Monitor Question - Flight Simulators

[Dry Creek]

I am considering upgrading the "monitor" I use on my dedicated flight simulator setup. I currently use a surplus 32' RCA Proscan 720P television set, connected to my GPU (EVGA GeForce RTX 2060, 6 GB DDR6) via HDMI cable. (The TV was $8 at a thrift store, couldn't pass it up).
I have been looking at some decent 32" curved monitors (such as this one) since they seem to be affordable. The one I linked to has some great and fancy words describing it, but from what I gather, most "gamers" recommend getting the highest refresh rate available. This one shows 165 Hz when connected via DP (I have) or 120 Hz via HDMI 2. Then someone else I was talking to pointed out that I don't really need a refresh rate that high since I probably will never exceed 75 FPS in MSFS with the high settings I am currently running. That kinda' made sense, but I never thought to associate FPS with monitor refresh rate. Are the two really tied together?

At any rate, will I see a noticeable improvement going from 720p to 1080p (full HD)? I am hoping if nothing else the better response time (anywhere from 5 1 ms to 5 ms reported) will make a difference.

 

[TCABM]

Maybe spend some time listening to this guy who builds the PCs the developers of Xplane recommend.

 

[Rgbeard]

Pardon me for being less than - whatevs. But.....

1. I'm doubtful the human eye can perceive the difference between 60hz and 165hz refresh cycles. Doesn't the eye top out around 15hz?

2. To what point? When I set up the Redbird AATD that I get to fly, I set the wx to total dogcrap and those beautiful monitors at the top of the sim are simply grey. The lower monitors display the cockpit instrumentation and their resolution isn't really required past readable/functional.

 

[asicer]

1. I'm doubtful the human eye can perceive the difference between 60hz and 165hz refresh cycles. Doesn't the eye top out around 15hz?

1. It's higher. Can you tell the difference between film (24hz) and US video (30hz)? I can. How much higher depends on several factors, such as the subject matter, the viewer's eyes, the viewer's brain, etc.

2. To what point? When I set up the Redbird AATD that I get to fly, I set the wx to total dogcrap and those beautiful monitors at the top of the sim are simply grey. The lower monitors display the cockpit instrumentation and their resolution isn't really required past readable/functional.

And if you're simulating something like an old school G1000, a resolution higher than the real PFD/MFD can be a distraction.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

I wouldn't get rid of the $8 monitor unless it was a significant difference that was blatantly obvious and resolved issues that I was having with the simulator.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Pardon me for being less than - whatevs. But.....

1. I'm doubtful the human eye can perceive the difference between 60hz and 165hz refresh cycles. Doesn't the eye top out around 15hz?

Not quite. The eye begins to detect individual images as a single moving image at about 15 hz, but that's not hard number because some people see motion lower some need higher. This is further complicated by the complexity of human eyes. The center of vision is very good at resolving detail, but the peripheral vision is very good at detecting motion. In my experience, the more of the peripheral vision filled by a screen, the more important a higher, stable refresh rate becomes. Higher being over 30... There may also be a level of acclimating involved.

To the OP: I personally have a 165Hz monitor. I can tell the difference immediately when it runs at 60. Getting a high (above 60) refresh rate isn't necessary for anything, but it is like many things in PC gaming in that it's hard to un-see.

As far as matching the monitor's refresh rate to the framerate of the flight sim... I'll have to refresh my memory, but you should be able to buy a "G-Sync Compatible" monitor and not worry about it. Some monitors can vary their refresh rates to match the output of the video device they're connected to. nVidia calls their tech G-Sync and AMD calls it FreeSync. Enable G-Sync and it'll be smooth sailing.

Resolution is like framerate, it's hard to un-see.

 

[Rgbeard]

Does this look better at 165hz? ;-)

(yes I am that old)

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Maybe spend some time listening to this guy who builds the PCs the developers of Xplane recommend.

I took the time to watch that and I just wanted to reinforce that the comparison of panel types is a comparison. Saying a monitor is a "high refresh-rate" monitor could mean it refreshes anywhere from 120Hz to 500Hz. I know people that consider anything below 300 low. There are TN panels at 500Hz, well beyond IPS. However, there are IPS panels well over 100Hz, some at 240.

I am considering upgrading the "monitor" I use on my dedicated flight simulator setup. I currently use a surplus 32' RCA Proscan 720P television set, connected to my GPU (EVGA GeForce RTX 2060, 6 GB DDR6) via HDMI cable. (The TV was $8 at a thrift store, couldn't pass it up).
I have been looking at some decent 32" curved monitors (such as this one) since they seem to be affordable. The one I linked to has some great and fancy words describing it, but from what I gather, most "gamers" recommend getting the highest refresh rate available. This one shows 165 Hz when connected via DP (I have) or 120 Hz via HDMI 2. Then someone else I was talking to pointed out that I don't really need a refresh rate that high since I probably will never exceed 75 FPS in MSFS with the high settings I am currently running. That kinda' made sense, but I never thought to associate FPS with monitor refresh rate. Are the two really tied together?

At any rate, will I see a noticeable improvement going from 720p to 1080p (full HD)? I am hoping if nothing else the better response time (anywhere from 5 1 ms to 5 ms reported) will make a difference.

The monitor you linked to has Adaptive Sync. AS is basically the non-branded name for G-Sync/FreeSync. Double check that it's compatible with your GPU and driver, but you should be fine. Don't worry about getting "the best response-time." Get something below 10 ms. That monitor should be fine.

I wouldn't consider Flight Sims as needing "high refresh-rate" monitors, so I doubt I'd spend the extra money on that instead of resolution. Just my .02.

 

[Randomskylane]

2. To what point? When I set up the Redbird AATD that I get to fly, I set the wx to total dogcrap and those beautiful monitors at the top of the sim are simply grey. The lower monitors display the cockpit instrumentation and their resolution isn't really required past readable/functional.

If OP is flying/learning IFR then 2 is exactly correct and I wish I knew before buying my system.

Otoh my overspend on the monitors roughly equals one tank of avgas so cest la vie

 

[Baked Potato]

Forget the monitor. Get VR

 

[TCABM]

If OP is flying/learning IFR then 2 is exactly correct and I wish I knew before buying my system.

Otoh my overspend on the monitors roughly equals one tank of avgas so cest la vie

Pretty sure OP is working on Private Pilot.

 

[Rgbeard]

Pretty sure OP is working on Private Pilot.

Oh - he and @Crashnburn must be buds. Be sure he asks about the blooming runway.

 

[cowman]

I can definitely tell the difference between a 60hz TV and a 120 or 240hz if the source video is at that refresh rate. Obviously I can't see the frames but the motion looks noticeably more fluid/realistic.
I also know fps and refresh rate are huge for competitive PC gamers, I don't notice a huge difference between say 80 and 100fps but they say it matters for reaction time and aiming.

For a flight simulator though, IDK. I'm not sure millisecond reaction times and reflexes are all that critical unless we're talking about something like military dogfighting or aerobatics. Most flying is about setting yourself up and planning ahead. Also, and this is just my experience but I did try MSFS X back when I was doing my PPL and I didn't think it helped at all. Other people say it does, I can see it for something like IFR procedures but IMHO for primary training feel is critical and you don't get that from these kinds of simulators. YMMV but this is my experience.

 

[Dry Creek]

Maybe spend some time listening to this guy who builds the PCs the developers of Xplane recommend.

Thanks for that link! Very useful information there. From what I gleaned, my budget 32" View Sonic MVA pick will be sufficient for a single-monitor application.

 

[Dry Creek]

Pardon me for being less than - whatevs. But.....

1. I'm doubtful the human eye can perceive the difference between 60hz and 165hz refresh cycles. Doesn't the eye top out around 15hz?

2. To what point? When I set up the Redbird AATD that I get to fly, I set the wx to total dogcrap and those beautiful monitors at the top of the sim are simply grey. The lower monitors display the cockpit instrumentation and their resolution isn't really required past readable/functional.

1. - I will take your word on that. I am no expert when it comes to refresh rates and capability of the human eye. I was pretty sure that refresh rate was not a critical feature in this application.
2. - Student Pilot, VFR. Still learning a lot of stuff. I try to re-fly my last lesson, and prepare for upcoming lessons. Case in point was my scheduled cross-country from KGDJ to KGZN. I flew that route to verify my visual waypoints were accurate, and what to expect from the 4,500' altitude I had selected. Unfortunately the school's plane hiccupped on climbout (RPM loss by 300, twice) and since my CFI has no sense of adventure she called for a return to the field. My wife wasn't too thrilled about the sudden return either since I explained to her that I was still billed for that short little hop.

But I digress, I like to be able to pick out accurate landmarks for my VFR training flights. My simulator is a tool to an end, like the one you use for IFR training. I had a little extra left over from my bonus this year, so I was considering a budget monitor upgrade.

 

[Dry Creek]

I took the time to watch that and I just wanted to reinforce that the comparison of panel types is a comparison. Saying a monitor is a "high refresh-rate" monitor could mean it refreshes anywhere from 120Hz to 500Hz. I know people that consider anything below 300 low. There are TN panels at 500Hz, well beyond IPS. However, there are IPS panels well over 100Hz, some at 240.



The monitor you linked to has Adaptive Sync. AS is basically the non-branded name for G-Sync/FreeSync. Double check that it's compatible with your GPU and driver, but you should be fine. Don't worry about getting "the best response-time." Get something below 10 ms. That monitor should be fine.

I wouldn't consider Flight Sims as needing "high refresh-rate" monitors, so I doubt I'd spend the extra money on that instead of resolution. Just my .02.

Thanks!
I do believe that the budget View Sonic will fit my needs. The old 720p 32" TV can live out in the garage.

 

[Dry Creek]

Oh - he and @Crashnburn must be buds. Be sure he asks about the blooming runway.

Isn't that X-Plane 12? I wasn't impressed with the demo enough to spring for the new release. While I like the planes and flight modeling in XP-11, I confess to an addiction for the eye candy in MSFS 2020. And the accuracy. The stuff I need to see in real life actually appears on my screen at home - with one major exception, towers. I hope they fix that soon. There is a pesky one that is almost directly in my flight path to KFWS and I tend to start my letdown early and then it becomes an issue.

That $59 will be used to upgrade my monitor instead.

 

[Dry Creek]

Pretty sure OP is working on Private Pilot.

Yes.
And between the flight school's planes needing repairs and the horrendous weather this winter, I think I will be 90 before I get to my check ride. I am already 14 months in on my written test.
At least I did get to solo the day before my 60th birthday. When I'm 90 and prepping for that checkride I'll probably look back fondly on that day. If I can remember it.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I'm late to the party, but for any others making monitor choices, IMHO the whole refresh rate/hz. rate thing, at least in the flight sim arena, is a way to sell monitors. These are cheapo 50" 4k TVs running X-Plane 12. They run at 30 hz., and I have them locked to 30fps in XP12. More than adequate for procedures currency. YMMV of course.

For background, the airplane on the monitors is Carenado's add-on T210. We mimic our R182 by limiting RPM/MP....

Jim

 

[Dry Creek]

View attachment 114509 I'm late to the party, but for any others making monitor choices, IMHO the whole refresh rate/hz. rate thing, at least in the flight sim arena, is a way to sell monitors. These are cheapo 50" 4k TVs running X-Plane 12. They run at 30 hz., and I have them locked to 30fps in XP12. More than adequate for procedures currency. YMMV of course.

For background, the airplane on the monitors is Carenado's add-on T210. We mimic our R182 by limiting RPM/MP....

Jim

VERY nice setup.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

VERY nice setup.

Thanks! We have fun with it. Useful too..We've actually taught a couple of friends to 'fly' new-to-them GTNs with it. The GTN on the ipad runs the Garmin Trainer app in the background, so it's dead-on.

Jim

 

[flyingron]

Pardon me for being less than - whatevs. But.....

1. I'm doubtful the human eye can perceive the difference between 60hz and 165hz refresh cycles. Doesn't the eye top out around 15hz?\

Higher than that. Even 24 FPS is a noticeable flicker. Your old style movie projector beats this by showing each frame twice to make 48 FPS, which doesn't flicker but induces certain motion artifacts (Note when watching one of those if you can find it, some sharp object like a ball being tossed across the screen, it will become a double image blur). This is because your mind resolves 48 fps but interpolates for you and gets confused when the movement double jerks like that. Years after this was pointed out to me by a friend in college who was a cinematography buff (he was the same guy who pointed out changeover dots to me and you'll see those for the rest of your life once those are pointed out).

Years later I'm working in high performance image processing and the analysts who are users of our systems who auto slew through images looking for stuff say they're getting sick because of the "blur." I looked at it and said "Hey, that's because we're double flashing." Same effect as the movie. It took me some concerted effort to convince the government that was what was happening. Then I had to convince them that the way to solve this is to lock me (the software product designer) and my counterparts at the graphics card manufacturer and the computer manufacturer all in a room together and figure out how to fix it. This was days after 9/11 happened. I think they actually arranged special transport on a C130 or something to get the Sun guy to me (actually, we declined I just told them I needed continual phone access to him). With Sun's help I instrumented the system and found it was the graphics driver. A few days later we got a new version from the graphics card people and all were happy. I got an award around here somewhere form NIMA (or NGA) for solving that one.

But anyhow, the image quality guys want no worse than 60Hz. Actually, I think they determined that the sweet spot ins 70Hz.