15 minutes ago, Jetset408 said:

 

A very interesting comparison, thanks Rob.  I loved going from 1080 to 1440 , some years back. Couldn’t go back  to a shorter vertical view.

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by domkle

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

Right. But it has everything to do with my enjoyment of the image I see in a flightsimulator. Higher resolution than I have now would be a nice improvement. But a larger screen is much nicer improvement of the image to me.

And a higher resolution reduces framerates as you say. Distance means nothing to me because my monitor is 26 inches away and I cannot see any pixels at all on 32"  screen at 1920 x 1080. I  could not move the monitor any closer if I wanted to.

Because I have the chair back from the desk for my legs to fit in front of the chair and on the pedals back under the desk. A keyboard in front of the monitor.  And a 17" monitor behind the keyboard. The 32" sits on about a 9" high platform so I can see all of it's screen above and behind the 17" screen. I cannot  see any pixels on the 32" screen. I can on the 17" screen which is closer.

The 32" screen cost me $180 total. It has 1.7 times the square inch area of what a 24" screen would have (square of the diagonals). So almost twice as big a view.

I’ll get FS20 on release an then wait at least 3 months to see how other people’s rigs work out before deciding on what hardware upgrades might be best. At this stage there’s too many uncertainties to be doing anticipatory upgrades.

Of course for those of us who've had cataract surgery it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. 

3 hours ago, SamYeager said:

Of course for those of us who've had cataract surgery it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. 

I've have had cataract surgery, I don't get your point?

Have thought for the console users having to put up with 55" 4K.

I'll be keeping my triple 1440*900 home cockpit setup.

Don’t think 4K is ever necessary. It can be nice (especially with colours actually), but never necessary. 

On 10/12/2019 at 8:49 AM, 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 ?

 

 

Lol, I think a 2080 Ti would probs struggle at 1440p with maxed settings tbh.  4K seems far fetched.  Most tripple A games are no where near as load intensive as a flight simulator has to be and even then a lot of games struggle to maintain 144 FPS at 4K on a top of the range card like the 2080 Ti.

I think you have the perfect resolution already, when hardware gets better you could always upgrade.

But this is all just my opinion, I may be totally wrong, we just don't know yet.

Some of us will be wanting to run MSFS on (multiple) projectors where running at 1080p and large screen sizes, spotting individual pixels can be quite a problem. With multiple projectors you also need to some overlap, so you lose some of the resolution anyway.

4k for me please, with higher resolution on the radar in the future.

On 10/15/2019 at 7:36 PM, KillerKlient said:

Lol, I think a 2080 Ti would probs struggle at 1440p with maxed settings tbh.  4K seems far fetched.  Most tripple A games are no where near as load intensive as a flight simulator has to be and even then a lot of games struggle to maintain 144 FPS at 4K on a top of the range card like the 2080 Ti.

My experience is another,

beside my flightsimming (mostly VR) i play some other games on standard monitor at 4k

especially for Youtube recording,

like: Hell let loose, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars 2, Wreckfest, just a few to name,

each of them i run everthing on Ultra at 4k 60fps and while I'm playing i allways record it live

with shadowplay at 4k 60fps for Youtube.

If i drop to 2k or HD i dont gain much more fps this new Cards are realy made for high resolutions.

 

EDIT: i think it also depends where you coming from, i jumped from 1080p direct to 2160p.

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by Nedo68

There are "Computer Monitors" - around 27" plus at 1080 HD - I have one - but no longer use it because  the trend - especially

with someone with X Box One - needs 4k HDR10 screen to take advantage of the latest games on offer - (I have this also in 43")

and special 4k  games like Formula One racing  - Forsa etc - and are best on a TV monitor  with that spec - so it gets used for my Flight Simming.

The computer uses Nvidia controls like any other type of monitor - and tries desperately to keep my TV's 60 hertz

PRD3 doesn't mind it - but doesn't fully accept it -and I have problems from time to time  - and I don't think Orbx took 4K HDR into 

consideration when developing up to TE.Britain. However the picture is good but affects the frame rates badly - but Aus V2 -

and all Australian airports etc come up very good in 4K and a flight over Melbourne is perfect on my 43" 4K TV

I have just changed over to XP 11 - and it is a disaster - and in trying to get a decent flight out TE Britain is a waste of my time.

This sim is definitely Not designed for use with high value vision  - and refuses to hold the 4k in the set up - it has to be set every time  

and the picture set at 200%. Trying a lower setting crashes the TV. With sliders at around half way - Inc. HDR- it sometimes is difficult to get

the Simplest aircraft to start - never mind fly - and my spec is very close to that which XP11 suggest is the best necessary - so I am stuck with the basic

scenery that comes with the sim software.

From what I have seen in recent weeks - more people are using 4kTvs - and it could be a reason for some of the problems in scenery.

I will not be giving up my 43" 4K HDR10 TV - I will not spend any more money chasing a proper flight in the latest Orbx TE software and 

await what MS will offer - since they have 4K HDR - all wrapped up - in a packaged technology called  X BOX One and the demos were all in 4K

All subjective. With my extreme nearsightedness,  and now age creeping in and needing readers  4k doesnt do anything for me. Everything is blurry anyway lol. No need to spend on something that I wont see the difference on. 

On 10/12/2019 at 11:59 AM, carbonbasedlifeform said:

The videos are edited?

All videos are edited. Stay woke.

3 hours ago, Nedo68 said:

My experience is another,

beside my flightsimming (mostly VR) i play some other games on standard monitor at 4k

especially for Youtube recording,

like: Hell let loose, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars 2, Wreckfest, just a few to name,

each of them i run everthing on Ultra at 4k 60fps and while I'm playing i allways record it live

with shadowplay at 4k 60fps for Youtube.

If i drop to 2k or HD i dont gain much more fps this new Cards are realy made for high resolutions.

 

EDIT: i think it also depends where you coming from, i jumped from 1080p direct to 2160p.

4k 60fps is not the same as 4k 144fps.  60 fps is pretty rubbish in some games, I play a lot of first person shooters games and can't stand to play on lower FPS.

Most "gaming" monitors are 144 fps these days and in my opinion that is the target FPS you want your GPU to be able to achieve.

 

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by KillerKlient