I need better lighting for a good picture.
I have in my main home a 42’ 4K LG TV that I use as a monitor only (never as TV).
In my beach house, I have a 32’ LG PC monitor (2560x1440).
No doubts, my 4K 42’ TV it’s much, but MUCH MORE better.
Not really. I would say the amount of people who can actually notice a difference between 2k and 4k is negligible. There’s a lot of phycology that went into the 4k marketing. When 4k originally came out I estimated people were told “4k looks way better” approximately 125-300 times per night if you were watching television from 7pm to 11pm. This causes a form of “brainwashing” as it subliminally makes you think that 4k “looks better.” 4k is kinda useless to most people right now. Only a couple of games get decent frames unless you are using DLSS or FSR. Even with the current RTX 3xxx cards and their AMD equivalents. Really the only place I’d recommend it is in TVs and even then only when you are looking at 50in or larger. (Not that it really matters now that almost every size category is 4k.)
1 Like
if you can’t notice the difference between 2k and 4k then there is an issue mate.
I have several 1080p 1440p and 4k displays, there is a massive difference in terms of how crisp the image looks at 4k.
in games it’s even more noticeable as AA plays quite a role as well.
1 Like
Still amazes me watching people trying to squeeze ever frame out of their setup when the human eye can’t tell the difference. I’m locked at 30 as well, buttery smooth and no stutters.
1 Like
I’ve always wondered what fps the human eye sees at. Whatever it is, I can’t see the point of trying to get your pc to beat that.
There is certainly a visible difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. Even in MSFS game, 60 is very smooth and fluid. I am not saying that 30 isn’t playable and may be all one can squeeze out, but saying there is no difference is just false. The myth that the human eye can’t discern over 30 fps was busted long ago.
TV and movies are shot at 24 FPS if that tells you anything. (It does).
1 Like
So show us.
Old TV standards were 30 FPS and are now 60 FPS for lots of content. I think it is still 50 in the UK, not sure. Movies were 24 fps, but you are seeing more higher fps movies being made today.
Yep. Read it. Still waiting to “show this myth was busted”.
One of my favorite arguments I’ve read recently was: “Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It’s just not.”
This is from the be-all end-all post on the subject on Reddit. 
1 Like
This is taking the thread off topic. I am sorry I responded.
Let’s get back on 2K vs 4K.
Sorry about the diversions.
1 Like
cuz it simply is untrue, you have access to the internet buddy you can look it up yourself 
some ancient old study for cinema is not science, it was just for cinemaphotography and they settled on 24 fps btw.
the human eye can discern over 100fps easily, the brain fires signals upwards of 1000+ times per second.
basic cognitive science here.
yes the human eyes have limits, but those limits are in latency of the signal traveling to your brain.
also this differs from person to person, just like how some can train their certain senses and body the eyes get used to fast motion as well.
we humans adapt 
there is no fps limit, we aren’t machines
2 Likes
If it’s on Reddit, it must be true. It’s like when I was in the Navy. If I heard it in the NAAFI queue, then it must be true. 
I’ve noticed on the monitors I’ve tested out that you do notice the higher Hz, even in FS2020z
I thought the same thing as you but it’s when you pan the camera around in the cockpit or in drone can that it’s smoother.
1 Like
Said everyone who ever made a claim they couldn’t support.
1 Like
you can’t claim your 30fps theory as well (maybe stop your trolling and not hijack a post derailing it)
1 Like
I didn’t make a claim that needs to be supported. Nice try though. 
1 Like