18 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Not a real sim if you don't have to downgrade your 1,500 buck monitor fed by a 1,500 bucks card to 30 Hz 😈.

Yes and then advised to make the graphics card work less, to reduce its temp by 5-6 degrees. I mean you couldn’t make this rubbish up. 

3 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

I could have been clearer indeed. I am speaking of a fisheye distortion at the edges, specially in an ultrawide ratio screen but also in a curved monitor as both features seem to often come together. I have not seen any in real life so sorry if my question is a bit naive 😉.

oh ok.

 

Well if there is any distortion it would be the ultrawide ratio doing it.  There is no edge distortion on curved 1440p 32" screens.

43 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

It's much more immersive - I replaced a flat screen ultrawide with a curved one and the difference is night and day. Looking at the flat one looks pretty awful in comparison.

Exactly how much curve are you seeing, measured?

 

Here is one example of a real curved screen.  https://www.immersivedisplayinc.com/products/hemispherical-dome-display-solutions/

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Bobsk8

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Exactly how much curve are you seeing, measured?

 

Here is one example of a real curved screen.  https://www.immersivedisplayinc.com/products/hemispherical-dome-display-solutions/

Not sure exactly - it's this one https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-pg348q-rog-swift-34-3440x1440-ips-g-sync-100hz-gaming-widescreen-curved-led-monitor-mo-089-as.html

19 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Exactly how much curve are you seeing, measured?

 

Here is one example of a real curved screen.  https://www.immersivedisplayinc.com/products/hemispherical-dome-display-solutions/

Most of them are going to be 13-16 degrees.  Mine is an R16

27 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

Not sure exactly - it's this one https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-pg348q-rog-swift-34-3440x1440-ips-g-sync-100hz-gaming-widescreen-curved-led-monitor-mo-089-as.html

That is a R3800 so relatively gentle.   Some of the newer ultrawides are R1000 which is basically a 1 metre radius curve.

22 hours ago, Bilal2104 said:

 

It will be certainly harder to go back to 4k where's there's hardly and difference. 

Glad it works for you and you’re happy, but there is a huge difference and 4K provides significantly more resolution, especially in the cockpit and if you use TrackIR and want to be able to see what’s around you.

When you significantly lower the settings, of course performance will be better. If you get a 4:3 CRT and use 1024x768, imagine the fps you’ll get. 👍

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by neil0311

2 hours ago, iFlySimX said:

Went from 4k to 1440p and it is amazing! Honestly at 1440p everything looks really crisp. 

I am confused by this.  I went the other way and 4k looks really crisp - going back to 1440 makes it look really fuzzy afterwards.  Are you on a 4k native monitor? 

I just don't understand how going down in resolution makes it look crisper.  It seems to defy the law of physics!  

I am confused also. I have 1440 and 4k monitors and the 4k wins hands down. Wonder what render scaling setting is being used?

23 hours ago, Bilal2104 said:

Hi guys,

I cannot even really tell the difference from 4k to 1440p everything looks crisp , smooth and stable.

I thought this to be the case as people were migrating to 4K w/ it's substantial GPU processing penalty.  The real problem is the native textures themselves aren't at 4K, so it does no use to display something rendered at less than 4K, at 4K.  An extreme example of this is in this image where it's obvous 4K cannot add anything because the native resolution of the image is under 4K:

The final realization comes when you go to 30fps in any civilian flight sim, which further effectively gives headroom back to your CPU & GPU to make room for upcoming PMDG ware and other content and features.

10 hours ago, flyinion said:

You could test it by increasing the render scaling so it gets as close as possible. Should give you a pretty good idea of actual 1440p

Yeah I feel like increasing my res to 1440p isn't just a GPU thing.  In previous sims a higher resolution was always affected by the CPU as well as GPU.  My aging 4790K might not be able to handle it.  I'll give the render scale increase a try.

33 minutes ago, Noel said:

I thought this to be the case as people were migrating to 4K w/ it's substantial GPU processing penalty.  The real problem is the native textures themselves aren't at 4K, so it does no use to display something rendered at less than 4K, at 4K.  An extreme example of this is in this image where it's obvous 4K cannot add anything because the native resolution of the image is under 4K:

The final realization comes when you go to 30fps in any civilian flight sim, which further effectively gives headroom back to your CPU & GPU to make room for upcoming PMDG ware and other content and features.

How about all the cockpits and aircraft textures that are in 4k? Yeah, you cannot make a silk purse out of less than 4k scenery, but the newer aircraft are superb at 4k.

My 34 "3440x1440p 100 Hz Ultrawide with genuine G-Sync is so smooth. No FPS lock, no V-sync. It just matches my FPS and its super smooth. I'm usually getting around 45-50 fps on the ground and 70-80 fps in the air. And with Ultra Pre-cache it's amazing. 

The issue now is that I want an even wider monitor for more immersion (I used to run 3x 24" in my old apartment), but now I don't have the room for it. I'd really love to try that 49" G9 Odyssey monitor. 

I tried about 135 render scaling to simulate the 1440p and now says GPU limited.  First time ever hehe.  So maybe it would work ok.  The Baron isn't the best benchmark - even with the wt g1000 nxi it is fps friendly.  I'll try some other planes but in a photogrammetry area fps were surprisngly good. 

gpulim by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by ryanbatcund

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

I am confused by this.  I went the other way and 4k looks really crisp - going back to 1440 makes it look really fuzzy afterwards.  Are you on a 4k native monitor? 

I just don't understand how going down in resolution makes it look crisper.  It seems to defy the law of physics!  

 

1 hour ago, skipph said:

I am confused also. I have 1440 and 4k monitors and the 4k wins hands down. Wonder what render scaling setting is being used?

Did I say that 1440p was better then 4k? No....For me it's the perfect balance and at 120 scaling it looks amazing to me. Of course 4k will be better but not worth it on a 27" monitor. I am very satisfied with the quality of 1440p.