So I was wondering if anyone was choosing to use a 1080p monitor over a 1440p or 4K?
I’ve been experimenting myself as I recently downgraded from a 27inch 4K monitor to a 27 inch 1080p. I am currently using an i7 10700K with an RTX3070 (settings on Ultra) While this handled the 4K okay I was only getting around 30fps, sometimes going above and below depending on the area I’m flying. While you may say this is perfectly fine which I did too. I wanted to test out my 1080p monitor with the sim and am getting 60fps (settings on Ultra). Now I always thought that 30fps was good enough for flight sim but compared to 60fps, this is so buttery smooth. I know some of you will disagree and I understand this is personal opinion but you can feel the difference.
The visuals on 4K are amazing and cannot be beaten but this come at the expense of FPS. I just feel that fluidity is worth just as much as visuals whether that be a sim or other games.
I would also point out that the 4K monitor I was using was 60hz like most 4K monitors. My 1080p is 144hz. Now I know this doesn’t make any difference in flight sim as your unlikely to get above 60. But for me I did notice when you move the camera fast from one side to another. Also for everything else you do on your PC is a massive difference.
I was thinking about the middle ground 1440p but I think 60fps in the sim is so nice to have.
I’ve upgraded from a 27" 1080 monitor to a 27" 1440 a few weeks ago, mainly to increase the workspace in blender. (Anything bigger and I would need to turn my head too much)
The difference (not only) in MSFS is substantial. While the DPI on a 1080 are too low which causes a less than perfectly smooth picture, the 1440 is perfect for me.
It’s like looking at a sheet of paper than looking at a collection of pixels.
In MSFS the instruments are noticeable crisper.
Much to my surprise, performance in MSFS didn’t significantly decrease.
I am having a 2580x1080 curved monitor. I am playing on Render Scaling 150 and I am pretty satisfied with the graphical appearance of MSFS with this setup. I think your question and the answers you will get, will vary. Everyone got other expectations when it comes to resolution, FPS, graphic settings etc.
I wouldn’t want to drop any lower than 1440 myself, 1080 is quite low Res these days unless you have a tiny monitor, dials don’t look crisp, but it’s your game, you do what ever makes you feel happy
I run 3 24" 1080 monitors - 5760 x 1080. My graphics card is a 1660 Super. I have the render scaling at 70 - if I go to 80 my FPS starts to drop below 30 on approach. I mostly notice the difference in clarity on the G1000, not so much on the scenery. I am flying GA aircraft, 1500 - 2000 AGL.
I also use TrackIR. I am sure I would get a smoother experience when moving my head if I could get to 60 FPS. Once graphics cards start to come down in price I may consider building a new system that can handle higher resolutions. Overall I am satisfied with my 1080 / 30 FPS experiance.
Also using a 24" 2560x1080 monitor. Thought about upgrading but the resolution is more than adequate for office and for MSFS, so I see no need for a 4K upgrade.
I am running a 27” 1080p, but as a secondary monitor for map and comms; my primary is the same size but 1440p. The idea of running at Ultra seems appealing on the surface but doesn’t seem to be worth the performance hit. Several months back I saw a website that went through every individual setting with each quality level, showing hundreds of screenshots at the same location, and the differences between medium/high and ultra were surprisingly small.
Using these findings and making selective adjustments I am able to get solid performance on what is not exactly a state-of-the-art system: i5 9600K @ 4.9GHz (air cooled with a custom Hyper 212), GTX 1080, 32GB. With this setup I’m normally getting 65-85 FPS, dipping into the forties in very heavy scenery and solid triple digits when at altitude and concentrating on instruments. Most of the time I’m flying the CRJ, and I suspect that my frame rates would be even better with a simpler aircraft.
My monitor is an HP that was built for the medical industry. 60Hz is just fine for my needs, and considering that it was over $650 off compared to the MSRP I couldn’t be happier. It didn’t come with a stand, but I picked up a glass and metal one meant for a larger TV and adapted it to work, at a cost of just $30.
I’m sure that 4K would look great but I don’t think I’m really missing much at 1440p, a resolution that seems like a good compromise between quality and performance. Based on my experience, on a 27” 1080p monitor the pixels appear to be too large, and on a 22” 1080p they seemed too small. 23 to 24 inches appears to be the ideal size for 1080p IMHO.
I miss my old 24 incher at times. I would have kept it but I got a great deal on a 27” HP 1440p. My 24 had a resolution of 1920x1200, and those extra lines made it so much better than the typical 16x9 arrangement.
I use only VR for flying these days, but I have 2x 24 " 1920/1200 monitors in front of me. 50-60, smooth FPS with almost all settings at max (GTX 1080ti Extreme 11Gb, 7700k) in full screen. However, I put MSFS in a small windowed mode at 800x600 when in VR as I think this may relieve the GPU load a bit.
This really comes down to personal preference, hardware and budget. All else is managing to find the perfect balance in game settings and GPU driver settings that allow your PC to render stable FPS, as a stable framerate is a thousand times better than going for the highest possible FPS.
IMO it’s best to try with what you have at hand and find a setup that works for you. Everyone has a different taste. Also everyone’s PC specs are different, so it’s rather hard to give a go-to all-in-one solution.
I own 4 1080’s 3X27" and 1X32", 27" is the sweet spot for 1080 and 32" is a bit large and probably should be 2K … also being in my 50’s my eyes aren’t as picky as they once were.
I too have a 27 inch 1080p monitor but I’ve read a lot online that 25 inch is best for 1080p. I do notice that the text isn’t very clear in cockpit displays on my 27 inch display. I’m seriously thinking about changing to a 25 inch as everything will be clearer but obviously the trade off is having to use a smaller monitor.
Also 25 inch 1080p is actually the most popular monitor according to the Steam survey. I know that FS2020 is different but I want something which will also be good for other games too. I tried a 4K monitor and while the graphics and clarity on FS2020 were amazing the performance wasn’t as good. Also as the 4K monitor is 60hz like almost all 4K monitors are you could really tell the difference when playing other games. As my system is capable of reaching high FPS the monitor was restricting me to 60. And you could really tell it wasn’t very smooth.
I’m now torn between, 1080p 27inch, 1080p 25inch or 1440p 27inch.
I did like mine as well…until I’ve got my 2k monitor.
Without having seen a higher res at a same size monitor, I simply didn’t know what I’ve been missing.
It’s not only MSFS, the simple fact that text on the monitor is now noticeable sharper is very nice.
I’m playing on a laptop with a 144hz 1080p screen. The screen is pretty good and much much better than my old 1080p tv. 144hz helps with v-sync. There is only 6.94ms between frames on the monitor as opposed to 16.67ms on a 60hz screen. The lower the fps vs monitor refresh rate, the smaller the impact of missing v-sync now and then, smoother experience.
I do play with 150 renderscale, rendering in 2880x1620 down sampled to 1080p. That gives a sharper more stable image than rendering at 1080p.
I have a 24" 60 hz 1080p and a 32" 144hz 1440p connected and tried MSFS on both.
The difference is night and day the 32" 1440p is massively better. I do however run the 1440p at 90% render scaling as I cannot see any significant difference between 90 and 100 scaling even in the glass displays and it gives a fairly sold 50 FPS with minimal stutter on my setup.