WilliamS

P3D v4 recommended PC specs?

Recommended Posts

Yes. I would agree to some extent, but each resolution has its optimal screen size - the point at which there are about 60 pixels/inch (don't mark my word on that). If you have too high a resolution on too small of a screen, you have essentially wasted your money because the difference between the two are virtually unnoticeable. Also (in case you haven't noticed) I play FS on a gaming laptop. Before I bought my first monitor, I suffered a problem derived from too many pixels on too small of a screen, which is some text appears blurry. This is how control panel looks on my laptop screen: https://ibb.co/vzYpBR7, and this is how it looks on my monitor: https://ibb.co/JdMcnkz.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

4 minutes ago, WilliamS said:

Yes. I would agree to some extent, but each resolution has its optimal screen size - the point at which there are about 60 pixels/inch (don't mark my word on that). If you have too high a resolution on too small of a screen, you have essentially wasted your money because the difference between the two are virtually unnoticeable. Also (in case you haven't noticed) I play FS on a gaming laptop. Before I bought my first monitor, I suffered a problem derived from too many pixels on too small of a screen, which is some text appears blurry. This is how control panel looks on my laptop screen: https://ibb.co/vzYpBR7, and this is how it looks on my monitor: https://ibb.co/JdMcnkz.

You will hear thousands of different opinions on this.  Just depends what you are used to.  I couldn't imagine simming on a 24 inch 1080P monitor.   But I am used to a 43 inch 4K TV and a 38 inch ultrawide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Okay, here's my take on screen resolution and size. To try and remove the subjective element and make it purely objective sharpness depends on two things; how many pixels per inch and how far away your eyes are from the screen.

Let's take an extreme example. Remember back when we had portable CRT TVs and how much sharper a 14" looked compared to your massive 21" CRT in the lounge? 😁 That's because the smaller screen (but still the same number of lines) had more info packed into a smaller space.

Now let's look at FullHD, 2K (or QHD to give it its proper name) and UHD/4K. Load this calculator and enter your desired resolution and screen size. It will calculate the number of pixels per inch. Entirely objective.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

A 28" FullHD display results in 79ppi. Increase that to QHD (2560*1440) and it increases to 105ppi. That's just 33% more. You will only see a small improvement.

If you go to a 32" QHD it actually decreases to 92ppi. A FullHD 32" gives just 69ppi. Ouch!

But if you go UHD/4K a 32" gives you a massive 138ppi. A 43" gives 102ppi and a 50" gives just 88ppi, hardly any better than a 28" FullHD display.

Size and resolution is all about getting a balance. If you want immersion go for the biggest display you can afford but you will lose the sharpness a smaller display gives.

Some say the sweet spot for UHD/4K is 32" but others want the immersion of a larger display. Only the user can decide.

Obviously all this depends on the graohics card. The 2070 is borderline for UHD/4K so I would suggest a QHD display is a good compromise. Use the calculator to work out what is best for you.

Edited by Ray Proudfoot

Share this post


Link to post

QHD versus FullHD on 28" is "just 33% more ppi" but those 31% more ppi when comparing 4K vs. QHD is "massive"? Strange logic 😂

PS: I am aware what you mean, the comparison is just funny. Your post in one sentence: go for the highest ppi number you can get as long as the size of the panel suits you. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, AnkH said:

QHD versus FullHD on 28" is "just 33% more ppi" but those 31% more ppi when comparing 4K vs. QHD is "massive"? Strange logic 😂

PS: I am aware what you mean, the comparison is just funny. Your post in one sentence: go for the highest ppi number you can get as long as the size of the panel suits you. I agree.

Where do you get 31% more comparing 4K to QHD at 32”? It’s 50% more.

(138-92) *100 / 92 = 50%.

The highest possible ppi is a 28” UHD display but the small display is unattractive.

Your single sentence is fine. I just wanted to highlight the difference in ppi for various resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Okay, here's my take on screen resolution and size. To try and remove the subjective element and make it purely objective sharpness depends on two things; how many pixels per inch and how far away your eyes are from the screen.

Let's take an extreme example. Remember back when we had portable CRT TVs and how much sharper a 14" looked compared to your massive 21" CRT in the lounge? 😁 That's because the smaller screen (but still the same number of lines) had more info packed into a smaller space.

Now let's look at FullHD, 2K (or QHD to give it its proper name) and UHD/4K. Load this calculator and enter your desired resolution and screen size. It will calculate the number of pixels per inch. Entirely objective.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

A 28" FullHD display results in 79ppi. Increase that to QHD (2560*1440) and it increases to 105ppi. That's just 33% more. You will only see a small improvement.

If you go to a 32" QHD it actually decreases to 92ppi. A FullHD 32" gives just 69ppi. Ouch!

But if you go UHD/4K a 32" gives you a massive 138ppi. A 43" gives 102ppi and a 50" gives just 88ppi, hardly any better than a 28" FullHD display.

Size and resolution is all about getting a balance. If you want immersion go for the biggest display you can afford but you will lose the sharpness a smaller display gives.

Some say the sweet spot for UHD/4K is 32" but others want the immersion of a larger display. Only the user can decide.

Obviously all this depends on the graohics card. The 2070 is borderline for UHD/4K so I would suggest a QHD display is a good compromise. Use the calculator to work out what is best for you.

I recon I'll go for a 28" 1080p ultrawide, or a 2K for normal aspect ratios.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I broadly agree with @Ray Proudfoot's findings, although I used different methodology based on visual acuity (human eyes with 20/20 vision can detect or resolve details as small as 1/60th of a degree of arc) also considering viewing distance, I ended up with similar results; up to 24" 1080p is optimal, 27" is the sweetspot for 1440p, and 32"+ you'll benefit from 4K/2160p, based on typical viewing distances of 0.75-1.25m (2.5-4.0ft).

I myself ended up with 27" at 1440p as it strikes a nice compromise between cost, immersion and usability. The jump to 4K is quite expensive as you need significantly more oomph to drive it (it's more than twice the pixels to draw), and screensizes that benefit from such a high resolution require you to sit quite far away for general use (based on my experiences of using a 37" monitor) otherwise you can only view a small patch of the screen at a time.

I did use some really cool tools but can't find them now, so this will have to do https://toolstud.io/video/screensize.php?screendiagonal=27&screendiagonal_unit=inch&resolution_w=2560&resolution_h=1440

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post

I run P3D v4 @ 1920x1080 resolution on a 24" widescreen monitor. According to Ray's calculations, I think this equates to 92ppi.

Share this post


Link to post

I sim on a Full HD 24" monitor as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone. Thanks for all of the help in choosing a setup. I have one more question regarding the GPU. I have also consulted my friend (who is extemely PC-savvy), who said that using an RTX graphics card would not be worth the extra several hundred pounds, as only a handful of games support the ray-tracing that it offers. What is the advantage of a 20- card with P3D?

Share this post


Link to post

William, I would have recommended a 1080 or maybe a 1080Ti but those aren't available any longer. The 20 series is your only option.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

William, I would have recommended a 1080 or maybe a 1080Ti but those aren't available any longer. The 20 series is your only option.

Oh my goodness! You're right! They really aren't!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

There's not really any overwhelming reason in relation to P3D, just 10 series aren't really available new any more. I'd opt for a used 1070 or 1080 myself, although there is a risk they may have been driven hard for bitcoin mining.

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, WilliamS said:

Hi everyone. Thanks for all of the help in choosing a setup. I have one more question regarding the GPU. I have also consulted my friend (who is extemely PC-savvy), who said that using an RTX graphics card would not be worth the extra several hundred pounds, as only a handful of games support the ray-tracing that it offers. What is the advantage of a 20- card with P3D?

What I’m about to say is purely speculation but I believe there is something in the RTX line of GPU’s architecture that improves performance beyond what the benchmarks show.  For example let’s compare the 1080ti and the 2080ti.  I have used a single 1080ti, 2x1080ti SLI, and a 2080ti.  Most benchmarks show the 2080ti performing roughly 30% faster then the 1080ti.  Now my testing was nothing scientific but my results make me believe the difference in P3D is more like a 40-45% improvement.  This is based monitoring the usage % in task manager between the two cards under the same heavy load scenario.  I do know for a fact that a single 2080ti will outperform 2x1080ti SLI in P3D as well.  Just something to chew on but I think it is definitely worth buying a 2000 series card over the 1000 series.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, WilliamS said:

But why a 2070 over a 1070?

The 2070 will be 30-35% faster.  One stat that is overlooked Is there is about a 80% improvement in multi rendering between the two cards.  

Share this post


Link to post

OK. Definitely buying a 2070. I've never built a PC before, so to gain experience, I'm building a *rubbish* one for my mother!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mpw8679 said:

This is based monitoring the usage % in task manager between the two cards under the same heavy load scenario. 

So you've not seen any improvement on screen, just the card is under less load?

In price terms you'd be comparing a RTX2060 to a GTX1070. And an RTX2070 to a GTX1080. Then it's not so clear cut how much bang you get for your buck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

bang you get for your buck.

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ckyliu said:

So you've not seen any improvement on screen, just the card is under less load?

In price terms you'd be comparing a RTX2060 to a GTX1070. And an RTX2070 to a GTX1080. Then it's not so clear cut how much bang you get for your buck.

Of course I saw an on screen improvement.  I would not make a recommendation if I didn’t.  From what my eyes tell me the 40-45% improvement is correct.

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now