To summarize, what matters w/ regard to image quality insofar as displays go is largely these 3 variables:  screen resolution, screen size, and viewing distance. It's pointless to say "4K" is de facto superior (for the viewer) to 3440x1440, without noting the screen size, and viewing distance.  My Dell 3440x1440 has a little over 100 pixels per inch of lateral display.   A 50" 4K TV has just 76 pixels per inch and if you sit 30" from this TV as I sit from my Dell you'll be seeing considerably worse image quality.  So perhaps the first place to start after you've confirmed your GPU can handle it, when deciding what display you need, is what will be your viewing distance.  It will be interesting to see what DX12 in MSFS does for VRAM utilization.

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

To summarize, what matters w/ regard to image quality insofar as displays go is largely these 3 variables:  screen resolution, screen size, and viewing distance. It's pointless to say "4K" is de facto superior (for the viewer) to 3440x1440, without noting the screen size, and viewing distance.  My Dell 3440x1440 has a little over 100 pixels per inch of lateral display.   A 50" 4K TV has just 76 pixels per inch and if you sit 30" from this TV as I sit from my Dell you'll be seeing considerably worse image quality.  So perhaps the first place to start after you've confirmed your GPU can handle it, when deciding what display you need, is what will be your viewing distance.  It will be interesting to see what DX12 in MSFS does for VRAM utilization.

Right, it's not that hard for someone to test it themselves just order 2 monitors and return one.
For myself, I really don't care much, 4k or 1440p is fine, but I don't want heat the room up to see a blade of grass look slightly smoother at 50-100 yards away.

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

23 hours ago, crimplene said:

Since this is a 3D programm, every textured is scaled relative to the distance to the viewpoint (obviously). If (e.g.) the gauge (or building or whatever) has a texture of 2000x2000 pixel, you only see the full resolution when it fills your 1080p screen entirely or a big part of your 4k screen. 

It's based on how the developers and the game display the LODs as you zoom out (or in some cases even when you zoom in). 

Otherwise, if you set the rendered object at every LOD always to LOD 0 (max resolution), the game will still auto-lod you to some degree, either making your building disappear or reducing the resolution of the texture at a greater rate (at times). In some of the older versions, the auto-lod'n wasn't as intense. 

Hence, it's not the same as using an optimal rescaling algorithm like in Photoshop as an example, because GPU's require LOD optimization for max performance and API's that re-scale in different ways and have different amounts of loss. 

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

On 7/28/2022 at 5:42 AM, ckyliu said:

it's all about pixel density (i.e. how many pixels per cm or PPI). 

It is about the purity of the resolvability of the original texture to viewing distance to resolution to LOD creation of the game's LOD downscaler.

The higher resolution you get, the more the resolvability of the source quality matters, it wasn't a big deal at 1080p so much (sometimes), but it is a big deal now.
That is why referring to PPI alone is almost meaningless because it assumes everything is at a reference level quality.

MSFS isn't reference level at a 4k standard, and that's only part of the problem.
 

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Worst thread of the week.

20 minutes ago, odourboy said:

Worst thread of the week.

Worst comment of the thread.

1 hour ago, odourboy said:

Worst thread of the week.

Actually the thread could reduce energy costs so people don't waste electricity, thereby preventing potential fires from malfunctioning air conditoners.
We may have just saved a few thousand lives, and a few million dollars of wasted energy on 4k...

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

On 7/28/2022 at 4:27 AM, Alpine Scenery said:

The question is just how much, since1440p is already a pretty high resolution at our seating distances.
I will update with my MSFS test results to see what I find.

Well have a 10bit 2K monitor and happy with performance and graphics output 😇

On 7/28/2022 at 5:42 AM, ckyliu said:

The term "4k texture" is a bit meaningless, it's all about pixel density (i.e. how many pixels per cm or PPI). Putting an entire building on a single 4K texture sheet versus a single door has a very different appearance and quality, but they're both 4K textures. This also means you can benefit from 4K textures even though you might only be running 1080p monitor, and it explains why 8K textures exist even though hardly anyone has an 8K screen.

It is assumed when talking about the quality of the image and you calling something 4k quality, that you use a 1:1 mapping (or close to the same resolvability if repeating), and that your textures are fully resolving the detail required to properly represent a 4k image, especially if you are speaking in terms of quality comparisons. Talking about texture maps is a different topic.

Obviously MSFS is not doing true 4k mapping, and that is my entire point. Most people aren't mapping stuff at nearly true 4k, and it does have meaning because the meaning is in relation to the resolvability of the photo of the real-world object at the same distance. 

 

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Regarding resolvability etc.: When looking at scenery I am with you. I can see a difference between 1440p and 4k but this difference most of the time is only visible when I virtualy touch the screen with my nose and doesn't matter much when flying (1080p is another thing, it always looks terrible to me when compared to the higher resolutions). But 4k is important when displaying instruments, especially digital gauges like the Garmins or the airliner screens. When looking at text every loss in sharpness is very acutely visible all the time. So, when flying steam gauge airplanes like the Spitfire I very often switch to a lower resolution because the higher framerate gives more immersion, but when flying the Kodiak or the A320 I always use 4k because I want to be able to read the navigation displays as easily as possible.

3 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Regarding resolvability etc.: When looking at scenery I am with you. I can see a difference between 1440p and 4k but this difference most of the time is only visible when I virtualy touch the screen with my nose and doesn't matter much when flying (1080p is another thing, it always looks terrible to me when compared to the higher resolutions). But 4k is important when displaying instruments, especially digital gauges like the Garmins or the airliner screens. When looking at text every loss in sharpness is very acutely visible all the time. So, when flying steam gauge airplanes like the Spitfire I very often switch to a lower resolution because the higher framerate gives more immersion, but when flying the Kodiak or the A320 I always use 4k because I want to be able to read the navigation displays as easily as possible.

Thanks, I will check it out, but I didn't notice anything when doing comparisons myself.
I think most people are better off with the higher Hz running lower resolution monitors.

You can also use 4k monitor and run the game in 1440p, the only issue is some annoyances with ALT-TAB in certain games + cost of extra Hz, and some other annoyances.

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

I will end up keeping the Dell monitor even though I liked the Gigabyte one better, only because the Dell has the 1800r curvature instead of the more extreme 1500r.

So I'm stuck with 4k because I couldn't find a 1440p monitor with 1800r curve, well there are some, but I don't really want to return 3 more monitors to Amazon either.

 

Edited July 29, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

I just bought a 1800 curve 1440p Dell monitor at Bestbuy. The one reviewed on Tom's Hardsware recently.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-s3222dgm-32-led-curved-qhd-freesync-gaming-monitor-displayport-hdmi-black/6473700.p?acampID=0&cmp=RMX&irclickid=2Cv210xiXzIJU-Sxqo2f-SYsUkD3O%3ATlRRCt1c0&irgwc=1&loc=Narrativ&mpid=376373&ref=198&skuId=6473700

On 7/29/2022 at 11:04 PM, Fielder said:

I just bought a 1800 curve 1440p Dell monitor at Bestbuy. The one reviewed on Tom's Hardsware recently.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-s3222dgm-32-led-curved-qhd-freesync-gaming-monitor-displayport-hdmi-black/6473700.p?acampID=0&cmp=RMX&irclickid=2Cv210xiXzIJU-Sxqo2f-SYsUkD3O%3ATlRRCt1c0&irgwc=1&loc=Narrativ&mpid=376373&ref=198&skuId=6473700

Yup, and that's a great monitor, but I just hate all Dell's menus, so if I were to go back to 1440p, I would try to avoid Dell.

I had to return a couple video cards and 2 monitors just the past 2 weeks. Returning a third, they might be like, mark this guy as a return abuser.

I have a couple weeks to decide if I will switch, it's not that big of a deal, because I can always change the resolution to 1440p in Windows before opening a game.
The only real issue is if you run in 4k on Windows then run games in 1440p, there are Alt-Tab issues or mouse viewport issues when you go back to the desktop sometimes.

Edited July 31, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

the Alienware QD-OLED is your friend - best performance & visuals!