From the start, we have all assumed that 4k was the only way to go for FS20. I’ve not made my mind though.

I run today P3D at 2560x1440 on a 27in monitor and I am satisfied of the quality. The only AA problems I’ve, come from my weak CPU.

So do we need 4k or is it marketing hype ?

It would be great if the  best hardware available next year wouldn’t just keep our nose barely  out of the water. 

What about a 2080 pushing a 2560x1440 res of all these lovely photogrammetric or azuric (?) sceneries ?

 

 

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by domkle

I think when it comes to monitor, it really depends on taste. I've yet to go higher than 1080p but I don't mind because instead I have a super high refresh rate panel. I made the decision that I liked ultra high framerates to be displayed over higher pixel density, I realise you don't need to sacrifice that these days because high refresh rate 4K monitors do exist but I don't think there is really a GPU available yet to take advantage of that. I know for a fact my next monitor will be a high refresh rate 1440p panel with HDR support, because dam, Flight Simulator will look awesome with HDR enabled, another thing which I have yet to experience.

I have a smaller monitor and a resolution of 1680x1050, the computer is on the desk where i study and work etc etc so space is also limited. I am not considering increasing it much (perhaps a new monitor for full hd) and a thing to consider is always the need you will need to pair a 4k monitor with a much more powerful and expensive GPU.

I'd say this should be more of a generalized question than a MSFS specific one, as it applies to any game.

I work as a 3D/graphic artist, so I more easily notice missing lighting techniques, post processing, tessellation, etc. Because of this, when playing games I always prefer a lower resolution with max settings to a higher resolution with lower settings. If you have good enough hardware, you can crank up anti-aliasing in many games and never have to worry about seeing any significant aliasing or FPS drop (I still run a 1080p monitor and have never really had a desire to upgrade).

As @suncoastflyer said, it all comes down to preference.

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by HughesMDflyer4

i run everything on a 4k monitor, i like it, at work i even run a 5K monitor, but like everyone above

said it all comes down to preference. In my experience at 4K you dont need Super Sampling settings

like you need in lower res. i mostly have them complete off this gives you a boost in FPS.

Since i mostly game in VR i have to run everthing anyway in 4K res or bigger to get a sharp view in VR 😉

 

It`s why some are going overboard with the pre-recorded edited videos shot in 4K .

Thanks all. I understand you point Brandon but  the FS20 communication is actually exclusively done around 4K, almost as a prerequisite. 

 Preference : I obviously would love full 4k (3840*2160) but I wonder whether next year hardware will cope with it without dumbing down the sim. Been there, done that.  Didn't like it. On a side note , I remember with amusement the to and fro I did, long ago, from 800*600 to 1024*768 to get the best  simming experience . Some things never change <sigh>..

 

At the global preview event, didn't they have 4K monitors? I can't remember. Seems to indicate performance is pretty good if you have the hardware.

Project Scarlet and 4K TVs will be a common setup if not standard setup. 

In my opinion, 4k on 27" screens, or smaller, is just a waste of system resources. At normal viewing distances on a 27" monitor you can't even see the individual pixels at QHD so why bother with the added load of running at 4k? At my viewing distance even my 32" QHD monitor looks pin sharp so, apart from the potential extra colours with 4k HDR (which I probably wouldn't notice, anyway), it's not worth the performance loss for me to go to 4k.

If you viewed the preview videos on your non-4k monitor and were impressed, then you'll be equally impressed with the sim when you run it live. They may have been captured in 4k but you're viewing them (assuming you're doing so full-screen) at the native resolution of your monitor. They may look even better when they're not being re-scaled to your monitor resolution.

A photo taken at slandered pixel res and one at 4xtimes pixel res the later will look sharper and more detailed.  

10 minutes ago, rjfry said:

A photo taken at slandered pixel res and one at 4xtimes pixel res the later will look sharper and more detailed.  

But not if viewed on a screen with the standard pixel resolution. You can only see the number of pixels your screen physically has so higher resolution images will always look slightly softer focus as they're being donwnscaled to fit.

Of course 4K resolution is not necessary. I run P3D v4 @ 1920x1080 resolution on my 24" widescreen monitor, and I will be running it at the same resolution when I upgrade my PC in the next couple of months. The picture quality on those higher resolution screens is very nice (I saw quite a few of them at the recent Cosford 2019 Flightsim Show), but sticking with 1080p gives me a bit of breathing space to maximise detail settings, and that is my priority.

One of the positives in getting older is that from 10ft I can hardly tell the difference between 4K and 1080P. 😂

A thing to consider is that if Microsoft Flight Simulator has switched to deferred rendering, traditional MSAA and SSAA will not work anymore, and we'll have to do with post-processing AA methods or an internal resoluton scale (which will still not look as good as a proper SGSSAA implementation). For this reason I find 1080p gaming insufferable nowadays, and with all the extra scenery detail, I think that 4K will provide a rather major benefit. But then, not everyone is as sensitive to aliasing and shimmering, so this is completely subjective.