He’s scraping the bottom of the playable barrel at 1440p.
What does that even mean ? In exactly what way is 1440p less playable than 4K ?
Let me say this: that is the most irrelevant idea I’ve read on this forum so far.
You guys really are victims of the industry marketing.
First of all, scientifically, at the distance you are from your monitor, 1440p and 4K are visually nearly undistinguishable and that’s a scientific fact. The human eye can only resolve 1 arc minute and that’s with perfect vision. If you do the calculation, you realize that at a distance of 0.6m, on a 32" monitor, that’s 0.24mm and even in 1440p, one pixel is about as small as that. So 4K single monitors are essentially useless.
Secondly even if you could distinguish pixels, it is unlikely that MSFS will ever have good enough texturing that it matters. Why ? Because since you can fly at any altitude (even at 300 ft or less), this means you need near perfect texturing down to walking distance. This is never gonna happen. The best photogrammetry looks very good already, but when you get too close it will always be an ugly mess. And an ugly mess in 4K is not better than an ugly mess in 1440p or even in 1080p.
The truth is 4K is pretty much useless and is merely an industry trick to sell more monitors in a completely saturated market. One has to sustain that multi billion $ business one way or another, right ? So saying “scraping the bottom of the playable barrel at 1440p” is just perpetuating a completely fabricated urban legend.
Yes, S.A.M is enabled. i dont have adrenaline installed, so no rage mode. i just installed the drivers as the AMD software is just bloatware to me… tried with adrenaline installed as well, and there was no difference in performance. thnx for replying
I think the point that was being made was that the reported FPS at that resolution for that system, as in 20-25, is scraping the bottom of the barrel,not the actual screen resolution itself.
Thnx for sharing this, i think you need to experience the issue at hand to fully understand what is wrong.
im glad to hear im not alone. at the same time, im sorry for you being in the same barrel as me its pure frustration and it makes no sense from a performance perspective when tweaking settings.
I have a beefy system and I was struggling with low performance (flying GA in rural areas in a single screen). I tinkered with the render scale and it helped tremendously. I know it sounds silly but even after putting it back to 100% the positive effect remained.
My explanation is that something was blocked or whatever and got overwritten during the tuning and restarting. It’s totally unscientific but I thought I’d share because I was in the same boat as you and it went away for reasons I don’t understand to this day.
This means there is something SERIOUSLY off… You’re probably fully CPU bound somewhere. Have you tried turning off multiplayer? What does the MSFS frame counter say?
[quote=“Pieter1982NL, post:35, topic:391361, full:true”]
In that case it does make 0 sense that your frame rate doesn’t improve if you decrease your render scaling to 30.
Completly agree… cyberpunk 2077 gives me 75-80 fps all maxed out on graphics
First… let the sim choose the default settings and after this, you can tweak the rest.
And as stated many tines by MS and Asobo, MSFS doesn’t particularly like overclocked systems, so put everything back to default and see what it does…
i fly around locally, training on my IFR procedures
