I hooked up dual monitors just to see how much difference I could see (1440p vs. 4k).

One of the 4k monitors I am using is supposed to be one of the sharpest 4k monitors in existence.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/picture-quality/text-clarity

It's listed as the second sharpest out of all the monitors they tested, the Dell S3221QS.

I haven't tested MSFS yet, but instead I downloaded several videos from here
https://4kmedia.org/

I cannot see any difference yet at all looking at the videos paused from 1 foot away or even closer, even when zooming, the video in the images distort at the same zoom level (which is odd). It could be the codec and compression they are using though, not sure. That said, for now my assumption is because of the way cameras focus, the focus error of the majority of the image the camera captures is too high in most cases to resolve enough detail for people to benefit from the difference.

In MSFS, there might be a bigger difference because of the way rendering works, will test it later.
I know if you turn up render scaling real high in MSFS like to 200%, it gives more detail from the texture mapping, so there is that.
Obviously there is a difference, 4k is a lot more pixels, so it will show itself at some point.

I think it's odd some people online say "don't buy a 32 inch 1440p because the pixel density is too low".

There appears to be no difference by eye for pixel density at these resolutions at your seating distance, unless you sit about 4" from your monitor (or closer).
It's possible at 40" there might be a little, but you might still have to sit too close for comfort.

I have a 39" 1440p on the way I will also test side-by-side to confirm against the Dell 4k monitor.
Larger monitors do allow you a slightly closer distance to size ratio though, because of how our eyes "focal comfort" works.

Text might be 15% sharper at close eye distances, but it's virtually impossible to be certain it's so hard to tell.
Just my thoughts, if anyone has any other test content for me to try, let me know... 

If I run a pixel resolution test pattern, then of course I can see the difference, but that's because it's designed to intentionally distort the image.
 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

There are rules of thumb for resolution, TV size and distance as shown in the chart...

 

I sit 5' from a 75" 4K TV and can see a difference.  My wife probably couldn't tell the difference. But that's not surprising as everyone's visual acuity is different, and once you've seen an anomaly, you can't unseen it, and some people are more aware of what to look for.  Everyone's visual acuity is different. Do what works for you.

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Virtual-Chris

I am using objective testing methods, that is why I am being careful from saying "no difference at all", but I am getting close enough to eliminate small variations in eyesight people have unless they come from an aborigine tribe with greater vision.

We are speaking about 4k vs 1440p, the difference between 1080p and 4k is much larger, but there is SOME difference in SOME content, but again for video (unless reference) the focus of the cameras is too imprecise, also the processing interferes. It's very very difficult to see.

The pixel density is already so high at 1440p at normal seating distances. However, at larger screen sizes like 50"+, the focal points are more comfortable to sit closer to a relative larger size, so it's possibly easier to see more difference. I also own a 120" 4k projector and projector screen, so I know what to look for, but seeing a difference in live video vs. a test pattern are two different things. Plus the projector has different pixel sizes due to light blooming issues.

How can pixels be different sizes at the same resolution between different TV or monitor technologies?
Because the grid and pixel spacing itself can be thinner or thicker allowing for a larger pixel bloom.

 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Of course it's better to be on the safe side and go 4k with 144hz+ then stick with 2560x1440p, but the monitor selection is limited and the costs are high.

You can see my monitor thread here:
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/622213-4-monitors-tested-my-thoughts-under-500/?tab=comments#comment-4816842

It's inconsequential for text and most video (not 100%, probably 95% to 99%), but for gaming, depending on the way the renderers work, it may affect the processing just like render scaling increases detail in MSFS, I will test this next. It's not really the resolution increasing it though (maybe it plays a small part), it's the renderer having access to more pixels so it can use higher-quality sampling tricks.

So in the end, maybe in some gaming you can see some slight differences, but in video it's going to be rare (it's possible but not the norm as 95% of video on our PC is not high enough quality or reference level enough), and for text it's nearly impossible unless you sit really "vomit level close".

 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

I'm happy with 1080p. Maybe I need new glasses? 

6 minutes ago, Todd2 said:

I'm happy with 1080p. Maybe I need new glasses? 

1080p is good enough for most flying, but you do lose some detail.
The newer monitors even at only $250 to $400 are actually very good, so just something to keep in mind.

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

The question is just how much, since1440p is already a pretty high resolution at our seating distances.
I will update with my MSFS test results to see what I find.

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

For MSFS - the biggest cost of going 4K is the graphics card to drive the screen, not the screen itself.

Same deal for higher res VR headset like a HP Reverb G2.  The graphics card to support a Reverb G2  is likely going to cost more than the G2 itself. 

 

 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Right, if you stay with 60hz and 32" on 4k, and 60hz is fine for me since I don't play intense games.
However, at 35"+, the 4k monitors are a big expense even if only 60hz.

I am also considering a "rolling tray" on my table to do 2 monitors I can swap between, the cabling is a bit tricky though.
That said, 4k monitors are more future proof.

If the 1440p - Deco Gear (generic) 39" for $499 monitor is up to snuff, it is likely what I will keep instead of the 4k - 32" Dell.

Also will take a bit of getting used to sitting that far back on a desk.

 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

28 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

For MSFS - the biggest cost of going 4K is the graphics card to drive the screen, not the screen itself.

Same deal for higher res VR headset like a HP Reverb G2.  The graphics card to support a Reverb G2  is likely going to cost more than the G2 itself. 

 

 

I just bought the Metaquest 2 VR unit, my first entry into real VR.
I heard the price was going up $100, so I figure now is better time to buy then later.

 

What is the native resolution of the imagery in MSFS? I use a 3440x1440 curved Dell and objects like airplane bodies, buildings, etc all look crystal clear and sharp--but those may be at very high resolution.   Scenery textures are much less so.  If the native resolution of scenery is not at least 4K then 4K display does not improve the picture in large part.  I think processing and VRAM burden of 4K isn't worth it but....I've not actually had a chance to see this so it's just a hunch.

Regardless, it's not enough difference to keep me on a 32" over a 39".
If the 39" checks all the boxes, that's what I'll keep, but it's generic so I have to test it across the board.

The difference between 1440p and 4k is very minimal at best and non-existent at worst.
People just have to have the latest and greatest though, the marketers are experts at convincing us something is better.

300hz with 8k or whatever, plus they need to keep changing the supported formats to keep us buying new stuff.
Those bastages 🙂

 

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Part of the issue is the quality of the source content, the cameras used and their ability to capture detail at their resolving resolution.
Although most 4k cameras can properly resolve a flat image (like filming a painting or a wall), they still have problems resolving multi-dimensional images because of the focal plane issue. Though I'm not a camera expert, so I don't know the current state of all their equipment.

The problem with using the absolute highest-res textures in games is it gives it a "harder" look on the textures instead of that softer feel, and when making things too realistic looking, they don't blend in as well with each other. Death Stranding did a good job of using fairly high-resolution textures, but they probably still weren't really true 4k as far as detail resolving goes from camera lenses.

Edited July 28, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

56 minutes ago, Noel said:

What is the native resolution of the imagery in MSFS? I use a 3440x1440 curved Dell and objects like airplane bodies, buildings, etc all look crystal clear and sharp--but those may be at very high resolution.   Scenery textures are much less so.  If the native resolution of scenery is not at least 4K then 4K display does not improve the picture in large part.  I think processing and VRAM burden of 4K isn't worth it but....I've not actually had a chance to see this so it's just a hunch.

The improvement would theoretically come from your zoom level, because it can use more of the texture's original resolution as you zoom farther out making things at a moderate distance away look very high resolution. Very close up textures will still be affected by their source res more.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

 Very close up textures will still be affected by their source res more.

 

 

One of the 3rd party developers posting on the main forums admitted one reason they use 4K textures, even though it makes minimal difference for normal users, is that YouTube reviewers like to zoom into obscure parts of the aircraft like in the wheel wells or under the seats, looking for low-res/low-detail areas to talk about.