your TV shows it streatched out to 16:9. That's why I suggest that you try 1366x768 as that woul be the correct aspect ratio. But your TV will convert the 1366 horisontal pixels in to 1024 which might show on finer details.

 

Is it possible that using this for a display is causing poor FPS? My original cause for the resolution question is because I am currently getting poor FPS on a high powered system. Just curious.

Nope. Not at these low resolutions. Ang your single GTX660 will be more than enough. Your low FPS is down to the poor IPC of your AMD FX CPU.

 

And don't expect SLI to help you. It will most likely cause you worse FSX performance. I don't know how having x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes to one GPU but just x4 lanes to the second one will work out in FSX. One thing is for sure, FSX does not like it when it only gets x8 PCIe 2.0 lanes on the GPU.

"Unlike more expensive flat panels, the Vizio VP422 has a native resolution of 1,024x768, not 1080p. We don't consider that difference a big deal, however, because at the 42-inch screen size, the benefits of 1080p are nearly impossible to discern."

 

Oh. My. Well, there's a statement written by a marketing department if ever I saw one! Now I understand where your confusion is coming from. I had no idea some of the older plasma displays played these kinds of silly games.

 

As a TV, that might have some (very limited) merit as the expectation is that you'll be viewing it from a distance, but even then by today's standards...

 

See SAAB340's comments above about aspect ratio issues and I'll repeat my concerns about interlaced video. This is a match made in h** as far as being a display for computer gaming or simulation is concerned. 24" 1920x1080 monitors of modest quality can be had pretty cheaply these days. Smaller, yes, but of much higher quality and far more appropriate to the task.

 

But again, none of this will impact your FPS issues.

 

Good luck,

 

Scott

I had no idea some of the older plasma displays played these kinds of silly games.

Oh yes. I think pretty much any plasma that isn't full HD has this lovely setup, even todays. While I think LCD TVs have always had square pixels

 

I don't really know too much about using todays TVs as a monitor, but I know that when I last went TV shopping in 2005 very few TVs gave you pixelmapping. One of the reasons I picked my TV was that it had it. With pixelmapping I mean that each pixel on the digital input corresponds to a pixel on the TV screen.

Back then most tv's converted the digital input to an analog signal processed inside the TV to then be digitalised again to be displayed on the TV screen. It might sound wierd at first but remember that old fashion TV signal is analog and that's what a TV is primairly for.

Given the 2 convesions, the pixels on the 1366x768 signal sent by the computer might actually not correspond to the 1366x768 pixels displayed on the screen. To see if you have pixelmapping you can create an image at your TVs native resolution with a white background a grid of black lines, one pixel thick, every other pixel both horisontally and vertically. When you show it in fullscreen on your TV it will show as one homogenus grey screen if you have pixelmapping while if you don't you'll see bands of different shades of grey.

 

That used to be the difference between a PC monitor with digital input and a TV with digital input. Not shure if it still is today. It might have changed given that most TVs have a digital tuner now, But it might not have, as TVs still tend to be able to process the old fashion analoge TV signal.

A TV is after all intended to be a TV, not a PC monitor.

If your TV doesn't have pixelmapping, you might as well use a VGA cable instead of DVI or HDMI and you'll never get as sharp image as a PC monitor.

Try 1366x768 as well and see what you think.

 

That screen of yours is a TV and not a monitor.

 

SAAB340 -

 

Great advice - thank you. I will admit that all of this tech stuff is very new to me so when somebody who knows exactly what they're talking about like you do, I take that advice and run with it.

 

I tried 1366x768 but that wouldn't fit the screen either. I have decided to use my Vizio only as a TV and I will be buying a new monitor for my PC this weekend - specifically a Samsung 27" LED monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio and 1920x1080 maximum resolution. Any thoughts on this display?

 

Ang your single GTX660 will be more than enough. Your low FPS is down to the poor IPC of your AMD FX CPU.

 

And don't expect SLI to help you. It will most likely cause you worse FSX performance. I don't know how having x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes to one GPU but just x4 lanes to the second one will work out in FSX. One thing is for sure, FSX does not like it when it only gets x8 PCIe 2.0 lanes on the GPU.

 

Do you have any recommendations to overcome the IPC of my CPU or would you just recommend a different processor for simulation?

 

Unfortunately when I purchased my 970a-ud3 a couple of months ago I did not catch the spec of the second PCIEX16 port - this is very disappointing especially since I also didn't know this when I ordered a second GTX 660 last week. Would you recommend that I change m/b so I can run SLI or would you suggest a single high end GPU instead?

 

My FPS performance is only suffering when I have the REX weather engine running. Otherwise, my FPS performance is quite good in the PMDG NGX cockpit.

 

Thanks again for your advice and input!

 

Now I understand where your confusion is coming from. I had no idea some of the older plasma displays played these kinds of silly games.

 

As a TV, that might have some (very limited) merit as the expectation is that you'll be viewing it from a distance, but even then by today's standards...

 

Scott -

I am glad that our confusion has been put to rest. As I mentioned above... it's time to invest in a dedicated PC monitor and let the kids use the old Vizio to build forts since it's no good for anything else by today's standards lol.

 

As for my FPS while running REX weather engine - I believe I have this pinned down to my slow internet connection. I'm only getting about 500kbs via a mobile phone hotspot. I think my connection speed is a bottleneck when REX attempts to download and assemble weather. I haven't tried a faster connection yet but I will post results.

 

Thanks again for the great help and advice!

Do you have any recommendations to overcome the IPC of my CPU or would you just recommend a different processor for simulation?

 

Unfortunately when I purchased my 970a-ud3 a couple of months ago I did not catch the spec of the second PCIEX16 port - this is very disappointing especially since I also didn't know this when I ordered a second GTX 660 last week. Would you recommend that I change m/b so I can run SLI or would you suggest a single high end GPU instead?

You should be able to get some more performance by overclocking your CPU. For quite a while now Intel CPUs have been a lot better than AMDs CPUs clock for clock in FSX because of their superior IPC. I do not know how the module design in the FX processors affect FSX performance. If it's more like a tri core with HyperThreding of more like a full hexa core. I don't even know if the default FSX Affinitymask is.63 or 21. If you followed Kostas guide for tuning FSX I suggest trying Affinity Mask 63, 62 and 57 to see what works best for you.

 

I take it that you use your PC for other things than FSX thou? GTX660 in SLI would othervise be quite a waste. The good thing with your setup is at least that the first GPU will allways be fed 16 PCIe lanes even when you have 2 cards in your system. So if SLI is causing you trouble in FSX you can allways just de-select it in nVidia control panel when you run FSX. Most games will be happy with the x4 PCIe bandwith on your second card. (maybe even FSX but I doubt that)