When will there be a PC to run MSFS?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,956]

43 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Yah, on some displays there are scaling issues, and some have fewer. Most modern displays don't have scaling artifacts anymore as long as you set them up a certain way,

The one golden rule about digital displays you must always run them at their native resolution. If you don't the image will be less than perfect.

I'm forced to downscale my UHD monitor to 1920*1080 for FS Labs Concorde as it only runs in 32-bit OSs and I'd run out of VAS almost immediately if I stayed at UHD. Despite being exactly one quarter of the native resolution you would think the scaling would be near perfect but it isn't and that's with a top quality 650GBP BenQ display.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Many TV's can upscale or downscale a signal near perfectly, but nothing is always going to be perfect. They have special chips in them to do so. Monitors don't have as good of scalers, but you definitely don't always have to feed a video device a native signal for a good image.

You can get an external scaler for that if it is really that bad to pre-scale it back to the native resolution, like a Lumagen, but I haven't seen any modern devices lately with really terrible scalers in them.

Benq has never been known for their scaling capabiities though, Sony is the safe bet.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Bobsk8 12,732]

30 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

  

Why did Apple make a keyboard where you have to separately knock out all the keys and screw them back in or pay them $300 at the Apple store for a new keyboard, and then a ribbon cable where if you are off on re-seating it by 0.1mm it breaks in half, I wonder... Why would they do such a thing, the great mystery.

Apple products are not designed to fix, they are designed to break so you will buy a new one. Try and get a schematic of a $2000 Macbook and see how far you get. 

[Bobsk8 12,732]

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Many TV's can upscale or downscale a signal near perfectly, but nothing is always going to be perfect. They have special chips in them to do so. Monitors don't have as good of scalers, but you definitely don't always have to feed a video device a native signal for a good image.

You can get an external scaler for that if it is really that bad to pre-scale it back to the native resolution, like a Lumagen, but I haven't seen any modern devices lately with really terrible scalers in them.

There isn't a scaler made that doesn't have some artifacts. 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

There isn't a scaler made that doesn't have some artifacts. 

It's only true at certain Frames per second where it's noticeable with certain settings, the Sony scalers are near perfect for the most part, if you get the settings right.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Bobsk8 12,732]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It's only true at certain Frames per second where it's noticeable with certain settings, the Sony scalers are near perfect for the most part, if you get the settings right.

I have worked with Pro scalers in the past that were over $10,000.  They had artifacts, if you knew what to look for. . 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Bobsk8

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

I have worked with Pro scalers in the past that were over $10,000.  They had artifacts. 

I cannot see any artifacts on LG or Sony TV's when upscaling, they may be there in a reference setup sample test, but I cannot see anything. This stuff has come a long ways, and I'm not convinced a proprietary $10,000 scaler would be better than the 20 million Sony or LG spent on developing theirs for their TV.

 

 

[Cpt_Piett 4,652]

Wow, haven’t been able to keep up with this thread for a few days and after reading through 4-5 pages of in depth technical details on pixel density and what not I’m having a slight headache 😅

It’s nevertheless an interesting thread, albeit it has derailed somewhat from the original question. 

I might add that I got the 77” for watching TV content. It was fairly coincidental that I hooked it up to the computer, mainly out of curiosity. This was several weeks ago, and I’m still using it for gaming and simming, 

To be honest, before this thread I haven’t been giving the slightest thought to pixel density and viewing distance. My regular monitor is a 38” ultra-wide which I’m very happy with. But gaming and simming on the big screen is a completely different experience in terms of immersion.

The disadvantage: when I’m done simming I have to stow away the quite heavy pedal+HOTAS gear which is mounted on a full metal stand. Considering both the HOTAS and pedals are also mostly metal this quickly becomes a bit tedious.

 

[eslader 1,783]

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I have to stow away the quite heavy pedal+HOTAS gear which is mounted on a full metal stand. Considering both the HOTAS and pedals are also mostly metal this quickly becomes a bit tedious.

You can get retractable casters that you can bolt into the metal stand. They flip out of the way when you're using it so it's not moving around, then drop down to roll it away.

 

[Cpt_Piett 4,652]

8 minutes ago, eslader said:

You can get retractable casters

That’s not a bad idea, thanks.

[chickster25 153]

I think what has surprised me more than anything in this thread is that there are less people using triple screens than I had assumed. 
When you look at videos of people sim racing the majority have 3 screens and I thought the same would happen with flight sim to give you an all round view but it seems that it’s split between one large screen, vr or one standard sized monitor.

The fact that I’m trying to run 3 screens (even with nvidia surround) is another strain on an already busy GPU, that many others are not experiencing.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Triple screens are good if you have the space to waste and you don't mind the break in the image (for cockpit view they are good).

Almost all early 4k movies were upscaled from 1080p using special sampling techniques as they were re-encoded to the disk, they were fake 4k and if you were playing them you were watching the results of an upscale technique, even though many thought they were watching a native UHD-4k movie. Many projectors also fake 4k with an upscaling technique using a digital shifting technique (this is in itself an upscaling technique), and this can have artifacts but not generally for video watching (For gaming yes, but it's hard to see mainly just lag, but this is the example of a very heavy upscale technique even getting away with doing it). Even a Panasonic BD player or an NVIDIA shield can upscale correctly these days. Upscaling is everywhere and if you are scaling to the same aspect ratio, the difference isn't very much, sure if it's scaling to a different aspect that's an issue. Just my thoughts about upscaling...

Not saying to go upscale your signal (that of course makes no sense if you have a higher res source), just that the best upscaling techniques are not destructive, they can actually help the image compared to a regular native signal (in some cases). In shootouts and A/B comparisons of the upscale vs. a Native device playing the same content, the upscaled content was chosen almost every time over the native 1080p content.


 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

5 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Wow, haven’t been able to keep up with this thread for a few days and after reading through 4-5 pages of in depth technical details on pixel density and what not I’m having a slight headache 😅

It’s nevertheless an interesting thread, albeit it has derailed somewhat from the original question. 

 

 

The original question lacks substance, and it was a leading click-bait like topic.

OK, so back to the original question, the game works fine and I'm actually surprised how well it works on just a mid-grade system, that's why I find the question a bit silly. Sure if you are flying low over NY, but almost every game has SPOTS where the FPS is bad if you try to find them. MSFS is no different, it's using one of the best game engines possible, it's just that Flight Sims have a high object density in a given area, so it's not even a fair comparison to be honest. Other than the bugs that cause occasional performance degradation, the game works great (except for the scary updates too).

There are issues with MSFS but the raw performance isn't one of them, not for what it accomplishes. No other PC game has to render clouds and that many objects below in real-time from a streamed block of content, that's a tough standard to live up to.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[chickster25 153]

22 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Triple screens are good if you have the space to waste and you don't mind the break in the image (for cockpit view they are good)
 

Not necessarily, there are now ultra wide monitors available which offer triple screen resolutions without any bezels, as long as you can spare about £700

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

6 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

Not necessarily, there are now ultra wide monitors available which offer triple screen resolutions without any bezels, as long as you can spare about £700

Yes, that's kind of a cool idea too, but I find that aspect too wide probably.
I've tried wider aspects on larger screens, and it's too much for me (especially at 120"), but I don't know.
I remember a review about them, some people thought the aspect was too narrow, but then again it depends how you setup your cockpit view.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery