-NMS- Ikaros Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) Guys with my Asus Strix GTX 970 OC in the 1600 x 900 res i can set full settings in terrain and textures and i cannot see any difference except better framerate and visuals than the 1920 x 1080. Now is it my eyes that cannot discern the difference or what? Edited June 24, 2020 by Tlepolemos
shu77 Posted June 24, 2020 Posted June 24, 2020 1600x1300 is more pixels but its a different aspect ration so it would look better technically. but Im not sure why its running better. IS one full screen and one windowed? what monitor are you using? I recently made the move from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and the difference was amazing for minimal frame drop but I did get one. so we perhaps need a little more info to comment on why the performance improved. Hornet, Super Carrier, Warthog & (II), Mustang, Spitfire, Albatross, Sabre, Combined Arms, FC3, Nevada, Gulf, Normandy, Syria AH-6J i9 10900K @ 5.0GHz, Gigabyte Z490 Vision G, Cooler Master ML120L, Gigabyte RTX3080 OC Gaming 10Gb, 64GB RAM, Reverb G2 @ 2480x2428, TM Warthog, Saitek pedals & throttle, DIY collective, TrackIR4, Cougar MFDs, vx3276-2k Combat Wombat's Airfield & Enroute Maps and Planning Tools
-NMS- Ikaros Posted June 24, 2020 Author Posted June 24, 2020 Oh.. i meant to say 1600 x 900 actually. I have to change the title. Sorry.
Recommended Posts