Render Scaling

[Bomber_12th]

Just a note on the "Render Scaling" option in the graphics settings that I picked up on during testing the last few months.

The Render Scaling setting has a significant impact on your fps/performance. If you are running 4K, there is no reason to have it above 100, as it is just overkill and will diminish your frame rates. I run at 4K and usually just keep the Render Scaling setting at 90 or even 80, but might boost it up to 100 for some screenshots.

The higher Render Scaling settings are geared toward use with lower resolutions, like 1440p or 1080p.

 

[c87]

Thanks, John. Good information to know as I use a 4K monitor for simming.

To to hijack a bit, have you flown out of Flying Cloud airport yet (I obviously haven't bought the sim yet)? It's a few miles from my house and I'm dying to see how it's modeled. Given that Minneapolis is one of the photogrammetry cities, I'm hoping the details extend out that way. Would like to make it my "home airport."

 

[Bomber_12th]

Flying Cloud could use some work. As it stands it is still missing the control tower, a section of the taxiway, the PAPI lights are the wrong type, and the more recently developed section on the south-west end could use some flattening and hangars added. I hope to see it improved a bit more in a future update. Several of my favorite airports to travel to are also still missing most or all of the airport buildings/hangars (Anoka County, Lake Elmo, Red Wing, Osceola and Granite Falls), but I have had these reported through Zendesk and plan on seeing them improved in a future update.

The Flying Cloud Airport, as well as Crystal and Anoka County, are just on the outskirts of the Minneapolis/St. Paul photogrammetry).

 

[c87]

Interesting that the control tower isn't there. But I have to say, from your screenshots, it certainly beats what FSX/P3D had in the way of detail! Hopefully they'll all be upgraded eventually. Thanks for replying, John. Appreciate the quick review.

 

[Ganter]

Yes, I see others have pointed the finger of accusation at Render Scaling as a FPS Killer.
But, tell me, what exactly does it do?

 

[odourboy]

Yes, I see others have pointed the finger of accusation at Render Scaling as a FPS Killer.
But, tell me, what exactly does it do?

I'll try... This is my understanding:
Normally, when a SIM generates a frame, it does it at the same resolution as your screen size setting. So, if you're using an HD monitor, you'd likely set your seem resolution at 1920x1080 (native). But you could, say if your graphics card was weak, set it to something lower, and let the upscaling algorithm in your monitor bring the image up to the native resolution so the screen is filled. This is sort of what the Render Scale is doing.

If it's set to 100, the sim is internally rendering the image at the same resolution as your screen size setting. If it's below 100, its rendering at a smaller size, then upscaling to your resolution setting. This will cost you in image quality but gain you cycles because there's less work to render a frame. It's been suggested that the image quality (at least at 4K) does not suffer noticeably if you drop Render scaling to 80 or even 70.
Going above 100 (arguably useless in 4K), the sim would render the frame at a higher resolution internally, then downscale to your resolution size, at the cost of the extra cycles required for the render. This technique is a way to improve image quality more effectively than the often heavy duty anti aliasing required to get ride of jaggies, shimmering etc. Or the old frame rate killing clouds. Nvidia came out with this capability a few years ago (I can't remember what they called it), but it garnered a lot of attention for a while.