4 minutes ago, AnkH said:

The funny thing is that people tend to forget that basically all that matters is not the screen size or the resolution of the screen, but the pixel density of the screen. If someone is using a 70" screen with 4K, this is still only 63 ppi. Considering the fact that this ridicously low pixel density is also achieved by a 34" FullHD screen, it is rather funny that people use such a setup for "gaming". 

My 27" 1440p monitor has a ppi of 109, and I consider this already at the edge of being acceptable. But 63 ppi? Seriously? 

Correct. If I had an 85 inch TV is @Bobsk8 telling me I should be sitting 4 metres away and using 1080p because anything over that is a waste...

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by KL Oo

Running just fine here on a GTX1080 thanks. Another troll post. Should be in the Hardware forum anyway. 

When will there be a PC to run MSFS? 

But there is one already ! Mine, a 4770+1080 combo 🤣.

MFS remarkably differs from its predecessors by that. It works well even  on low-end machines at release even with a medium-high level of settings.

 

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

The funny thing is that people tend to forget that basically all that matters is not the screen size or the resolution of the screen, but the pixel density of the screen. If someone is using a 70" screen with 4K, this is still only 63 ppi. Considering the fact that this ridicously low pixel density is also achieved by a 34" FullHD screen, it is rather funny that people use such a setup for "gaming". 

My 27" 1440p monitor has a ppi of 109, and I consider this already at the edge of being acceptable. But 63 ppi? Seriously? 

I understand your point on pixel density, but there are a lot of other factors.

 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

 

yeah, i think there's some confusion over space between pixels (screen door aka physical pixel size) and pixel density (resolution) for a particular sized screen

for a given resolution, pixel size, physical TV size and viewing distance, the argument over what's "acceptably good" is like looking at a piece of art, and not worth arguing over 🙂

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by dogmanbird

33 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Generally most name-brand screens are fairly sharp and have a decent pixel density these days, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

Pixel density is only depending on the resolution and the screen size. I do not know why you think that this is somehow related to name-branded screens or not. Even the most expensive 70" screen with 4K will have only 63 ppi, no matter what panel is used and how expensive or cheap the screen is... 

Just take a look at your cell phone, why do you think that the image on this small display is so sharp? Exactly, because todays cell phones have a very high ppi, my S10E for example has a whopping 483 ppi. To achieve this on my 27" monitor, the screen would need a resolution of more than 8K (!). Of course, this is unrealistic (today) and as mentioned, I am never as close to my 27" screen as I am to the cell phone monitor. So I do not need such a pixel density on my computer screen. 

Same goes for your football stadium LED, this probably has an ultra-bad pixel density, but because we sit so far away from this screen, it does not really matter.

But vice versa, running 4K on a huge screen such as 70" is pretty much useless until you move your eyepoint so far away that the picture is really sharp. Certainly way more than the 1.40m mentioned here. Get closer, eg. 70cm, reduce the size by half and the resolution by half and you have exactly the same appearance. Get even closer, eg. 35cm, reduce again size and resolution by half and you still have the same experience. Or, what I am trying to say: the image on a 27" 1440p monitor is, assuming you sit a certain distance away, more crisp and sharp than on a 70" 4K display.

Sounds complicated and I am not very good in explaining it, but what I am trying to say is: it is not the resolution that defines how crisp and sharp a display appears, but how far away you sit from it and how high the pixel density is. 

Everyone on this forum already has a PC that can run MSFS: it's the one you're running MSFS on. So the question is kind of silly. 

This discussion is basically as old as flight simulation. The answer is always the same: there will never be hardware beefy enough to run MSFS at whatever resolution is currently the highest, all sliders right, with no stutters. Sorry not gonna happen. 

This won't stop folks from throwing expensive, overpriced hardware at MSFS. The only ones laughing all the way to the bank are the hardware manufacturers:

The solution usually comes down to two very cost effective things: stick with 1080 or 1440p, and back your sliders off one or two notches. But, oh boy, as soon as you say that the hardware fetishists come after you as if you proposed selling their kit and kin into bondage. Turn settings down? Those are fighting words!!

16 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Pixel density is only depending on the resolution and the screen size. I do not know why you think that this is somehow related to name-branded screens or not. Even the most expensive 70" screen with 4K will have only 63 ppi, no matter what panel is used and how expensive or cheap the screen is... 

 

I am well aware of what pixel density is, but the 3  (MTF / Resolution / PPI) are in fact the measure. This is a professional measure they use with scientific measuring equipment when producing lenses and video devices, not sure what you are getting at?

I think you are mixing up source PPI and destination PPI as being the same measure.

PPI (Pixel per Inch) is the condensation of pixels within a an inch of that display, whether horizontally or vertically. You can fit a different number of pixels depending on aspects and various measures. PPI is similar to “Megapixel”. It gives the amount of pixel used for one inch, but that does not mean that these pixel hold useful information. I think you are talking about in a 1:1 match PPI source is the same as resolution (sometimes), but we are specifically talking about sharpness here as it relates to the MTF and resolution, not just the PPI as it is contained in the image. You have to consider the source PPI (whether it's at its optimal definition) as that then translates to the destination PPI. We are talking about a lot of confusing factors here, like the source quality of the aerial imagery being too low PPI at the source, or the rendering detail not
being seen regardless of the render scaling.

We were discussing at what point does it actually make a difference, the higher PPI at the source vs the output of the device, that is why it is important to keep into account both the source material and destination. If you are just talking one or the other, you can then not discuss at what point 4k makes a difference, because leaving out the source data is not a reference sample as a pattern would be.

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

10 hours ago, Chock said:

Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog - A10 Replica stick and throttle.

Not used my stick much, mostly the throttle with the Alpha - great bit of kit though, and I keep seeing it in movies now as well 😂😂

that's what is called a 'Retina Display' - very high PPI...

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I am well aware of what pixel density is, but the 3  (MTF / Resolution / PPI) are in fact the measure. This is a professional measure they use with scientific measuring equipment when producing lenses and video devices, not sure what you are getting at?

Sure, I was just irritated by your statement that "most name-brand screens are fairly sharp and have a decent pixel density these days"...

30 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Sure, I was just irritated by your statement that "most name-brand screens are fairly sharp and have a decent pixel density these days"...

I understand, but if you measure pixel density precisely and not using the standard method of the entire screen, you'll find a different number of pixels (1.5 vs 1) in the same spacing at a micrometer measurement on two devices that use different technologies (like LCD vs. whatever) due to the pixel gap, that's why I don't like the term PPI to be used interchangeably with resolution without specifying both source and destination pixel density, as it also depends on the source. It just confuses the point when someone says PPI.

We are talking about the ability for the eye to basically resolve a small group of pixels, that's why PPI is going to confuse people as the pixel gap when he was using it to talk about resolution. But in professional video discussions, when you bring out the term PPI, you are usually referring to the source > destination ratio (as like in Adobe) then the pure PPI of the end-device, because the end-device standard PPI measurement is the same (so why refer to it)?

Either say resolution or destination PPI, but don't use PPI as a separate or intertwined definition with resolution.

 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

there is also 'UltraSharp' monitor technology - with advanced colour attributes - that addresses very 'HiFi' monitor requirements,

no substitute for a quality monitor - agreed!

How the hell can a screen with a defined size, e.g. 27 inch, and a defined resolution, e.g. 2560x1440p have different PPI's? I dont get this, you will always result in exact the same amount of pixels? What you are saying is that depending on the technology, the pixels are closer or further apart from each other, correct, but on a whole screen, this then automatically results in a different resolution on a different size.

Example: if you have 1.5 um gap between pixels vs. 1 um gap, you will be able to have a higher resolution on a smaller screen with the latter one, of course. Yet you will still only have a defined amount of pixels per area and this is directly proportional to the term PPI. Use instead pixels per square centimeter or whatever, the result is still the same...

What you are trying to say is that with technology A, you can build a panel with 27" and 4K resolution while with technology B, you wont be able to fit a higher resolution than 1440p on the same 27" panel. But this still comes down to pixel density, no?

32 minutes ago, AnkH said:

How the hell can a screen with a defined size, e.g. 27 inch, and a defined resolution, e.g. 2560x1440p have different PPI's? I dont get this, you will always result in exact the same amount of pixels? What you are saying is that depending on the technology, the pixels are closer or further apart from each other, correct, but on a whole screen, this then automatically results in a different resolution on a different size.

Why use PPI at all if not referring to the source, I just assumed he was talking about pixel gap, because that is what it sounded like. I was actually not looking to correct anyone as I was assuming he was referring to it generically and just going with it.

He said you only have bla bla PPI at x inches, why would anyone bring that up if not talking about PIXEL GAP since its always the same for X resolution?

Yes, I realize that PPI is the # of pixels measured in the entire display, but technically it is NOT the # of pixels contained in an inch if you use location centered measurements. That has to do with pixel gap, if you consider that the pixel itself is the visible part of the pixel (not the pixel + the spacing). We were specifically talking about resolving resolution with our eyes, that's why I don't understand the original argument of the low PPI unless referring to the density of the pixels in a given space. The point made no sense unless he was incorrectly referring to pixel gap, which is what I assumed. 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery