4k 60hz to 1440p 144hz..WOW

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

17 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

Now I need to build a little stand for Track IR - doesn't seem to sit well on the monitor bezel.

Stick it on with electricians tape. That’s what I did. Worked a treat. 

[ryanbatc 12,836]

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Stick it on with electricians tape. That’s what I did. Worked a treat. 

Oooh good idea!

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

12 hours ago, psolk said:

There is a reason they advise faster movements be filmed in 60 FPS

I agree 144hz is largely overkill and most sims can't achieve that anyway but if it's achievable there is no downside to it.  In fact the greater the FPS the greater the controller response so in combat sims it would actually provide a tangible benefit even if not visually.  

There is a difference between 30 and 60 obviously, even for a Flight Sim, but it's hard to tell unless making abrupt movements. It also depends on the display device tech. Not all displays look the same at 30, and not all look the same at 60. Different displays have differing motion resolution and fluidity.

To address the 4k debate to others:
Per the 4k deal, 1440p is better if all things are equalized, but people are often not comparing apples to apples. 1440p won't look as good on some 4k monitors due to scaling artifacts, but if you compare 2 monitors of the same quality one being a native 4k image on a native monitor and one being native 1440p, no real difference in gaming. No-one has vision good enough to see it, unless they are from an Aborigine tribe where their vision is better than 20/10. There could be anti-aliasing variations or post-processing issues, I suppose it's possible, but it's unlikely to be visible.

If people are comparing 2 displays, then they are really saying "one display looks better than the other" rather than "one resolution looks better than the other". There is no simple valid way to compare 4k to 1440p under normal circumstances, even with 2 monitors. Rather, you would need a double-blind test consisting of about 20+ monitors and 10+ people comparing. Already been done numerous times in gaming, results were generally no difference. If you are comparing a still image, certain types of reference level images that are bias'd to make resolution more noticeable or in test patterns, then yes, there is a difference if you are close enough, but in gaming the source was never "reference enough" really. Some that sit really close might see a difference in the pixel grid or something I guess, but that is kind of a separate issue from resolution.

Edit - Texture Resolution
Some have surmised but if the texture resolution is 4k... Texture sizes are not 1:1 in rendering, they are scaled onto the image. So you would have to be speaking in 1:1 terms, and very few textures in MSFS (if any) are that resolution after the scaling takes place, the post-processing can work better at higher resolution theoretically, but the pixel density of how people map textures isn't that high generally. Also, if talking in terms of actual resolution the eye is seeing and not pixel resolution (which are two different things), then the difference is even less.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Noel 4,496]

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

There is a difference between 30 and 60 obviously, even for a Flight Sim, but it's hard to tell unless making abrupt movements. It also depends on the display device tech. Not all displays look the same at 30, and not all look the same at 60. Different displays have differing motion resolution and fluidity.

That's right, it's hard to tell unless making abrupt movements, at least theoretically.  I qualify that because other factors come into play when executing abrupt movements.  If it's a mouse movement sometimes that does not come off 100% smoothly which is a function of moving the mouse, not  frame rate of course.  If I hit the rapid 90 degree look sideways button which automates the rapid turn, even then it's equivocal between 30 and 60, for me.  I think my Dell U3415W must be, for whatever reasons that you bring up, differs for the better in terms of motion resolution and fluidity.  If and when I can run everything, everywhere, always maxed out in any plane at a minimum of 60, I'll make the jump, at this point primarily because it ought to be superior.  Until then I prefer never to have to adjust settings, which is far more important to me than picking up whatever improvements in smooth motion higher frame rate affords.  In fact, I've said here that was the primary reason to move to 3080Ti, which is a perfect fit for this goal.  With the 2070 Super I typically stopped when volumentric clouds killed the GPU, to dial them back to High from Ultra, or other elements of graphic complexity, so often that was 3-6x per flight.  I wasn't willing to give up complexity and IQ, LOD in areas where it could maintain the minimum 30, so I would stop and adjust as needed.  In some payware airports particularly hard on the GPU (Roman Design's CYOW for example) I would even need to dial back some settings to medium else VRAM wall would get hit, and GPU utilization as well.  This improved markedly w/ SU5, but still could fully run all maxed out there even in the Citation L.   W/ the new GPU I now never change any settings no matter which plaen I'm in, beyond toggling Dev Mode on and off before pushback to disable the spinning logging indicator which produces a substantial stutter when it fires.  Very nice to be able to put LOD now at 400, RS 120-130, and have fluid flight everywhere in any plane.  That's a giant plus for me.

[andrevieira 16]

So, i have a 1080p 60hz monitor, and i want upgrade to a 1440p 144hz.

What are the best options on the market right now?

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

6 minutes ago, andrevieira said:

So, i have a 1080p 60hz monitor, and i want upgrade to a 1440p 144hz.

What are the best options on the market right now?

First decision you have to make is oLED vs. regular PC monitor.

For a Flight Sim setup, I would personally go with the largest display possible (like 77"+ oLED), but that is just me.

For a regular PC monitor, anything works, you can check reviews, depends on the price range.

[Lord Farringdon 491]

Hi Guys,

I have thoroughly enjoyed this expedition into FPS and refresh rates since I really hadn't given it much thought over the years where my FS system was always struggling just to load let alone play well. Stutters (and long pauses) and the blurries were just accepted as were CTD's and difficulty reading instruments. There were clearly things wrong with FS9 and FSX but my hapless video card and 21 inch monitor were always going to get blamed first!  So I gave up. I basically couldn't afford what was needed to play the game. A few years later and I am in a better space and have been able to buy a 10 series i7, coupled to a 12 Gb RTX3060 with 32GB of system memory and NvME. Loaded up MSFS and plugged into a Sharp 65 inch 1080p 60hz monitor and Ultra setting everywhere, I'm over the moon.  I feel very lucky.  Unfortunately it seems luck doesn't stay alongside me for very long and now the screen has developed a single vertical line of stuck pixels!!  I was festering over this for sometime until I saw this thread.  Now it seems this is just the excuse I need to go to 4k. Maybe lady luck was just pushing me in the right direction!   Having considered all the different view points on smaller monitors, 1440p and curved screens, I think I am settled on sticking with a flat 65 inch Samsung QLED QA65Q60A. Yes it is only 60 Hz and I can hear the GPWS screeching at me now ...Dont sink!, Dont sink!, G-Sync!, G-Sync! but given the cost of these things it is the best balance for me considering how I use the screen when I am not using it for MSFS. And given such a varied range of views on the subject, I dont feel guilty that I will screw this up since I know one side or the other will support me 🙂 LOL! 

So thanks for the education guys. Finally, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this link from PC Gamer but it pretty wells sums up why we have had such robust discussion on this subjective subject and it may explain why we all 'see' it different. I know its Janet and John for some of you guys but it was quite illuminating for me to realise there is no real answer to the question.  https://www.pcgamer.com/au/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

 

 

Cheers Terry 

  

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

32 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Having considered all the different view points on smaller monitors, 1440p and curved screens, I think I am settled on sticking with a flat 65 inch Samsung QLED QA65Q60A. Yes it is only 60 Hz and I can hear the GPWS screeching at me now ...Dont sink!, Dont sink!, G-Sync!, G-Sync! but given the cost of these things it is the best balance for me considering how I use the screen when I am not using it for MSFS. And given such a varied range of views on the subject, I dont feel guilty that I will screw this up since I know one side or the other will support me 🙂 LOL! 

So thanks for the education guys. Finally, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this link from PC Gamer but it pretty wells sums up why we have had such robust discussion on this subjective subject and it may explain why we all 'see' it different. I know its Janet and John for some of you guys but it was quite illuminating for me to realise there is no real answer to the question.  https://www.pcgamer.com/au/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/  

If you are buying a TV, you may want to go brick and mortar like Costco/Walmart/Sams just in case you discover anything you don't like about it. Samsung is supposedly one of the better TV's for gaming, but I don't know about that specific model. There have been quite a few reports of OOTB defects with QLED TV's, like contrast-banding-dark spots on the screens. Vizio MQ7 models make some even more affordable gaming TV's also. I've never owned any of these recent TV's, so cannot comment personally, but I'd go brick & mortar if you can.

That article from PC gamer seems silly and irrelevant, as it is talking apples to oranges the entire time. I think anything higher than 60-fps isn't going to give much benefit regardless other than specific boosts to one area, as the frames are all translated by all these tech capabilities anyhow, but it depends on what motion technologies you are using.

It's just like the problem how some large TV's or projectors have when they are panning, sometimes the image breaks up. So there are a lot of variables beyond just the actual Hz or fps, but generally speaking not much advantage going over 60 fps in most situations, maybe for some really intense people I guess.

24p in film isn't chosen because people cannot see more frames, it's because higher framerates obviously lose some of that cinematic effect you get. That said, I'm past the "cinematic effect" of 24p, as I prefer a motion interpolation when watching movies (FI on Low), though a lot of frame interpolation is bad, some companies have done it right. I used to hate it, but now I use it because it provides much higher motion resolution.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[psolk 3,040]

9 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

There is a difference between 30 and 60 obviously, even for a Flight Sim, but it's hard to tell unless making abrupt movements. It also depends on the display device tech. Not all displays look the same at 30, and not all look the same at 60. Different displays have differing motion resolution and fluidity.

 

Great point, different manufacturers apply their own magic, trumotion, supermotion, hyperblur, they all call it something different LOL. 

So you have different monitors doing their own thing to "smooth" their own display and then you have people who may not have the visual and perceptional acuity to notice the difference. 

Monitors display differently, people see differently, but to your point there is obviously a difference between 30FPS and 60 FPS despite being told repeatedly over and over no one can see the difference...  Indeed there is a difference, there is no way to deny that and some people are far more sensitive to it than others.  

In the end everyone can choose if they prefer higher graphics settings or a trade-off of lower settings for greater performance and fluidity.  That's why we have sliders.  Neither is "right" it's all preference but a few things are undeniable including the fact that yes, of course there is a difference between the 30 and 60FPS and yes, if you could have 60FPS with the same consistency of 30FPS it will always be "more" fluid at 60 on a 60hz refresh than 30FPS on 60hz.  Not everyone will see the difference as dramatically depending on their own eyesight and monitors capabilities but to flat out deny there is a difference and claim no one can see it and 30FPS is = to 60FPS is just unfounded.  

[andrevieira 16]

https://www.globaldata.pt/monitor-lg-27-27gn800-b-144hz-ips-qhd-g-sync-1ms-27gn800-b?
 

This monitor is good?

I want upgrade from 1080p to 1440p 144hz.

[psolk 3,040]

2 minutes ago, andrevieira said:

https://www.globaldata.pt/monitor-lg-27-27gn800-b-144hz-ips-qhd-g-sync-1ms-27gn800-b?
 

This monitor is good?

I want upgrade from 1080p to 1440p 144hz.

I am not an expert but that looks like a very good monitor to me.  I will say if you have the real Estate a 34 over a 27 is a great move.  It just makes everything that much larger and easier to see.  If you are limited by space then that looks like a very capable monitor. 

[Bigbluss 304]

4 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Hi Guys,

I have thoroughly enjoyed this expedition into FPS and refresh rates since I really hadn't given it much thought over the years where my FS system was always struggling just to load let alone play well. Stutters (and long pauses) and the blurries were just accepted as were CTD's and difficulty reading instruments. There were clearly things wrong with FS9 and FSX but my hapless video card and 21 inch monitor were always going to get blamed first!  So I gave up. I basically couldn't afford what was needed to play the game. A few years later and I am in a better space and have been able to buy a 10 series i7, coupled to a 12 Gb RTX3060 with 32GB of system memory and NvME. Loaded up MSFS and plugged into a Sharp 65 inch 1080p 60hz monitor and Ultra setting everywhere, I'm over the moon.  I feel very lucky.  Unfortunately it seems luck doesn't stay alongside me for very long and now the screen has developed a single vertical line of stuck pixels!!  I was festering over this for sometime until I saw this thread.  Now it seems this is just the excuse I need to go to 4k. Maybe lady luck was just pushing me in the right direction!   Having considered all the different view points on smaller monitors, 1440p and curved screens, I think I am settled on sticking with a flat 65 inch Samsung QLED QA65Q60A. Yes it is only 60 Hz and I can hear the GPWS screeching at me now ...Dont sink!, Dont sink!, G-Sync!, G-Sync! but given the cost of these things it is the best balance for me considering how I use the screen when I am not using it for MSFS. And given such a varied range of views on the subject, I dont feel guilty that I will screw this up since I know one side or the other will support me 🙂 LOL! 

So thanks for the education guys. Finally, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this link from PC Gamer but it pretty wells sums up why we have had such robust discussion on this subjective subject and it may explain why we all 'see' it different. I know its Janet and John for some of you guys but it was quite illuminating for me to realise there is no real answer to the question.  https://www.pcgamer.com/au/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

 

 

Cheers Terry 

  

That article is great. I'd like to reference:

 

Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better.

 

Professor Thomas Busey

Perhaps this will silence the '30fps vsync' crowd. Likely not though.

 

[swiesma 625]

And i’m just sitting here playing F1 2021 in 4K with 120 FPS on my 120 Hz TV….

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by swiesma

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

6 minutes ago, swiesma said:

And i’m just sitting here playing F1 2021 in 4K with 120 FPS on my 120 Hz TV….

 

Why don’t you look straight ahead and cap it at 30fps? Then you can save £10 a year on your power bill, and use your 2 or 3 series card to half its potential? 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

8 hours ago, Bigbluss said:

That article is great. I'd like to reference:
Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better.

Professor Thomas Busey

Perhaps this will silence the '30fps vsync' crowd. Likely not though.

 

Yes, 60 is better, but it's a lot less of a difference in a Flight Sim unless you are in VR or using a tracking headset or something. The article is OK, but it gets weird talking about 13Hz, and all these theoretical situations from some researcher who sounds kind of clueless mixing up flickering with FPS (it's part of it, but seeing any flickering is very dependant on display type and not just Hz).

For instance, if you play on a 15 year old LCD TV, it will look bad no matter how many FPS you get. Over 60+ FPS is best reserved for twitch gamers.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alpine Scenery