Hello,

another issue I've been battling two past days:

As of late, I have changed to DX12, so I can use frame generation, not sure if DX12 is the reason, but if I use TAA higher than 100%, I get shimmering mostly on the trees when panning/moving. Lowering to 100% resolves the issue completely. Using for instance DLSS/DLAA also solves the issue, however that introduces lag on some instruments, digits etc.

Shimmering for me is mostly notable in Innsbruck (Aerosoft scenery), when panning around and watching the tree-scenery on the hills.

Is shimmering with TAA >100% a known issue?

I believe this is a know issue, but there is no reason I can think of to use it above 100%.  100% is already pixel for pixel, and running above 100 adds a lot of extra load on your GPU without really adding anything.
If you think the image isn't sharp enough, you can add a bit of extra sharpening from the options menu, and this adds hardly any extra load to the GPU.

It was useful for people with older GPU cards to us less than 100% of course.  For instance, I used to use 85% with my 1080Ti for example.
And I believe some people use above 100% with VR occasionally, but on a normal monitor 1-to-1 (100%) should be good enough and I can't see how you would see any benefit.  Are you using a 4k monitor?

I've found that some addon airports and sceneries seem to have this problem with TAA and others with DLSS.  I've not really settled on one nor the other though generally stick with DLSS for the better FPS.

Sadly we need a DX12 update  😒

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I believe this is a know issue, but there is no reason I can think of to use it above 100%.  100% is already pixel for pixel, and running above 100 adds a lot of extra load on your GPU without really adding anything.
If you think the image isn't sharp enough, you can add a bit of extra sharpening from the options menu, and this adds hardly any extra load to the GPU.

It was useful for people with older GPU cards to us less than 100% of course.  For instance, I used to use 85% with my 1080Ti for example.
And I believe some people use above 100% with VR occasionally, but on a normal monitor 1-to-1 (100%) should be good enough and I can't see how you would see any benefit.  Are you using a 4k monitor?

No, I found out just yesterday that it’s all good even with 100%. Default was 150% and didn’t change what I didn’t know. I’m coming from FSX and P3D (last only used P3D 5 for a short time), but I wanted to be it different this time: I am only installing what I need, I try to know exactly what settings do and I try to avoid going into cfg/ini files. Something that was done on daily basis in FSX and P3D. 
I used it actually to ascertain if MSFS would run well with a bigger screen, 38”3840x1600 (or maybe 34” 3840x1440) currently having 3x 27 2560x1440. 

I wonder when the next DX12 update will come and what improvement we will see. 

58 minutes ago, SimonC said:

No, I found out just yesterday that it’s all good even with 100%. Default was 150% and didn’t change what I didn’t know. I’m coming from FSX and P3D (last only used P3D 5 for a short time), but I wanted to be it different this time: I am only installing what I need, I try to know exactly what settings do and I try to avoid going into cfg/ini files. Something that was done on daily basis in FSX and P3D. 
I used it actually to ascertain if MSFS would run well with a bigger screen, 38”3840x1600 (or maybe 34” 3840x1440) currently having 3x 27 2560x1440. 

Excellent!  All good then Simon.

1 hour ago, SimonC said:

I used it actually to ascertain if MSFS would run well with a bigger screen, 38”3840x1600 (or maybe 34” 3840x1440) currently having 3x 27 2560x1440. 

Size of screen has NO influence on performance...resolution is what affects performance - more pixels = more work for the GPU and higher VRAM usage.

5 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I believe this is a know issue, but there is no reason I can think of to use it above 100%.  100% is already pixel for pixel, and running above 100 adds a lot of extra load on your GPU without really adding anything.

 

Are you sure about this? Why would MS/Asobo allow settings from 100 to 200 if anything above 100 would have no benefit at all?

2 hours ago, somiller said:

Size of screen has NO influence on performance...resolution is what affects performance - more pixels = more work for the GPU and higher VRAM usage.

Ergo why I set 135% TAA, so to know what performance I would have with another (bigger) screen, which does imply higher resolution (as noted in my previous post).

On 4/10/2023 at 10:32 PM, bobcat999 said:

I believe this is a know issue, but there is no reason I can think of to use it above 100%.  100% is already pixel for pixel, and running above 100 adds a lot of extra load on your GPU without really adding anything.

It makes for better image quality. Being able to set it up to 120% on my old 1080p monitor was a life saver. Made a significant difference to text being readable or not. Probably not so important on higher resolution monitors.