19 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Are you trying to blind me with science? It would help if you described what MTF is to start with.

Let’s correct one thing first shall we. No monitor I know is 4K. That would require a horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels. The actual resolution is 3840 and is known as UHD.

As someone who moved from a 1920*1080 display to one with 3840*2160 I can assure you the difference is very noticeable on cockpit instruments. I sit around 2.5ft from the screen.

Not at all...

I think we all agree there is some visible difference between 1440p and 1080p, so in the sense that a 1080p monitor cannot output 1440p, you're seeing that initial difference at a minimum. To be clear, I am not arguing people should stay with 1080p monitors, just that maybe going FULL res on your 4k is overblown (don't know I'd have to test it). Rationally or logically speaking, 4k is too high compared to 1440p to see a big difference, but 1080p to 1440p is noticeable.

The MTF is the contrast of each pixel as it rolls off basically. Hence, think of it like a DSLR camera vs. a point and shoot and the difference in sharpness. MTF isn't super scientific if your a camera guy, it's a well known term (slightly sciency). Wasn't trying to sound like a know it all, just that is the term I tend to rely on. The problem is 4k monitors tend to be naturally sharper because the pixel grid had to be MFR'd much smaller which causes other side effects to the MTF .

The problem is because the pixels are smaller, 4k monitors (early prototypes) appeared less sharp even though they had higher resolution, so the MFR's need much higher MTF to obtain the perceived higher resolution. Without MTF the resolution doesn't mean anything, it's like showing a blurry photo that was taken with a $25 camera that had 30mp resolution, but the problem was the original optics. 

 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

16 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No monitor I know is 4K. That would require a horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels.

that is Digital Cinema res, Ray

but you are 'splitting hairs'...

personally, i use 'Ultrasharp' & 'Premier Colour' - & we can call it 4K 'Retina' 32" display...

😉

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Moving to a UHD display from 1920*1080 brought every instrument in my cockpit into perfect clarity with every sub-division of a gauge perfectly readable.

Have you tested your theory with a practical demonstration?

Since I fly VR most of the time, no.

I assume you refer to a zoomed out state? Because at 100% zoom, which is what you would see in real life, everything is perfectly readable at 1080p.

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Farlis

13 hours ago, chickster25 said:

So the ideal would be at least

3840x 1280 resolution, ultra settings, at least 60fps, Large city area, real world weather, realistic AI, complex heavy aircraft, air hauler 2 or similar

when that is achievable then I would say the PC is the match of MSFS.

Before this is achievable, MSFS will add a new Extreme quality setting one notch above Ultra. 😜

And I think it would make sense: While you're aiming for a constant 60 fps, many in here are happy with a frame rate locked at 30fps, as long as it's stutter free. I'd argue they'll want to increase the visual fidelity instead of flying at 60 fps, and maybe  120+ in lighter areas. 

From what I see, current high-end PCs aren't far away from reaching your requirements on a UHD/4K screen, reaching typical 40-60fps depending on where they fly. The biggest issue are the stutters that seem to be happen even on good system, but they're rather than software issues that need to be ironed out over time on Asobo's side. Optimisations of the engine are underway, but there's no golden bullet to make it magically run faster in a single shot. It's hard work improving the code in many different spots, and that's what they're doing right now in order to make it run on Xbox. According to Seb, they already reduced the memory usage by a factor of 3, which will come to the PC version too in one of the upcoming sim updates. 

It's a longwinded process, especially when they break almost as many things as they fix in every update. I think they had some issues getting the continuous development organised, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the reduced rate of releases and the beta testing will eventually bring us more stability.

My feeling is we're the optimisations are getting us there before a new hardware generation is being released. But we'll see...

 

the RTX 4080Ti will sort it!

1 hour ago, craigeaglefire said:

i reckon this would be fairly good - no available budget for it tho',

https://www.apple.com/au/pro-display-xdr/

They probably are good, haven't compared any monitors. My monitor isn't that great as I noted, because I use a projector. Honestly, since I'm used to the lower sharpness of the projector, even a 1080p monitor looks a lot better, but the projector has 4k (but I don't use it in 4k mode as the PJ isn't natively sharp enough to be used like this).

I've definitely considered going back to a desk setup, but flying from a recliner is more relaxing unless I buy a really comfortable type flight chair, and then I don't know how to set it all up or where to store it when not in use (or even how to make it comparable to the PJ setup). The 120" screen is a lot more immersive, and I cannot vary seating distance to accomplish the difference unless I probably used at least a 70" TV. Again, complicated to change from what I know to the unknown.

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

That is exactly why I didn't buy a 4K monitor. You just don't need it at desk distance. If I were sitting on a couch 6 feet away it would be a different matter.

but if you are sitting up close, everything gets bigger, including the pixels, so wouldn't you want them smaller and more of them to get the pixel density you had when you sat further away?

By sitting closer you've gained a bigger field of view, but you've lost resolution from your eyes perspective

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by dogmanbird

41 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I think we all agree there is some visible difference between 1440p and 1080p,

Agreed. 33% to be precise.

42 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

just that maybe going FULL res on your 4k is overblown (don't know I'd have to test it).

The increase of pixels from FullHD to UHD is 50%. So you’re saying you could see a 33% increase but not a 50% increase? And this sounds theoretical since you don’t have a UHD monitor.

45 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Rationally or logically speaking, 4k is too high compared to 1440p to see a big difference, but 1080p to 1440p is noticeable.

And with that statement I’m out of this discussion. Have fun with your discussion with others. 

MSFS is still a 1 core main thread app, so 1 core will be taxed almost to the max and the others very little.

I have a 14 core 7940X @ 4.7 Ghz and core 12 has a load of 85-98% while the 13 others mostly stay below 10%.

The 3090 running 2x 4K as one wide view is able to stay above 40 FPS.

Probably DX12 might help shifting some load to the graphics card.

And shifting some calculations from the main thread to the other cores, if possible, will also help.

But knowing us, we mostly look for maxed out settings icw smooth as silk performance...

 

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Agreed. 33% to be precise.

The increase of pixels from FullHD to UHD is 50%. So you’re saying you could see a 33% increase but not a 50% increase? And this sounds theoretical since you don’t have a UHD monitor.

And with that statement I’m out of this discussion. Have fun with your discussion with others. 

I come from a projector background and video and rendering background, so I've seen a lot of high-end devices at different viewing positions. The # of pixels only matters to a point, it can actually be detrimental if not done correctly by the MFR.

Again, have to go back to the $25 30mp camera example, the sensor and the optics are what matters, because garbage in garbage out. The pixel definition on the monitor is similar to the optics issue of the camera (though a backwards example). With high-end video it is the same problem, even tiny tiny variances in pixel definition or technology affect the image more than the resolution at SOME point. 

Just like a $25 30mp camera is worse than a 15mp $500 camera, the same basic thing applies in reference level video devices. 
 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

42 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Since I fly VR most of the time, no.

I assume you refer to a zoomed out state? Because at 100% zoom, which is what you would see in real life, everything is perfectly readable at 1080p.

I have no experience using VR so I’m not qualified to pass comment. All my flying is done using a 32” 16:9 UHD monitor with zoom levels fixed at 0.56 in P3D.

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no experience using VR so I’m not qualified to pass comment. All my flying is done using a 32” 16:9 UHD monitor with zoom levels fixed at 0.56 in P3D.

P3D, no MSFS at all?

46 minutes ago, craigeaglefire said:

that is Digital Cinema res, Ray

but you are 'splitting hairs'...

Since we are talking about computer monitors my point was valid. 4K is the lazy way of describing UHD maybe because it sounds sexier. 🤔

Digital projectors have 4096 horizontal pixels.

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

P3D, no MSFS at all?

I’ll consider it when the beta testing has finished. But low-level flight only.

Just now, Ray Proudfoot said:

Since we are talking about computer monitors my point was valid. 4K is the lazy way of describing UHD maybe because it sounds sexier. 🤔

Digital projectors have 4096 horizontal pixels.

Right, the native (DCI) 4K format is 4096 x 2160. 

That said, since many movies are widescreen or CIH (2.3 - 2.4 aspect), the actual resolution you are watching a movie is closer to 4096 x 1716.
For cinema I prefer the CIH widescreen format over 16:9, but I Tried that aspect for flying once and it was TOO much.

I prefer a standard 16:9 monitor for flying, otherwise start to get motion sickness on such a large screen (maybe a wider screen is fine on a monitor, no idea).