Is it just my poor eysight or simply that I only have a 1080 monitor, but I can't see any difference between 200 and 400 other than a pretty massive performance hit?

I would like to run a higher rez, but smaller 1440 and 4k monitors seem pretty expensive to me and larger ones are way to big if you are only sitting 2 or 3 feet away from them.

It will not only affect your sim performance, but also your loading times, for no apparent gain in graphic quality. I left mine at 200 and it looks pretty good, lot better than before SU6.

If you can't see the difference, keep it at 200. Or maybe lower.

I clearly see the difference, and even though 400 is a lot better than it used to be, I do sometimes want more. Mainly because of tree coverage.

1 hour ago, cianpars said:

Is it just my poor eysight or simply that I only have a 1080 monitor, but I can't see any difference between 200 and 400 other than a pretty massive performance hit?

I would like to run a higher rez, but smaller 1440 and 4k monitors seem pretty expensive to me and larger ones are way to big if you are only sitting 2 or 3 feet away from them.

I can see the difference quite clearly on my 1440p monitor, in fact I keep it on 400.

Please see here:

 

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

I can see the difference quite clearly on my 1440p monitor, in fact I keep it on 400.

Please see here:

 

That’s minuscule differences  to me. I’ve been away so only had a brief chance with it, but I found 200 keeps the sim smooth and 400 induces cpu related stutters. Not worth it to me for those minuscule differences. 

Edited October 31, 20214 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

17 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

That’s minuscule differences  to me. I’ve been away so only had a brief chance with it, but I found 200 keeps the sim smooth and 400 induces cpu related stutters. Not worth it to me for those minuscule differences. 

I did a lot of tests, the difference can't be clear from screenshots only... also morphing and LOD shifting is much more pronounced at 200.

For example try the NY discovery flight, turn left heading 110° at the beginning and fly straight towards the bridges. At LOD 400 they look immediately OK, at 200 you can see pillars morphing 2-3 times by the time you fly over the first bridge.

The same I noticed on the mountains around LOWI.

There is no free lunch boyos 😞 

And then FS MUST stutter: if it doesn't stutter it's not a sim... it's a GAME!

I know for me I’m looking forward to Cataract surgery in the next couple of months………

It's a pretty big difference to immersion if you tend to look out to the horizon (especially zoomed in), but it's - like any other graphics setting - not worth it, if you fall under your target FPS (for me 30 FPS). So I change it according to the region / airport I fly in between 200 and 400.

I use Lod 300 with GA and 200 with more complex aircraft, otherwise my fps drops below the 30 limit in the worst case scenarios.

Don't forget of course that you can still set the linit above 400 in the config file if you want to.  I guess that those with powerful rigs and 4k monitors might benefit.

The one time I’ve noticed a difference is when you’re flying somewhere with mountains visible in the distance…400 looks much better to me in that case but 200 is my default for most flying.

2 hours ago, cianpars said:

to.  I guess that those with powerful rigs and 4k monitors might benefit.

It’s not that it uses up fps, that is tolerable. It’s the stuttering it causes by becoming main thread limited. 

6 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

That’s minuscule differences  to me. I’ve been away so only had a brief chance with it, but I found 200 keeps the sim smooth and 400 induces cpu related stutters. Not worth it to me for those minuscule differences. 

Miniscule differences in that video, really?

I left mine at 200 everything looks good to me at that setting.

13 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Miniscule differences in that video, really?

On a mobile, no. On a large 4K screen, yes.