15 minutes ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

Just wasn’t sure if it would cause any damage to the monitor.

I don't think it's changing the display resolution of your hardware--I think it's sort of the software version of that, so I don't think you can possibly damage your hardware by changing the full screen resolution in-sim.  If you do this thru NCP Nvidia gives a disclaimer warning that you can definitely damage your display by creating the wrong custom resolution.

I run a 1440p 32" HDR 400 screen and am quite happy with it.

Since SU5/SU6 the HDR is definitely worth it and an improvement over SDR. Even though my screen only does HDR 400 it makes a noticeable difference turning HDR on.

I have fiddled with render scaling up around 130% to 150 % and the main noticeable difference (without peering at comparison shots) you see when flying is any steam gauges dials are crisper on the panel and some of the small font warning labels in the cockpit are more legible.

 

Edited November 5, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

9 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I run a 1440p 32" HDR 400 screen and am quite happy with it.

Since SU5/SU6 the HDR is definitely worth it and an improvement over SDR. Even though my screen only does HDR 400 it makes a noticeable difference turning HDR on.

I have fiddled with render scaling up around 130% to 150 % and the main noticeable difference (without peering at comparison shots) you see when flying is any steam gauges dials are crisper on the panel and some of the small font warning labels in the cockpit are more legible.

 

What GPU are you running? 

23 hours ago, Noel said:

If you're not already planning for this be sure to look into picking up a true GSync display.  Short of that, the next thing to be aware of so that you be assured of the best opportunity to run the sim maximally smooth and at a sustainable frame rate, even if and when you get around to a new PC hardware, is what the refresh rate capability of the display you buy is.  If it maxes out at 100Mhz, then you have the option of using Vsync to get you locked at 33fps, or 50fps.   If the same display can be set (via Nvidia CP) to say 60hz, you now have the option of Vsync to 20 or 30 or 60fps, etc.  The Vsync related 'divisors' in MSFS are 20 (or 1/3 of your display's set refresh rate), or 30 (or 1/2 of the your display's set refresh rate) or 60 (or at your display's set refresh rate).  I thought for a while Gsync was really critical, but now looking at the above re manipulating the display's refresh rate, as long as it's a possibility with that display, is 'good enough'.  IMO the most critical factor is using some form of Vsync/Gsync, and Vsync w/ divisor's in-sim is excellent.

This is the monitor I'm picking up in a few hours. I think it checks all the boxes?

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gp850-b-gaming-monitor#

 

12 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

This is the monitor I'm picking up in a few hours. I think it checks all the boxes?

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gp850-b-gaming-monitor#

 

Some more experienced than I make the case GSync 'compatible' is not the same as 'true Gsync', but I don't know how valid the claim is.  More important for me as I mentioned is making sure NCP can allow you to set your refresh rate really to not more than 100mhz because this means, using MSFS' lowest divisor, you can then Vsync to 33fps.  I would want to be able to be that low or lower with your CPU/GPU.  My CPU/GPU is much more potent than what your signature shows, and yet often in where I fly w/ Ultra everything in the more demanding 787 Heavy Division it's easy to get into the low 30's for frame rate.   If the 165Hz screen can be decreased to 100Hz then you should be good to go, or if Gsync 'compatible' actually works to allow you to sync at lower frame rates you will be okay.

The issue that I’m wrestling with is that g-sync compatible variable refresh rates start at 48hz or 60, whereas true g-sync starts at 1. If Vsync works well than it may not matter…

46 minutes ago, Noel said:

Some more experienced than I make the case GSync 'compatible' is not the same as 'true Gsync', but I don't know how valid the claim is.  More important for me as I mentioned is making sure NCP can allow you to set your refresh rate really to not more than 100mhz because this means, using MSFS' lowest divisor, you can then Vsync to 33fps.  I would want to be able to be that low or lower with your CPU/GPU.  My CPU/GPU is much more potent than what your signature shows, and yet often in where I fly w/ Ultra everything in the more demanding 787 Heavy Division it's easy to get into the low 30's for frame rate.   If the 165Hz screen can be decreased to 100Hz then you should be good to go, or if Gsync 'compatible' actually works to allow you to sync at lower frame rates you will be okay.

My new rig will be an i7-11700K / RTX 3080 / 32GB @3600MHz.

If you can afford and fit a 46" curved monitor, I would go with that. The level of immersion is absolutely brilliant. 

1 hour ago, Drumcode said:

If you can afford and fit a 46" curved monitor, I would go with that. The level of immersion is absolutely brilliant. 

I 2nd that in spades!  Curved, ultra-wide is a very good thing because it fits well with plane flight where you are more horizontal than vertical in terms of your normal gaze and panning.

17 hours ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

What GPU are you running? 

RTX 3070  which post SU5 gives me 50 to 95 FPS depending on aircraft and situation in generic ultra at 1440p.

Pre-SU5 on my original RTX 2060 (non super) I was averaging around 30 to 35 FPS.

18 hours ago, Noel said:

Some more experienced than I make the case GSync 'compatible' is not the same as 'true Gsync', but I don't know how valid the claim is.  

It's 100% valid, not sure why anyone would question it.  True G-Sync is usually all the way down to 1 FPS G-Sync compatible is usually 48FPS up. G-Sync compatible is an answer to Freesync and just means it has been verified by Nvidia in a series of tests to be able to perform 2:4:1   So between 1FPS and 47FPS G-Sync compatible doesn't do anything.

G-Sync monitors have a HW G-Sync processor that allow that frame/refresh match all the way down to 1FPS to match the FPS the GPU is pushing out dynamically plus the addition of HDR with over 1,000 nits but I believe they have backed that down to 700.  

Single most important factor between the two is the on-board processor and the 1-144 Variable refresh match opposed to 48-144 variable refresh match.

If you go with G-Sync you can forget about everything else, max your settings and just let your system run and it will be smooth even when you have the FPS drops.   It's pretty "game changing" lol.  

It allows my 2080 to pump out butter smooth performance anywhere in the world with G-Sync enabled and V-Sync enabled.  This way if I go below 60FPS G-Sync kicks in and if I go above V-Sync kicks in to prevent tearing.  120FPS in MSFS is unobtainable from a GPU perspective so setting the monitor to match it is pointless, hence the V-Sync and refresh rate of the monitor limited to 60.   

 

 

21 hours ago, nyfirefly11 said:

The issue that I’m wrestling with is that g-sync compatible variable refresh rates start at 48hz or 60, whereas true g-sync starts at 1. If Vsync works well than it may not matter…

Different ends of the spectrum.  V-Sync is going to help you on the upper end of the spectrum to prevent tearing, G-Sync is going to help you on the lower end of the spectrum when FPS drop below your refresh rate to help prevent the stutter associated with FPS not matching refresh.   The rest of your point I addressed above in response to Noel but you are spot on!  Cheers

Thanks, @psolk! That’s very helpful. I’ve got a 3080 and running 32” 4K at 60hz (no g-sync). If I go to a 34” curved 2K 165hz with true g-sync, I know I’ll get much smoother performance, but will I be disappointed by the lower resolution?

23 hours ago, OlliePen said:

This is the monitor I'm picking up in a few hours. I think it checks all the boxes?

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gp850-b-gaming-monitor#

 

You can always spend more money hehe.  I basically bought the 27" version of that....and I really love it.

On 11/4/2021 at 11:22 PM, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I run a 1440p 32" HDR 400 screen and am quite happy with it.

Since SU5/SU6 the HDR is definitely worth it and an improvement over SDR. Even though my screen only does HDR 400 it makes a noticeable difference turning HDR on.

I have fiddled with render scaling up around 130% to 150 % and the main noticeable difference (without peering at comparison shots) you see when flying is any steam gauges dials are crisper on the panel and some of the small font warning labels in the cockpit are more legible.

 

I run a 1440p 32" HDR 400 screen as well and I find that when I turn on HDR in Windows, everything becomes very dark. Any thoughts?