Settings Matter

It's great to have a super video card, a fast processor, loads of memory, and a nice monitor. But even with all of these devices, image quality can vary widely depending on your settings. The problem is there are so many variables and even if you get someone else's settings, they may not work on your PC.

I bought an Nvidia 1080 ti back in August. Super card! I've loved it. But while it had good quality and a great frame rate, my image quality was still a bit disappointing.

Here's a screen shot from August 2018 to illustrate my point. The aircraft is an Albatros D I. The edges are a bit grainy and the support wires have plenty of gaps.

Since August, I've been playing around with the settings. I stopped allowing WOFF to control the graphics and, instead, started playing around with the "Manage 3D Settings" in Nvidia control. It took me about two months to get the colors the way I wanted. It's not easy. What looks good on a sunny day, will look dark on a cloudy day. I spent a lot of time in QM, pausing the sim and ALT Tabbing out to Nvidia control. This was a process that often crashed the system.

Then I went to work on the graphics settings. I tried them one at a time and stuck with the one's that seemed to make a positive difference.

Ultimately, I ended up with this, an American SPAD VII. In my opinion, it looks much better, and I've stopped fiddling around with my settings.

Nowi

You have to go to either a higher resolution monitor (2560x1440 or 4K) or use Nvidia Inspector to get better than 8x AA.

Like I said in your other thread, your 1080 Ti can easily handle a 32" 4k G-sync monitor, because that is exactly what I upgraded to after buying my 1080 Ti card in August too.

I'll get there eventually. I do worry about being able to see things. How tiny will the fonts get?

Nowi

This is why I said 32", if you get a smaller monitor than that with 4k, you better have a magnifying glass to see the fonts in the game.

Ah! Did not know that. Thanks.

Panama Red,

Which monitor model do you have? I take it you’re satisfied with it?

Thanks.

Nowi

There is only ONE company that makes a 32", 4K, 16:9, G-sync monitor, and that is Acer: Amazon Acer Link

It is a really beautify monitor that allows you to see everything in great detail. Normally it goes for $1,300. but it's on sale right now below $1,000, but when you are the only game in town (for G-sync), you have the market cornered.

When using this monitor, I just use 2X AA and it is sharper than my older 2650x1440 monitor at 8X AA with no drop in FPS using the 1080 Ti video card.

I researched the monitor before buying and the only real complaint that anybody had was that the screen did not swivel to a vertical configuration, with did not bother me at all since I use it in the normal horizontal configuration.

I really like my curved monitor. But if I go that route, we’re talking QHD, rather than UHD—3400 vs 3800. Still gsync. Opinion?

Acer Predator Z35P bmiphz 35" Curved 1800R QHD (3440x1440) NVIDIA G-SYNC VA Monitor

Decisions, decisions.

But to each, their own.

I always use experienced players settings as a base to further.
Check this postings on Hellshades settings and one page later mr Wiggens settings.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4420203/36

The problem with relying on others settings is that they're often subjective, and sometimes inaccurate. A very good example is the continued recommendation to "use triple buffering if your card has enough memory" where it's long since been established that this setting doesn't apply to this sim because it uses DirectX, not OpenGL. That advice was obviously misguided, and the problem then becomes that one has little way of discerning between "good" advice and bad. Especially when it's being propagated in a document from the sim's producers.

As for monitors: I bought the 1080p version of 21:9 monitor explicitly because I didn't want to have to worry about my GPU being able to adequately drive a 4k monitor - I have a 1070Ti, and I already spent more than I should have for it. As I explained elsewhere, if you have the $, good for you. Your 1080Ti should drive 4k resolution (8.3m pixels) no problem. If I had to choose between 4k @16:9 and 3840x1600 @21:9, I'd go with the ultrawide all day long and twice on Sunday. In fact, I'm happy with 1080 @21:9, and I'd rather have this than 4k any day. The extra width (without separate monitor bezels) makes all the difference.

I also think that 21:9 is much more desired in the gaming world than 4x, most likely for the additional field of view. Not to mention that lesser GPUs can still run 21:9 at lower resolutions, where 4k demands a very expensive card even though it's FOV is only 16:9.

Panama Red, your 32" 4k monitor sounds very tempting.

How close to it do you sit?

Do you also use it for general PC applications or is it strictly dedicated to gaming only?

GTX EVGA 1070 owner .I went from a 24" 16:9 1080p to a 27" 16:9 1440p The difference from 1080p to 1440p for me was like night and day there,s no way absolutely no way i could go back to 1080p.

Granted Ive never tried 21:9 but i believe there,s some titles (mostly older) but also includes the witcher 3 and fallout 4 and definitely Overwatch that have "issues" with 21:9.?

If my 1070 would run 4K smooth id go 4k like a shot but im very happy with the "middle ground" 2K..Its up to the individual person what suits them best. I currently sit 18-24" away from my 27" and its quite big enough for me.

Just a quick one kksnowbear have you tried 2k 4k ? if so how did you find it compared to 1080p..because honestly pal i could never go back

Standard 24" distance, just like my 25" 16:10 monitor right beside it.

I use my 10 year old standard 25" 16:10 (1920x1200) LCD monitor for my regular PC (light gaming / internet / general use) on one side of the table.

I use the newer 32" 16:9 (3840x2160) LCD monitor with my pure Flight Sim PC (not connected to the internet) on the other side of the table.

It's only a regular 5' (60") table, but it handles both monitors easily. The nice thing about this setup is both PC's are connected with a KVM switch, so I only need one keyboard, mouse and speakers for both PCs and this gives me a lot of flexibility to do a lot of things at once (like play games and surf at the same time). With my swivel / rolling chair I can either sit in the middle and watch both monitors, or roll the chair left and right to be directly in front of either monitor if I want.

Panama, Your a multi-tasking dude!!

No, I haven't. I got my current curved 21:9 1080 144hz IPS GSync monitor before my current gpu, when I was still using a 780, and I felt the extra width was enough increase in pixels that anything higher would require I spend more on a gpu. And the only gpu that would make sense as an upgrade at that time would be a 1070 - and they were hovering around $500, after I'd just blown over $650 on the monitor. No way for me.

At that time, I was using a very good quality Gsync monitor, 144hz 27", and I knew I wanted 21:9, as well as curved Gsync. But, unless I wanted to spend $800+ for a monitor that had all that and 1440, *and* potentially another 500 for a new gpu to drive it...I was looking at 1080.

And I would say the same about never going back from curved 21:9. I can't imagine going back to a 16:9 monitor unless it was big enough to fill a FOV comparable to 21:9, and even that would be so big it would *have* to be curved so as to not appear distorted. Your head is curved, and so is your field of vision (actually, conical). So while I am devoutly opposed to the ridiculous idea of curved televisions, I think curved monitors are much better than flat, especially once the width increases beyond a certain point. To illustrate this, of all the 3-wide multi-monitor setups I've seen, none have had the monitors in a straight line; they're always "winged in" on the outside monitors. This is because your head represents the center pivot of a semi circular FOV; to look around, you turn your head, not slide it sideways.

Anyhow, thats why I haven't tried 2 or 4k.

hoongadoonga:
I learned a long time ago that no matter how good your PC was, ultimately what you see is your monitor, so you better enjoy what you are looking at or you will eventually be disappointed in your set up.

Good points yep its all expensive,good monitors over here in blighty seem to cost a fortune. GPU,S luckily have just come down in price but i dont know what it is with EVGA products over here..their prices increase, my card is about £60 more expensive than when i purchased 2 years ago. I was lucky (i think) and got Samsung memory not the Micron stuff (Not sure if there's much difference) Overclocks like a dream though.

Il hopefully try a 21:9 or a big curved at some point although like i mentioned i couldn't personally go back to 1080P...with my current GPU it'd have to be no higher than 2K to get reasonable FPS...i suppose id better start bloody saving. Thanks for the advice much appreciated







I never thought of it that way PR,very good point.

Panama Red - what CPU do you have?

If I got the 4k monitor I would be using it for general PC activities too. Would there be a downside to doing that?

Great point! And thanks for your advice.

Nowi

save your money and by a VR headset to play it with flight sims. You'll never look back once you do. It is unreal, like you're actually sitting in the aircraft.

hoongadoonga:
If you have Windows 10, no problem, because it can scale correctly for a 32" 4K monitor.

The problem with 4K monitors is when you drop below 30", the font and other things in Windows starts to get "dicey" even though Windows 10 is suppose to scale correctly for that.

If you use the 32" 4K monitor, that is equivalent to just an up scaled 27" 2K monitor, but with a lot more detail (and I do mean a lot more detail too) for general PC work.

Edit: My game PC CPU is a i7-7700K with all cores at 4.5 GHz and GPU is a 1080 Ti.

OldHat:
That only works if you do not plan on using the monitor for general computing, but only Flight Sims or FPS.

OldHat - I don't think that VR will work for me. I'd be dizzy and nauseous. I couldn't be a pilot in real life, at least not a fighter pilot.

PR - thanks for your input. I'll retain this information and reconsider it when I replace my current rig (which is using Windows 7). I'm very pleased with my current WOFF performance and appearance but am always interested in something bigger and better. Onward and upward............

Another point about settings recommended by others and the sim's documentation: Antialiaising Gamma Correction. Everything I've seen, most from some very reputable sources, indicates there is no performance impact associated with this setting. Suggesting this is like suggesting that wearing sunglasses while driving affects the performance of the vehicle. I even found one reference that indicates "... there is no reason to disable it on modern hardware." (https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/nvidia-inspector-introduction-and-guide.403676/)

And, again, the problem becomes that there's no way to know what's good advice and what's bad, when even cursory research indicates these settings don't do what is suggested.

Sorry, but I would be hesitant to act based strictly on "This guy said so" (particularly when contradictory references are abundant and readily available)...

...and I think that's pretty good advice.

I did find that when I disabled the Antialiaising Gamma Correction on my new 4K monitor, the 2X AA looked worse (i.e. jagged edges).

When I re-enabled it, the "jags" went away and I noticed zero impact on the FPS. As a result, I have it activated on my 4K monitor and it looks great.

According to what I read, it is suppose to further "soften" the AA edges in the game, which it apparently did.

Right...I should've specified that the Antialiaising Gamma Correction apparently can have an effect on how the graphics look; just as you describe, I think it can make things look better ("better" itself being subjective, of course).

However, what I'm referring to - and what is in the official FAQ for WOTR - is that the setting somehow affects performance. Specifically, that it "can help smooth FPS". To me, the idea that it has no impact on performance means, well...no impact on performance.

I don't know why it doesn't appear in the FAQ for WOFF, but I'm fairly certain it's been suggested for both.

My point here is that these things are highly subjective, and often misleading. That means people should do their own legwork before accepting that just because someone can afford to spend $800 on a GPU and/or learned how to edit text/xml files to change a program's behavior, they are an expert on GPU performance.

Technically you could say that disabling it does effect Performance, since enabling it has some GPU costs associated with it (nothing is free in life).

But the FPS cost (depending on your CPU & GPU) is totally negligible to some one who has a strong enough CPU & GPU, especially compared to the cost of AA.

On my older 1440p monitor, I could not tell the difference in looks or FPS with it on or off, but on 2160p (4K) monitor, the effects of having it on or off showed visually.

Again: No impact on performance. Also, "... there is no reason to disable it on modern hardware."

Not my words, just those of (several) external sources that are generally very reliable. And some of these references go back several years, so we're not just talking about current, high-end GPUs, either.

Bottom line: Visual difference, yes. Performance difference? Apparently not. At least not according to most every other source...except here, that is. I guess what do all of them know?

Since you seam to be so adamant about this, have you bothered to write OBD about this and express yourself like you are doing here ????????????

Or are you just blowing off steam ?????????????

Just taking part in a dialogue concerning settings. Pointing out problems with some of the advice. I wouldn't think it a problem if one is genuinely interested in objective discussion.

No dispute, but the only way you will get OBD to change their FAQ is if you write them and present all your information refuting what they have printed.

Yes, that's true if you assume that's what I'm trying to do. However, that's not the case.

Among other things, the advice concerning settings is not strictly confined to those documents - so it is a problem that cannot be addressed exclusively with OBD.

I'm just calling a spade a spade where I see it, and where there is available evidence to support the call. I regret if it's an affront to anyone, that's absolutely not the intent.

Hopefully it helps someone, somehow, because I am not one who believes you can help someone by misleading them.

TBH it seems as if the only reason anyone gets excited about it is when it shows that their opinion/advice may not be all it's claiming to be. I should think, if we're all interested in accuracy and objectivity, that the effort would be welcomed and appreciated.

Why not publish your ingame settings and nVidia settings [global and game] in printscreens. Pictures shows more then 1000 words.

Dutch, thank you for the idea, but to answer your question, the reason is quite simply because my settings are not what is at issue. The concern is about settings being posted/published that are misleading, and which there is evidence available that shows some of the recommended settings are inaccurate.

A better idea would be for those posting/publishing these settings to show references which corroborate the claims (like they say, "link or it didn't happen" ). Or certainly to at least acknowledge when a recommendation here contradicts every other source available. In other words, back up your claim with reputable references.

There's a metric ton of data about all these settings out there on the internet, and if some recommendations posted here contradict what seems to be universally accepted out there, I should think anyone would see the concern.

Incidentally, your comment does raise yet another concern: The recommendation to make global settings so this sim will work correctly. I'm not aware of any other game that requires this, and doing it means every other game on your pc is now subject to whatever settings this sim requires.

Not only does this seem like a bad idea, it also seems to completely defeat the purpose of having the ability to assign settings individually by game (as Nvidia Control Panel does, along with every other utility I'm aware of).

I hope this explanation helps clarify.

The problem is with PCs, one person's setting that cures x problem for another does the opposite. Yes somewhere there is a reason, but due to the variables at play on a PC, software, hardware revisions, drivers, anti virus and so on, it's very hard to find out why.
If anyone has the incline to work out a setup or configuration that guarantees it works for all, then we can put it in the FAQ.

I can also second Pol's perspective. I've tried just about every setting posted here. And this morning, on a lark, decided to make a few changes in my nVidia settings. I had run with limited pre-rendered frames and then switched it off. Sure enough, in some instances the sim was smoother and others it hic-cups a bit, just like it does with pre-rendered frames limited to 1.

I've finally come to the conclusion that my general settings work well enough and that sometimes the thing is just going to hit some rough patches. It's a 17 year old graphics engine that's been retrofitted to work in 2018 with new shaders, all while running a campaign that is putting hundreds of aircraft into the sim at any given time. There are so many variables just within the sim - let alone the hardware running it - that we will likely never pin down a 100% bulletproof solution. Toss onto it the fact that on my rig, CFS3.exe runs on a different core each time it starts and you really have a gumbo that's difficult to sort out. All of the options are useful though, some work, some don't. For now, on this three year old rig, I've got things dialed in pretty well.

What we need to do is fund a kickstarter that will allow OBD to buy the latest Unreal Engine and retrofit WOFF:UE into it. Shouldn't cost much, right Pol? What do you need? $500,000?

don't forget SweetFX also !

As I wrote in my initial post, there are too many variables to come up with THE answer. What works for me, may, no probably will not work for you.

As I was thinking about this a few hours ago, it dawned on me that I haven’t ever actually played with my monitor settings. Software! Graphics card! CPU! Memory! And then the monitor? I’ve spent a load of time—lost playing time—playing around with all these damned graphics settings.

What we really need is a program that could somehow control everything and optimize settings across the board. Right! As soon as someone cures cancer.

What you're saying doesn't stand to reason.

How is it a problem with PCs that this sim/FAQ recommends using global settings, which then subjects all other programs to those settings, and defeats the purpose of individual settings per program?

How is it a problem with PCs that this sim/FAQ recommends settings that are contradicted by every other available reference? I outlined above that the recommendations for both AA Gamma Correction and Triple Buffering are absolutely in conflict with other well-established, widely accepted and documented sources. How is that a problem with PCs?

CaptSopwith:
I agree with you concerning the CFS3.exe. I have WOFF where it plays 99.99% of the time well above 60 FPS, but maybe once a mission it will drop down to the low 50's for a second or two and then bounce right back up above 60 FPS for the rest of the mission.

A lot has been loaded on top of the old CFS3.exe and it still just keeps on "chugging" along.

What are you talking about, guys? My 1920x1080 is top notch .

Of course it stands to reason.

In the past with some drivers (NVidia) not ATI or dial cards or other... the global profile for some people never used to work. Others it did.
We don't just say these things for kicks as you seem to be implying. I'd much rather go do something else. 25 years experience of supporting software and PC hardware including 10+ on OFF/WOFF/WOTR tends to make you keep your options open to try things - seen some odd settings work for some people that shouldn't but there you go. One customer had to set cfs3.exe to WinXP for it to work, never had to do that myself. Others it doesn't work that way. Same OS, Same GPU. etc.

Every other reference that includes CFS3? The FAQ is from 10+ years of experience, many hundreds of support emails.
Items in there, are because some people benefited from those settings. If you find it doesn't work for you, or you disagree with it then don't use it.

Panama Red - one last question regarding your 4k setup.

Does it perform reasonably well when doing time compression in WOFF?

Pol,

Reminds me of the old days arguing about the best Glide converter for Red Baron 3D mods. Was 3rek4900.3 the best, or 3 rek4901.7 the best? (Those are made up file names; I’ve long forgotten having to me with Glude converters.)

I’ve been playing around with 3D graphics cards in an effort to get the best performance (visual and FPS) for over twenty years. I’ve never had a single game that I didn’t play around with the settings, beyond what the Vendor recommended or the program itself (optimize graphics button) told me was “optimal.”

Playing these sims is, to me, a lot like gardening. If you want those veggies to grow, you have to get into the dirt and get you’re hands dirty. Are you growing those tomatoes in New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida? Do you want them juicy or big? And, in the end, the joy isn’t solely to be found in the red orb you end up with in your hand, it’s the work in the dirt that got you there.

Nowi

hoongadoonga:
Since the 1080 Ti card handles the 2160p (4K) monitor with no problems, Time Compression is limited only by the CPU.

My FPS Time Compression in Flanders in the Spring 1918 at 12X drops down to 15 FPS, but then that was the same FPS with my 1440p monitor during that time period too. Playing in Verdun in the Spring 1918, may see the FPS at 12X stay at 60 FPS too, so again it's the CPU load that determines the Time Compression FPS on the new monitor.

If I run WOFF with V-sync off, I can easily go over 120 FPS if I wanted to live with the Tearing that would go with it, but then this is how I tested it if the GPU can really handle the game & 4K monitor.

Nowi

Your analogy re: gardening, tomatoes, and place is spot on..imho.

Glide converters; wow, that's something I'd not seen written in quite awhile. ;>)

Thanks!