Logic says yes they are less demanding but I don’t know that there is any proof of that. It certainly reduces radio traffic and the risk of the MSFS AI management doing stupid things with the FSLTL traffic.
Static aircraft are still simobjects, which definitely uses graphical resources, and also there is a hard limit of 1000 active simobjects in MSFS. It sounds like a lot but it isn’t, and it’s easily exceeded at large airports, so you have to apply some caution.
Injected AI traffic from all existing injectors once inserted into MSFS is managed by the MSFS AI code, so don’t blame the injector if an injected airliner starts breakdancing on its nose, or lands on top of another one. One consequence of this is that more moving aircraft makes the MSFS AI code work harder, and this seems to run on that dreaded mainthread with all of the FPS reduction implications that brings. I assume that static aircraft do not have this impact which should be better for fps.
BATC with its completely new traffic management is the first tool that will not only inject but also fully manage all of its own traffic frame by frame for the whole flight. Most of us are waiting eagerly for this! Because it removes work from the MSFS AI code on the mainthread and runs the traffic management in another process it is claimed that it gives higher fps than any current injector. Also if they do a good job with their path management we might finally get well behaved traffic that doesn’t taxi through each other.
Thanks. I believe FS Traffic by JF is less demanding on hardware and isn’t based on live traffic, so there’s little change of aircraft landing on top of one another. There has to be some sort of advantage, given it’s payware.
Re monitors, how’s this?
Didn’t realise they were so expensive!
28” isn’t very big. And Argos is always full price for everything. Amazon is a better bet. You could always dive into a PC World to get an idea of what they actually look like (at least the size) and compare price to Amazon.
1 Like
I think you should buy it and let us all know, it’s clear from dozens of posts that this one is something you’re very keen on!
While there is often a correlation between cost and quality I think everyone knows that this isn’t always true. Paying for something doesn’t automatically make it better, and there are many free things that exceed paid items. If you do buy it I’m interested to hear your experience, but I’m definitely saving my cash for BATC which I expect to knock all other injectors into oblivion.
I would search for the best deal, I just had a quick look at Argos and Currys to get an idea.
I’m not bothered about monitor size as the room the PC will eventually be in is pretty small, and I’ll be sitting only about 1.5-2m away.
How will 120 or 144Hz affect my gaming, compared to a 60Hz? I know I have a 60Hz TV already but it doesn’t have bells and whistles like Freesync, etc.
I think I’d rather settle for a 1440p monitor, they appear to be significantly less. This one seems to have everything I’m looking for?
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/acer-cz342cur-wide-quad-hd-34-curved-va-lcd-monitor-black-10251643.html
Indeed, but JF must’ve incorporated something to make it worthwhile, otherwise their product would be pointless against freeware competition. All reviews say the aircraft models are better, both aesthetically and for performance. Given that FSLTL is currently killing my fps, it’s an attractive attribute…
What’s BATC, and should I too wait for it?
Cheers.
So this is ATC and injector in one? I take it the aircraft models will have to be imported, or will it have its own?
It is, I’m not sure what models it will come with but I’m sure they already said it will be able to use external.
1 Like
Well, I think you need to decide, do you want an OK monitor without breaking the bank. Or as you said budget is not really the main thing, do you want a knock-your-socks-off experience?
Are you considering VR in the future? If so, don’t spent too much on a monitor coz you may end up not even using it much (I made this mistake, but it wasn’t too pricey lol).
Also, it’s a trade off. With the ultra wide monitors you get a nicer panoramic view at the cost of vertical height. With the regular 4K widescreens you’d want a bigger one to keep the same physical width, then it gives you a nicer vertical field of view too. A smaller 4K screen would feel quite “tunnel vision” IMO.
Another thing is that you have a monster PC (once you get it singing) which is more suited to balance with pushing your GPU more (to avoid getting into Main Thread Limit stutters) so that’s easier to achieve with the extra pixels in 4K screens. The 1440 won’t really max your card out so a bit trickier to get balance.
I like the curved screens though. Feels like a windscreen!
2 Likes
By the way, just want to once again thank you all for the assistance in getting my PC up and running. It’s getting closer to where I want it to be but I’ve been taking a break to do some actual flying, as well as continuing to download all my add-ons. I realise there are still some bits of advice I should consider, such as more closely looking at my Windows display settings to make sure there’s a match between TV and PC.
I will upload some screenshots either tonight or tomorrow, featuring the dev mode fps widget open.
It isn’t but I don’t like spending more than I absolutely need to. If there’s a monitor that can knock me for six I’d happily spend the extra and buy it. But if the difference is going to be more nuanced, I’d rather settle for something cheaper.
Obviously a 60Hz 4K with Freesync is the most attractive to me at the moment — and a 4K 144Hz the least — but it depends on how much my experience will be improved (or not, as the case may be). I’m not bothered about the visuals themselves (HDR has been around in photography circles for decades and it’s never impressed me), I just want the smoothest experience for a reasonable price.
4K would be lovely but I personally don’t feel the difference over 1440 is significant enough to warrant the additional outlay. I often feel the ‘very best’ comes at a premium that isn’t representative of its real-world value.
2 Likes
I looked on Amazon which had more detailed feature/function list and it appears to have all the needed bells and whistles.
GIGABYTE M28U 28" 144Hz Gaming Monitor, 3840 x 2160 SS IPS Display, 2ms (MPRT) Response Time, 94% DCI-P3, VESA Display HDR400, FreeSync Premium Pro, 1x Display Port 1.4, 2x HDMI 2.1
It will make a big difference along with freesync in smoothness. My 120Hz TV can adjust fps between 48-120Hz dynamically on the fly working with the gpu reducing tearing and other anomalies. Your current TV runs flat out at 60Hz and can only make minor adjustments with VRR (vsync in the sim).
I recommend you go big with 4k! You’ve got the monster rig to support it! 
3 Likes
Yes, I’m also being pulled in that direction. I’ve just spent £2.5k… what’s another £500 at this stage?! 
At the moment my sim is only registering above 60fps when flying above quite basic scenery. I mainly use add-ons (airports and cities), which cause the fps to drop to between 30 and 50fps — to me, logic would dictate that a 60Hz TV/monitor should suffice, since I’m not going to go over 60fps often; however it seems there’s a lot more to the refresh rate than just figures?
I think this is considered one of the best for colours (HDR even, there are different qualities of it but I know what you mean, can look more natural when a bit more muted) and a bit nicer size for you?
https://amzn.eu/d/4SKjtGU
1 Like
Looks nice, but the other one I linked above is more attractive, simply based on price. If that one’ll do, I’d rather save a bit of cash.
It’s quite a bit bigger though 
Jax man, just don’t lose sight of the big picture, chasing FPS and all that, I guess would be my advice. I know how active you were in your other thread on assessing how the 738 behaves at all these various airports, sweet thread, huge help - but I’m excited for you to turn that FPS counter off and just have fun spawning into sceneries and situations that would have pulled your avionics fuse right quick back in the Xbox days. I’m sensitive to the feeling of parting with twenty five hundred bucks and expecting to have your socks knocked off right out the gate, totally get it, but I also hope you’re having some fun with the sim my dude 
5 Likes
Given that my monitor is 27" 4k, I can give you a fairly direct comparison. The visual difference between 1440p and 4k in the sim is so negligible as to be almost identical even when you know what to look for. The biggest difference is the cockpit gauges are a frog’s hair sharper at 4k when viewing on that size screen and probably sitting closer than you plan to sit from the monitor.
Unless you have other uses where having 4k would be a distinct advantage, excellent eyesight, or plan to go with a larger screen, I would save your money. I bought a 4k monitor primarily for my photography hobby. There are advantages to higher resolution when editing, so I don’t feel like I wasted money on it.
The one exception I would make is if you plan this to be a long term investment. If that’s the case, and you plan to keep your PC upgraded with top end hardware, then you’ll reach a point where you’ll be able to easily push 4k without making a lot of compromises. Then again, an equivalent 4k monitor is likely to come down in price by then as well. This is going to be an decision only you can make based on your personal situation.
