On 3/27/2018 at 3:00 PM, vortex681 said:

I wasn't suggesting for a moment that you should - I'm a great believer in sticking with what works for you. I just think that people should always state their screen resolution when discussing performance as it has such a significant effect.

   OK, I will try to remember to do this (though it seems to me that most people do not, and it is not not clear to me how screen resolution "affects performance".). I am also curious whether resolutions higher than 1920 x 1080 actually improve the picture -- I find this hard to believe.

14 hours ago, cobalt said:

   OK, I will try to remember to do this (though it seems to me that most people do not, and it is not not clear to me how screen resolution "affects performance".).

I used to have an i7-920 with a GTX 275 graphics card. FSX ran really well with the 1680x1050 monitor I had at the time. When I tried it with a QHD monitor with the same settings it was like watching a slide-show. Higher resolutions require more processing power due to the larger number of pixels being addressed and put a greater load on the GPU when trying to maintain similar levels of antialiasing and visual effects. That's why when people say things like "I've got an old/modest system but still get 40 FPS at high settings", it means little without the screen resolution as a frame of reference.

14 hours ago, cobalt said:

I am also curious whether resolutions higher than 1920 x 1080 actually improve the picture -- I find this hard to believe.

It depends on the screen size and the viewing distance. 1920x1080 on a 21.5" monitor looks really good. With the same viewing distance and resolution on a 27" monitor, you can start to see the pixels which reduces the image quality. You then also need more antialiasing to prevent jagged edges and the image looks less sharp. If you change to 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor, the image looks fantastic and you don't need the same levels of antialiasing you needed with 1920x1080 so you get a much sharper image. At a fixed viewing distance, as you increase screen size you need more pixels (a higher resolution) to achieve the same image quality. The difference, when gaming, between 1920x1080 and 4k on a 40" screen from a normal computer viewing distance has to be seen to be believed.

On 4/3/2018 at 8:27 AM, vortex681 said:

I used to have an i7-920 with a GTX 275 graphics card. FSX ran really well with the 1680x1050 monitor I had at the time. When I tried it with a QHD monitor with the same settings it was like watching a slide-show. Higher resolutions require more processing power due to the larger number of pixels being addressed and put a greater load on the GPU when trying to maintain similar levels of antialiasing and visual effects. That's why when people say things like "I've got an old/modest system but still get 40 FPS at high settings", it means little without the screen resolution as a frame of reference.

It depends on the screen size and the viewing distance. 1920x1080 on a 21.5" monitor looks really good. With the same viewing distance and resolution on a 27" monitor, you can start to see the pixels which reduces the image quality. You then also need more antialiasing to prevent jagged edges and the image looks less sharp. If you change to 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor, the image looks fantastic and you don't need the same levels of antialiasing you needed with 1920x1080 so you get a much sharper image. At a fixed viewing distance, as you increase screen size you need more pixels (a higher resolution) to achieve the same image quality. The difference, when gaming, between 1920x1080 and 4k on a 40" screen from a normal computer viewing distance has to be seen to be believed.

In this case, would removing anti-aliasing help boost FPS? I use 1080p on a 23” monitor. 

Some say FSX is improved by a GPU upgrade, some say not. I would say that changing to DX10 preview gives the boost from the GPU. And so DX9 users won't see such a boost when upgrading the GPU as DX10 users. DX10 is like DX11, DX9 is different to those. You can have problems with pixellation in views with DX10 and DX11 P3D because of inconsistencies in the models. They look ok a few inches from the instruments but some may look worse when zoomed out to headrest distance, if you will. That brings extra measures of AA into the mix with DX10 and DX11.

Not sure if bufferpoools works on FSX-SE but on boxed FSX a small buffer between 1k to 8k is better than zero. There's not such a big impact there but maybe useful on some systems.

We can reduce the resolution compared to the actual monitor resolution. But that dos not bring such big improvements as we expect. In P3D the extra graphical effects contribute to making that worse. Even so it's worth experimenting with FSX at a lower resolution and making full screen (ALT+ENTER).

 

 

I only bought FSX SE about a year ago and had poor visuals and performance upon installation. So I downloaded the Avsim config guide and went through it and it made a major difference in both visual look and performance.  My gaming PC is far from bleeding edge, but I can run FSX at 1600x900 with many sliders set  somewhere between medium to max and I rarely drop below 40 fps.  TBH, I can't recall ever using another videogame optimization guide that made such a big impact on performance.

On 4/3/2018 at 8:27 AM, vortex681 said:

I used to have an i7-920 with a GTX 275 graphics card. FSX ran really well with the 1680x1050 monitor I had at the time. When I tried it with a QHD monitor with the same settings it was like watching a slide-show. Higher resolutions require more processing power due to the larger number of pixels being addressed and put a greater load on the GPU when trying to maintain similar levels of antialiasing and visual effects. That's why when people say things like "I've got an old/modest system but still get 40 FPS at high settings", it means little without the screen resolution as a frame of reference.

It depends on the screen size and the viewing distance. 1920x1080 on a 21.5" monitor looks really good. With the same viewing distance and resolution on a 27" monitor, you can start to see the pixels which reduces the image quality. You then also need more antialiasing to prevent jagged edges and the image looks less sharp. If you change to 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor, the image looks fantastic and you don't need the same levels of antialiasing you needed with 1920x1080 so you get a much sharper image. At a fixed viewing distance, as you increase screen size you need more pixels (a higher resolution) to achieve the same image quality. The difference, when gaming, between 1920x1080 and 4k on a 40" screen from a normal computer viewing distance has to be seen to be believed.

  If I had known you were talking about 40" screens we could have saved a lot of time! Ye gods, I would have to enlarge my computer room to accommodate a monitor that large. As it is, I have a great time flying on my (relatively) puny 21 inch monitor, while you are enjoying sitting several feet away from a much larger screen, so we are both happy. Have you considered upgrading to one of the flight simulators used to train commercial pilots? Those seem really cool, and well worth a few million bucks.

8 hours ago, cobalt said:

If I had known you were talking about 40" screens we could have saved a lot of time!

I only mentioned a 40" screen to emphasise the difference between Full HD and 4k. I use a 32" QHD monitor which is more than enough for my needs at present.