1080p with 4x aa vs 2k with less aa

[ebabil]

Hi guys,

I have never used a monitor with higher res than 1080p.

I am very unhappy with the dcs jagged graphics no matter what aa I applied

I wonder if I get a higher-res monitor, (but not high enough to kill my 1070gtx) and apply same or less aa, would it look better? Since they have denser pixels, maybe it would help.

What are your thoughts?

My main question basically is, would the need of AA become less, if the resolution goes higher?

[Kev2go]

I went from a 23 inch 1080P monitor to a 27 inch 1440p monitor a few years ago not that long after i upgraded from an AMD 280X to the Nvidia GT 1080, because at the time i realized the GFX seemed overkill for 1080P.

 

I currently use x2 AA with 1440p. Looks good definitely better than the 1080p, and with the larger size i don't need to zoom in or tilt my head as much to see stuff. . Its definitely more than good enough sharp resolution that I don't feel the visuals are jagged. Thus I personally feel no need to upgrade to 4k yet. Even if i did i suspect DCS would murder my frame rates on the current graphic card.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Kev2go

[wilbur81]

Hi guys,

My main question basically is, would the need of AA become less, if the resolution goes higher?

 

Yes, you are correct. I use a 55 inch 4K TV with very low input lag and I do not use any AA in DCS and it looks good enough for me. I use a 1070 SC card and my frames (in 2.5.5) with mostly high settings are really good. 2.5.6 frames are worse for sure, but I don't typically drop below 30 fps and can keep 60 in many circumstances that are up at altitude.

Edited April 11, 2020 by wilbur81

[Svsmokey]

Hi guys,

I have never used a monitor with higher res than 1080p.

I am very unhappy with the dcs jagged graphics no matter what aa I applied

I wonder if I get a higher-res monitor, (but not high enough to kill my 1070gtx) and apply same or less aa, would it look better? Since they have denser pixels, maybe it would help.

What are your thoughts?

My main question basically is, would the need of AA become less, if the resolution goes higher?

 

Have you tried 2xmsaa + 1.5 ssaa ? This combo gave me excellent results when i was running a 1070 and 1080p .

[ebabil]

Have you tried 2xmsaa + 1.5 ssaa ? This combo gave me excellent results when i was running a 1070 and 1080p .

 

with 2.5.6, 2xmsaa + 1.5 ssaa makes it slideshow

now I am using 4x msaa + mfaa + fxaa, it looks ok but, mfaa or fxaa causes graphical anomaly so I should use DCS's own aa. I am considering 2k 27" or 2k 32" monitor

[diogofalcao]

I am using 4k res on 50" monitor. DCS looks photorealistic.

[petsild]

with 2.5.6, 2xmsaa + 1.5 ssaa makes it slideshow

now I am using 4x msaa + mfaa + fxaa, it looks ok but, mfaa or fxaa causes graphical anomaly so I should use DCS's own aa. I am considering 2k 27" or 2k 32" monitor

Prefer instead of FXAA to use ReShade SMAA, which is effective not only in the cockpit and does not cause blurring of the image.

[Shadow KT]

If you are having a slide show with SSAA on, on a 1070, there is some hardware issue on your side, maybe your CPU is spazzing out, or your drives..

 

I run a 1070 SC with a i5 3570K @4.5, 16GBs of RAM, DCS on a SSD and Max Preload (Pagefile also on SSD) and I can run maxed out 1080p, no slideshows....

 

Before 2.5.6 I was running Extreme on view range and 2xSSAA and it definitely was the best look you can get on 1080P.

 

But to your original questions, the higher the resolution, the clearer the picture (less jaggies), so yea, 1440 should definitely look better and you can use less AA, plus it will utilize your GPU better.

[ebabil]

My CPU works at %50 while playing dcs. But gpu always at 100%. I bought 2070rtx super but my friend stuck at Switzerland due to lockdown so I can't get my hands on it for now.

 

Anyway here is the final question:

At the same price,

2k 32" 60 hz vs 2k 27" 144 hz.

Which one should I buy? Is Hertz important for dcs world?

[SirJ]

Have you tried to use reshade as AA solution?

It gave me good result on a 27" 1440p display - even with less fps impact

[Art-J]

@ebabil - It's all very subjective. Some players are crazy about super high refresh rates, for others 30-40 is enough in flight simulators. There is no good answer here.

 

For me, when I was buying a new monitor, I figured that with DCS being resource hog, even maintaining minimum 60 in heavy missions required many gfx settings compromises, so there was absolutely no point in going for 100+ Hz units, as I would never be able to maintain such a framerate. At the same time, extending my joystick meant I had to sit further from the desk than before, so monitor size became THE most important factor. So I switched from 24" 1900x1200 to 32" 2560x1440 60Hz and I'm happy.

 

Going back to your original question, it's a good example for subjective preferences as well. You seem to be crazy about antialiasing quality, I on the other hand can live with much lower settings. From my experience with GTX1070, which I still use like you - denser pixels on higher rez didn't help much because of increase in monitor size. At the same time, going 1440p caused quite a noticeable performance hit and to maintain solid 60 fps I had to disable in-game AA completely, relying only on post-processing FXAA+SMAA via Reshade. They're sufficient (at least for me) for cockpit parts and external model, but don't remove horrible shimmering of buildings in the cities and towns. But, since in DCS we don't spend much time over cities anyway, that was another compromise I was willing to acccept.

[ebabil]

No. are there instructions? Is it revertable? Can it pass integrity check?

[ebabil]

@ebabil - It's all very subjective. Some players are crazy about super high refresh rates, for others 30-40 is enough in flight simulators. There is no good answer here.

 

For me, when I was buying a new monitor, I figured that with DCS being resource hog, even maintaining minimum 60 in heavy missions required many gfx settings compromises, so there was absolutely no point in going for 100+ Hz units, as I would never be able to maintain such a framerate. At the same time, extending my joystick meant I had to sit further from the desk than before, so monitor size became THE most important factor. So I switched from 24" 1900x1200 to 32" 2560x1440 60Hz and I'm happy.

 

Going back to your original question, it's a good example for subjective preferences as well. You seem to be crazy about antialiasing quality, I on the other hand can live with much lower settings. From my experience with GTX1070, which I still use like you - denser pixels on higher rez didn't help much because of increase in monitor size. At the same time, going 1440p caused quite a noticeable performance hit and to maintain solid 60 fps I had to disable in-game AA completely, relying only on post-processing FXAA+SMAA via Reshade. They're sufficient (at least for me) for cockpit parts and external model, but don't remove horrible shimmering of buildings in the cities and towns. But, since in DCS we don't spend much time over cities anyway, that was another compromise I was willing to acccept.

 

thanks for the detailed explanation. yes I can not be happy with the jagged graphics, AA is very important to me. actually mfaa + fxaa + msaa result can be accepted by me but it cause this problem with water, fog, clouds but not always, sometimes

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264594