25" or 27" (2560x1440) Monitor for FSX, which is crisper?

Hi Folks;

I am trying to decide which Monitor should I get for my FSX. I know that there has been a lot of discussion around this topic but my question is a little unique and I need your help deciding.

I have a good ASUS 24" 1920x1080 IPS. I decided to go to 27" bigger (with the same resolution) but with 1MS response and 144hz refresh rate. Net result, the resolution wasn't that good with the larger monitor. I returned the monitor and reverted back to my 24".

So I decided to get the 2560x1440 (below are the ones I am looking to get)

ASUS PB278Q 27" WQHD 2560x1440 PLS/ IPS

ASUS PB258Q 25" WQHD 2560x1440 AH-IPS

But the question is which size is best for the res. Will the 25" be crisper than the 27" in the same resolution given it's 2" smaller? I prefer to sacrifice the 2 inches for a crisper shaper image, if that's the case. I am not too big on size (had the 27" and wasn't too blown away) so I can live with the 25" if I am blown away with the res and color. Everything in my FSX are addons, Aircraft, Sceneries, Airports etc. so res is key.

Any input as to the size would be great appreciate it. It's a big difference in price too;)

Thanks.

Best Regards.

Forshaw.

Will the 25" be crisper than the 27" in the same resolution given it's 2" smaller?

Of course it will.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

Fantastic, thanks MarkH. That was very helpful.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

Hi Folks;

 

I am trying to decide which Monitor should I get for my FSX. I know that there has been a lot of discussion around this topic but my question is a little unique and I need your help deciding.

 

I have a good ASUS 24" 1920x1080 IPS. I decided to go to 27" bigger (with the same resolution) but with 1MS response and 144hz refresh rate. Net result, the resolution wasn't that good with the larger monitor. I returned the monitor and reverted back to my 24".

 

So I decided to get the 2560x1440 (below are the ones I am looking to get)

ASUS PB278Q 27" WQHD 2560x1440 PLS/ IPS

ASUS PB258Q 25" WQHD 2560x1440 AH-IPS

 

But the question is which size is best for the res. Will the 25" be crisper than the 27" in the same resolution given it's 2" smaller? I prefer to sacrifice the 2 inches for a crisper shaper image, if that's the case. I am not too big on size (had the 27" and wasn't too blown away) so I can live with the 25" if I am blown away with the res and color. Everything in my FSX are addons, Aircraft, Sceneries, Airports etc. so res is key.

 

Any input as to the size would be great appreciate it. It's a big difference in price too;)

 

Thanks.

 

Best Regards.

Forshaw.

Hi,

25" will be much better, If I was you I would surely go for that.

Hi,

 

25" will be much better, If I was you I would surely go for that.

Thanks very much for your input, I am going to go with the 25"

Cheers.

Forshaw

25" will be much better, If I was you I would surely go for that.

Unfortunately you don't give a rationale, so that's hard to accept. The pixel density at 27" is still way higher than a 24" 1080p monitor, which was considered pretty much the standard 'big' desktop monitor until not so long ago. For flight simming I doubt you would notice any difference between the image quality of the 25" and 27" but you would have the benefit of a bigger image.

I had a big 28" monitor for a few years for simming and gaming before it broke, so I switched to a 24" and surprisingly find I like it better because the picture seems crisper and more comfortable, so no way would I ever go back to anything bigger..:)

From which we can conclude nothing unless you tell us the resolution of each of those monitors.

From which we can conclude nothing unless you tell us the resolution of each of those monitors.

What? they could go up to 1920 x 1080 like most other mons.

I'm not a tech head but I should imagine with a big screen the pixels are spread out more so the pic is not as crisp as on smaller mons where they're packed together tighter.

My best FSX experience, realizing that FSX is at least a ten+year old program which was single thread CPU based! Over several years I have been with using three (3) smaller monitors with a native 1920x1080 resolution. Which as far as I can determine is the highest resolution FSX was ever designed or intended to be used at.

Each monitor I use is only 19" and each one is a 1920x1080 monitor. All of them work together as I typically show a "cockpit view" in the center monitor and then a left and right wing view in the side monitors which gives me at least a 150* view the whole time I am flying.

For my money based upon FSX use, I'd recommend you not spend a ton on one huge or ultra high hi-res monitor. But instead buy three (3) smaller monitors at the max resolution (1920x1080) that FSX can support.;)

What? they could go up to 1920 x 1080 like most other mons.

But the OP is buying a 2560 x 1440 monitor. As as I have already pointed out, even at 27" this will look far better than your 24" monitor. You'd have to get to about 32" before the pixel density was the same.

When I started up the game... under settings a new resolution showed up, 2560x1440x16. Anybody else got info on this?

Yes, FSX is resolution-independent so it scales that whatever you have. Why did a new option appear? FSX asks Windows what your display is capable of and then presents those capabilities to you as options.

And resolution is a matter of taste

I don't want to be rude but nonsense is nonsense and you really aren't helping the OP with his decision. If your FSX is better in low-res it's likely because your PC can't keep up with 1080p, not because a fuzzy display is 'easier on the eye'. Why do you suppose Apple makes such a big thing about moving to 'retina' displays?

Hi Folks;

Thanks for all of the helpful comments but as MarkH pointed out I am already going with the higher res (2560x1080), it was just which monitor I should go with; 25" or 27".

The things that really bring FSX to light are the new Add-ons; Aircrafts, Airport Scenery, Weather Themes, which are all built around modern hardware. I no longer use basic FSX products. All of my airports, aircrafts, Ground Crew, Weather, etc are all add-ons. Hence the reason why I want to step up the res a little. I have a high end gaming rig so why not take advantage of it.

Thanks again.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

Hi Folks;

 

Thanks for all of the helpful comments but as MarkH pointed out I am already going with the higher res (2560x1080), it was just which monitor I should go with; 25" or 27".

 

I have a high end gaming rig so why not take advantage of it.

 

Thanks again.

 

Cheers.

Forshaw.

I hope your "high end gaming rig" isn't pointed towards the bang-bang, car theft, date rape, etc. games which are the today's norm!! FSX, regardless of what it is called or how it is mutated lives and dies by the SINGLE CORE SPEED OF THE CPU! You can have 128Gig of Ram, and 16 gig of GPU ram, and a 8 or 16 core 3GHZ processor but your "gaming experience" with FSX won't be nearly as good as with a 4 or more GHZ clock speed CPU and about 4 gig of high speed ram!!!

Forget about all those cores, all that GPU stuff, and all the rest that make "gaming computers" fly!! FSX doesn't shine with a "gaming computer!" It was designed by a group of people who assumed a single or maybe dual core processor would be running at about 20GHZ by now and maybe 100GHZ in the future. They never foresaw all these fancy GPUS and multiple core processors the "gaming computers" of today operate with!

I hope your "high end gaming rig" isn't pointed towards the bang-bang, car theft, date rape, etc. games which are the today's norm!! FSX, regardless of what it is called or how it is mutated lives and dies by the SINGLE CORE SPEED OF THE CPU! You can have 128Gig of Ram, and 16 gig of GPU ram, and a 8 or 16 core 3GHZ processor but your "gaming experience" with FSX won't be nearly as good as with a 4 or more GHZ clock speed CPU and about 4 gig of high speed ram!!!

 

Forget about all those cores, all that GPU stuff, and all the rest that make "gaming computers" fly!! FSX doesn't shine with a "gaming computer!" It was designed by a group of people who assumed a single or maybe dual core processor would be running at about 20GHZ by now and maybe 100GHZ in the future. They never foresaw all these fancy GPUS and multiple core processors the "gaming computers" of today operate with!

Good point Rupert, I know what you mean. I have been using MS Flight Sim since the early 80's when it was a DOS based app and continued with them all the way to FSX. So I am well versed on it's requirements, limitations etc.etc. and built a rig based on what I "think" will work.

The point is MS FSX will actually run on a low end machine I know that. The problem is once you add all of the add-ons available today, that's when you start having issues with a low end machines. With MS FSX being so old (aside from it's architecture) most people (I think) don't use the basic stuff anymore since it's outdated and it's all about the add-ons.

Active Sky 2016, REX4, ATC Pro, My Traffic, Airport Scenery, Aircraft addon, PMDG and iFLy; yes you need a better than average rig to enjoy the FSX experience.

Yes you are correct there is a point where there is an overkill in the hardware you have for FSX because of the architecture, but a regular rig wouldn't work for the add-on also.

Thanks again for your valuable input.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

I don't want to be rude but nonsense is nonsense and you really aren't helping the OP with his decision. If your FSX is better in low-res it's likely because your PC can't keep up with 1080p, not because a fuzzy display is 'easier on the eye'. Why do you suppose Apple makes such a big thing about moving to 'retina' displays?

My point is that we shouldn't get over-obsessed with resolutions. My 1360 x 768 reso is crisp and clear, if it wasn't I'd go to 1920 x 1080.

However running some sims and games at 1920 is a no-no because the menu and text etc becomes too small to read without a magnifying glass.

If you know how to make the text bigger in 1920 please let me know..;)

My point is that we shouldn't get over-obsessed with resolutions. My 1360 x 768 reso is crisp and clear, if it wasn't I'd go to 1920 x 1080

With respect, your point seems to change every time you respond. Running an LCD monitor at anything other than its native resolution requires downsampling (or upsampling) so is always inferior.

Plasma monitors need a screensaver because if a graphic is left on there for a long time it can burn itself into the screen (ie: ruin it). And if left on 24/7 have been known to burst into flames and burn your house down.

Chuck B

Napamule

With respect, your point seems to change every time you respond. Running an LCD monitor at anything other than its native resolution requires downsampling (or upsampling) so is always inferior.

Like I said earlier, if I run at my native reso of 1920 x 1080, the text of menus and everything else becomes too small to read so I've got no choice but to use 1360 x 768 to make the text bigger.

If you know how I can make the text bigger in 1920 x 1080 please let me know..:)

Like I said earlier, if I run at my native reso of 1920 x 1080, the text of menus and everything else becomes too small to read so I've got no choice but to use 1360 x 768 to make the text bigger.

It seems to me you should have stuck with the 28" monitor if this was really the issue. What do you have the text size set to in Windows Control Panel? (And what resolution do you run Windows at?)