Render scaling, using a 1080p monitor

[JYW 2,991]

3 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I don't think TAA takes too many frames actually. 

I agree.  for how generally effective TAA is, I've always been surprised since it arrived, at how well optimized it seems to be.

My opinion is that pursuing increased Render Scaling in order to get less aliasing, will be more resource intensive than keeping TAA on, and using a slightly more conservative render scaling setting.   TAA effectively does one (albeit complex) algorithm. Render Scaling has a positive AA 'effect' but involves greater processing as it's scaling process has anisotropic effects as well as antialiasing.

[TheFamilyMan 286]

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Even with the 3080Ti, with 4k at 125% it brought it to its knees, as I expected it to really.

Though possible, applying render scale past 100% on a 4k monitor shouldn't be necessary and as you figured and demonstrated, slays a top end gcard designed for 4k performance.  Maybe if your screen size was 120" such a 4k render scale could be useful, but sitting close enough to it to notice the improvement would be rather impractical to say the least.

As for what is the best mix of render scale and TAA, that IMO is a matter of personal preference determined by a little "trial and error" by the user...there is no one-size-fits all setting.

Edited August 18, 2021 by TheFamilyMan

[ckyliu 1,749]

I note the epic https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-graphics-settings-and-performance-guide-su5-complete-retest-8-2-2021/132407 illustrated settings guide has been updated, so I'll probably tweak my settings based off that and then see what I can do with Building LOD and Terrain LOD before going onto see if I can eek out any oversize rendering whilst ditching TAA for DXAA or something - but with a 10 year old processor driving the whole process who knows what could happen!?

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

11 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

I note the epic https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-graphics-settings-and-performance-guide-su5-complete-retest-8-2-2021/132407 illustrated settings guide has been updated, so I'll probably tweak my settings based off that and then see what I can do with Building LOD and Terrain LOD before going onto see if I can eek out any oversize rendering whilst ditching TAA for DXAA or something - but with a 10 year old processor driving the whole process who knows what could happen!?

To be honest I would keep TAA and then if you have frames to spare play (and only if you have frames to spare) play with render scaling. TAA is going to give you more benefit than higher renders.

I run render 130 and LOD 300 at ultra 1440p - HOWEVER at render 100 and LOD 200 I was getting 90 FPS so I can afford to.  Do not sacrifice TAA to gain a few percent more render scaling that would be a bad plan.

 

[bobcat999 8,546]

1 hour ago, TheFamilyMan said:

Though possible, applying render scale past 100% on a 4k monitor shouldn't be necessary and as you figured and demonstrated, slays a top end gcard designed for 4k performance.  Maybe if your screen size was 120" such a 4k render scale could be useful, but sitting close enough to it to notice the improvement would be rather impractical to say the least.

As for what is the best mix of render scale and TAA, that IMO is a matter of personal preference determined by a little "trial and error" by the user...there is no one-size-fits all setting.

Sure.  As you say, it was purely experimental to test 1. Did it look much better, 2. What was the impact on performance, and 3. What are the limits of the 3080Ti.

It was good fun, but it got too hot and noisy very quickly! 

As you say, 4k native with TAA is just fine, and even at full ultra settings and high LOD and shadow settings, the 3080Ti could hit about 45fps unrestricted, but locked at 30fps vsync is just fine for me after testing - I cannot hear the fans and GPU utilisation is about 65%, max temps 75C - all good!  (And looks fantastic of course).

Edited August 18, 2021 by bobcat999

[fppilot 4,444]

On 8/16/2021 at 3:31 PM, fppilot said:

I have certainly determined that I can satisfactorily wait out this GPU shortage.

Egg on face because on the 16th I was selected in the Newegg Shuffle and now have a Gigabyte RTX 370 TI installed.  This was the second time I was selected in the Shuffle (lottery).  The first time was over two months ago and I was not home to take advantage during the two-hour response period.  Lucky me.  Here two months later the price was around $300 lower.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

11 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Egg on face because on the 16th I was selected in the Newegg Shuffle and now have a Gigabyte RTX 370 TI installed.  This was the second time I was selected in the Shuffle (lottery).  The first time was over two months ago and I was not home to take advantage during the two-hour response period.  Lucky me.  Here two months later the price was around $300 lower.

Well done.

The only question mark over the 3070 previously was whether the game would eventually need more than 8GB of VRAM but in the post SU5 world 8GB seems  to be plenty. It is probably the optimal value for money RTX card for 4K MSFS at the moment.

[fppilot 4,444]

7 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The only question mark over the 3070 previously was whether the game would eventually need more than 8GB of VRAM but in the post SU5 world 8GB seems  to be plenty. It is probably the optimal value for money RTX card for 4K MSFS at the moment.

I completed a 4.4 hour flight today in the Baron.  I ended up adding about an hour more than that to the time at my desk because I spent a lot of time in the Options screen playing what-ifs.  I was at 12,000 from Maryland to Indiana and encountered some storms enroute.  I have a 28" 4K monitor. 

At true 4K with no FPS lock, almost all ultra settings, and Render Scale at 100, my frame rates fell from the mid 40s into the mid to low 20's when I would encounter multiple cloud layers with a spectrum of shades from white to very dark gray, to almost black.   I lowered to 1440 and 100 render scaling and in those cloud layer conditions I was back in the mid to upper 40s on FPS with little variance.  And at 12,000 I could see little difference in the scenery.   I may settle in at 1440 when encountering such weather as at 1440 it was incredibly smooth.

I received the same mid-40s to low 50s performance at true 4K and 100 Render when any clouds were only very light in color with little depth in color variance.  That even with a white overcast.

Another mention is that the RTX 370 TI maxed out at about 74°C, about 10°C lower than I was seeing with my 1070 TI.  I have always been one to two generations behind on GPUs.  Nice to finally catch up.  At least for the moment!

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

32 minutes ago, fppilot said:

   I lowered to 1440 and 100 render scaling and in those cloud layer conditions I was back in the mid to upper 40s on FPS with little variance.  And at 12,000 I could see little difference in the scenery.   I may settle in at 1440 when encountering such weather as at 1440 it was incredibly smooth.

 

 

You will get the same FPS and much better graphics by running native 4K and render scaling down around 70% .

By sending 1440p to a 4k screen you are forcing the screen to upscale which adds another level of processing with unpredictable results. It will work but is not optimal. 

As a rule of thumb always set the MSFS resolution to the native for the screen and use the render slider to change the workload on the GPU instead of messing with resolutions.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[fppilot 4,444]

22 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

You will get the same FPS and much better graphics by running native 4K and render scaling down around 70% .

Glenn,
That is exactly the premise I began with today,  and faithfully stuck with it while making changes in other settings.  After all the changes I made during this, my maiden 3070 TI flight, I am not convinced that is true under all conditions and given combinations of other settings.  I am pretty certain after this to switch back to g-sync and 30 fps, but curious, with frame rates unlocked, today I identified the results I mentioned above. 

Perhaps on a low level $100 hamburger run instead of at 12,000 ft I will see more difference.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

The biggest difference I notice playing with render scaling etc is the clarity of the instruments, especially steam gauge,  and the crispness of cockpit labels, not so much with the scenery.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Flyfaster_MTN002 412]

Render scale (70) and cloud setting (High) seems to be the biggest FPS impact(s). around 70 and High have been best bang/$ so far going higher with either or both led to serious degradation.

[deepstar 39]

Old settings: RS 100 and both LOD 200 on 2560x1440 with a RTX 2080 Super. 

New settings: RS 120 and both LOD 300  on 2560x1440 with a RTX 2080 Super.

Dunno if I can see a diffrence since I am visually impaired, but if you guys says its good, then I use RS 120 and LOD 300.

I also Vsync ingame with FPS limit 20, which gives me 48 FPS.

I have a 240 Hz monitor, adjusted to 144, so I could get 48 FPS.

Edited September 1, 2021 by deepstar
Spelling

[Bert Pieke 7,604]

19 minutes ago, deepstar said:

Dunno if I can see a diffrence since I am visually impaired, but if you guys says its good, then I use RS 120 and LOD 300.

Frankly, if you cannot see a difference, this is a waste of resources... go back to your old settings and run your system cooler 🙂

[deepstar 39]

You are right. RS 100 and LOD 200 are probably good enough. Thanks.