Resolution : is 4K really necessary ?

[irrics 1,517]

Yes

[Dominique_K 10,146]

46 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

 

I don't want to put words into your mouth and I acknowledge that there an "if" in the first sentence but one implication one could draw is that MS emphazises so much 4k because a coarser resolution would bring  aliasing and shimmering without an efficient remedy.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway some well reasoned arguments above, for and against, which tell me that the usual balancing act between resolution and fluidity may not be over yet.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

I use it for all games. Then I turn AA down.

Reading text is so much better at 4K (provided scaling is properly set up) and you can't go back.

6 hours ago, rjfry said:

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

The videos are edited? I think they cherry-pick the bests shots, which is natural, but I'm not aware of any brushing-up or similar. I don't see any reason to believe they're not in-game.

[Dominique_K 10,146]

3 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

I use it for all games. Then I turn AA down.

 

I truly believe that the picture is better, my question was more, will the new sim still looking good enough with a 2k res to help the hardware to cope with a demanding software. Is 4k  a hype or a need ?

What is CPU/GPU pair, If I may ?

[dave2013 1,130]

I plan on getting exactly what you have, i.e. a 27" monitor with 2560x1440 resolution.  I'm using a 24" with 1920x1080 right now.

4K in my opinion is overkill unless you have a large monitor and sit very close to it.  I doubt one's eyes would discern the difference with a 27" monitor so it's just a waste of resources as the video card is having to manipulate more pixels for no benefit.

Dave

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

1 hour ago, domkle said:

I don't want to put words into your mouth and I acknowledge that there an "if" in the first sentence but one implication one could draw is that MS emphazises so much 4k because a coarser resolution would bring  aliasing and shimmering without an efficient remedy.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Deferred rendering is something that nearly all modern AAA games utilise, and the increased shader/texture aliasing is inherent to the higher detail compared to the old simulators. So what you are saying could be true, though this wouldn't be exclusive to Microsoft Flight Simulator. A resolution higher than 1080p is necessary to bring out all the detail that newer games can display, which is part of the reason that install sizes are getting so large lately.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

I have two desktop PC`s one old sim with 24" 1080p acer and my flight sim 28"asus 4K, same shot on both PC`s I can tell the difference but that's just me.

To me it`s a bit like 40"HD TV and a 40"4K TV when seen side by side you see the difference.

Edited October 12, 2019 by rjfry

[jaytee73 132]

With the same computer setup that I have now - 1050TI - I used a 42" HD 1080 TV and it was good

4 months ago I switched to a 43" Hisense 4K - HDR10 TV - and there is a definite improvement in quality - even with the same N-Vidia settings.

The only annoying thing that I find is that with some of my older software/PC Games -  the text is very small

(- although in some instances it can be corrected thro the compatibility Panel - e.g. TrackIr 5 software )

I run Pr3D with sliders around 3/4  and anti -aliasing at 4 - and this is on TE South - slightly higher for Aus V2

Needless to say - when using  X-BoxOne (4K) - the picture is brilliant HDR -when using made by 4k games (F1 Grand Prix)

and still very good on upgraded Xbox 360 stuff

[ryanbatc 12,854]

I'm still at 1080P....I would really need to see a large monitor at 4k to understand if I truly need 4k.

I still fight with fps in p3d at 1080p...how are people getting 60 fps with 4k and add-ons?

[suncoastflyer 685]

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm still at 1080P....I would really need to see a large monitor at 4k to understand if I truly need 4k.

I still fight with fps in p3d at 1080p...how are people getting 60 fps with 4k and add-ons?

You can bet that unless they are running with flat earth settings, they are not getting 60fps on the ground. P3D is CPU limited anyway so if I for example had a 4K monitor I'd likely get the same FPS that I'm having at 1080p because my GPU has loads of headroom at that resolution.

[blueshark747 1,843]

21 hours ago, domkle said:

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 ?

 

 

I agree 4K, 5K or even 8K either way it's still cyclops vision flat pancake 2d

Edited October 13, 2019 by blueshark747

[Fielder 3,673]

My preference is that a wider screen is always much better.

Resolution is of much lesser importance to me by far, and reduces framerates.

And since 32" monitors can be had for under $200 (1080p) or a little more, I don't understand 24 or 27 which in my opinion are a poor choice unless you just don't  have the 5" more lateral space.

I use 32" curved 1080p and framerates are never an issue with the densest Orbx scenery and FSX on max. 

I will need to upgrade my vid card and probably my cpu, but not the monitor for MFS. Until later on maybe.

https://www.walmart.com/search/?cat_id=0&query=32+inch+curved+monitor

Edited October 13, 2019 by Fielder

[Christopher Low 5,353]

The larger the monitor, the larger the pixels at a specific resolution. That's the reason.

[Jetset408 108]

It was simpl for me.

32" 1080p - couldn't read the instruments on the FSLabs screens.

28" 4K - performance hit with same aircraft esp with Dybamic Lighting, and scaling in some programmes was awful.

32" 1440p curved gaming monitor - PERFECTION!

All run off a 8700K / 1080Ti

[Dominique_K 10,146]

1 hour ago, Fielder said:

 

The size of the monitor has nothing to do with fluidity/framerate, the resolution is the issue here.

At 1920 *1080 on your 32in your image has over 2 millions pixels  vs 3.7 M at 2560*1440 on a 27in like mine. You’ve less pixels to push so it is easier to render and you have a better framerate everything being equal. As pixels are larger blobs on a wider screen, you need a greater distance between you and the screen (the lateral space is irrelevant). All in all, your image is coarser than mine, less pixels and a greater distance from your eyes. Now, don’t make me wrong, when I say coarser, I don’t mean that it is not nice, just that it is objectively less sharp.

Now 3840*2160 is 8.3 M pixels whatever the size of the monitor. Much more extra fine details (including colors) but at what price, fluidity/framerate-wise in a new sim packed with hires 3d buildings and trees and tens of cloud layers and whatnots ? 

Will next year hardware be able to cope ? And more importantly for a lot of  of us, what  would be the penalty going down to 3.7 or even 2 M pixels because 4k also means buying a 2080 ? Hence the title, a little provocative I admit 😉, of my topic, is 4k necessary ?