As per the above my pc has an RTX 3060, since that was literally the only 30 series card I could find when I built it back in March this year. The rest of the system is an i7 11700k, Z590 mobo and 32GB of 3600 cl17 RAM, and I currently have a 1080p monitor.
Since SU5 I have been able to increase pretty much all the graphics settings to ultra and still get a decent frame rate (capped at 60fps) and a smooth flying sim with hardly any stutters or crashes, but like others I have noticed the overall quality is not as good as it was.
Would a change to a 1440p monitor using V-sync / G-sync be likely to make an improvement to the visuals, or would that be too much for the GPU and leave me with a prettier picture but an unplayable sim?
I intended to get a 3070 or better originally, and I will probably still upgrade the gpu once stocks and prices settle a bit more, but I wondered if the 3060 along with a 1440p monitor using display port & g-sync can give a taste of better graphics in the meantime.
This is easy to try out. You have two options that should be similar in performance:
Set render scaling to 140. That is not exact though and a bit harder that actual 1440p. (2688x1512 instead of 2560x1440, so 10-11% more pixels.)
Use NVIDIA DSR (in the NVIDIA Control Panel) and enable 1.78x setting under āDSR - Factorsā. Restart MSFS if already running and then change resolution to the 2560x1440 (or something very close) option that should have appeared. This should be the closest option performance wise.
Note that the two calculate scaling differently. MSFS 140 means 1.4x on each axis, so 1.4*1.4 = 1.96 times more pixels. DSR calculates on the number of total pixels, so 1.78x means 1.78x more pixels.
(1440p vs 1080p has 1.777ā¦ times more.)
Running at native res on a 1440p monitor will give you virtually identical performance to the above, within 1-3 fps or so of option 2 and probably within 10-15% of option 1.
Thank you for the suggestions, they both worked surprisingly well!
With render scaling at 140 and everything else left on Ultra settings it did drop the frame rate quite a bit, to about 30-35, and also introduced some stuttering and pop-up / fill inās while looking around, so that wasnāt ideal.
Changing back to High settings and the system coped with it absolutely fine, easily holding 60fps and very smooth in flight and on approach, but at the expense of some detail and less defined clouds.
I settled on a custom setting beginning with the āHighā global but increasing LODās to 130 and moving Clouds and all Texture settings to Ultra. Trying some landing challenges and demo flights including NYC, these settings increased GPU usage just into the 90ās, but it held up a solid 45-50fps at worst and was back to being super smooth.
Exactly as you suggested, NVIDIA DSR to 1.78 did broadly the same thing but was slightly less hard on the GPU, so overall Iām very pleased.
I think a 1440p monitor with the above settings should give some worthwhile visual improvement, and G-sync may help a bit more too which of course isnāt available with my 1080p HDMI monitor.
If you donāt already have the monitor (I assume you donāt), try to get one with a sync window that goes down to 30 Hz, if possible. It may only be possible with monitor that have the actual G-Sync module, which are more expensive than āG-Sync Compatibleā though, in which case Iām not sure itāll be worth it.
A common range seems to be 48 Hz and up, which means you might get tearing or stuttering when you drop below 48 fps. Clearly thatās something that is likely to happen in MSFS, at least in some situations.
Iāll bear that in mind when looking around, thanks for the tip. On a brief look, a lot of monitors are G sync compatible but there are only a few with the specific module and as you say they are a lot more expensive.
I can always tweak the settings in MSFS if needed to keep it in the sweet spot but of course this sim is quite demanding, so for pretty much anything else I use the pc for it should still be a worthwhile improvement.
Itās a little old now (hence the price is a bit high as they are hard to come by new), and so there may be an newer version, but for me, this one has everything you could need, e.g. IPS panel, 144Hz (can go higher, but really no need), G-Sync etc
Thatās the exact monitor I have.
No complaints at all.
Thereās a widespread, bizarre issue where a vertical line of pixels is moved from about the screen center to the rightmost edge, but when overclocked to 165 Hz the issue disappears, and itās not an āoverclockā that carries any kind of risk, just moving more pixels/sec than the DisplayPort connection is rated for. With both NVIDIAS 3000 cards being able, and the monitor being able, itās perfectly safe and disabled by default only because not all cards will work with it enabled.
Iāve had mine in 165 Hz for about a year now and it hasnāt returned for a second since.
For what itās worth, and this is just my personal opinion of course, you might find out youād get a better experience when lowering a few setting in order to maintain a high fps but with a 4K monitor, vs raising your settings but with a 2K monitor. The visual details with 4K is really a step above 2K with a simulator, not only for discerning distant objects better but also for increasing legibility in the cockpit, and if the GPU choice is a factor, I can run in 4K with SU5 on a 9700K+2070S without much compromises in terms of graphics settings. Not everything ULTRA of course, but tuned more or less around HIGH instead.
Thank you all for your thoughts and input on this, very much appreciated.
I looked at the 2k / UHD monitors mentioned above as well as the very few others that are available from UK retailers, and for a decent one with a proper G-Sync module they start at around GBP 600 and head rapidly north from there, so I am not convinced that would be a good value upgrade for me.
The sim plays fine as it is on my current monitor, and for everything else I use the pc for itās more than good enough. In addition, I donāt have room on the desk for a screen bigger than 27in and Iām not far enough away to get the benefit from anything bigger.
If I do change it in the future it will more likely be for a larger 4k monitor of some kind, as they are easily available and arguably better value. But, this would need wholesale rearranging of the desk, shelf and monitor mounting setup first, and Iād want to change the gpu for a 3070 or better at the same time.
If you have a compatible GPU (I think any Geforce 1000-series and up, and possibly some AMD cards too), just go to the 165 Hz mode and youāre rid of it forever. Not a lot of downsides.
In theory, 24 fps video might be slightly better on 144 since itās evenly divisble, but I never really noticed those issues even at 60 Hz where itās both not evenly divible and relatively close. At 165 Hz you still get like 6-7 screen frames per video frame, so the judder is pretty minimal.
