triples question (1080/1440 and scaling)

[jeefAD]

Currently running 3 x 32-inch 1080...

Everything looks AMAZING with 400% scaling, but FPS struggles so still not feasible with good hardware. Dropped scaling down to 200% to see if I get more consistency and will continue tinkering there...

It makes me wonder about the IQ (and performance) of 5760x1080 (6.2 million pixels) WITH scaling vs 7680x1440 (11 million pixels) WITHOUT scaling???

Anyone make the jump or able to offer opinion between the two scenarios?

[Devel021]

I run 5760x1080 on a rx5700. If I run SSAO then I can't run any scaling however I have turned that off and can get between 30 and 60 fps easily at 400 scaling. You should have no issues running it with a 3080 ti.

have you setup a Multi Monitor file?

[GinXeng]

Like @Devel021 said, turn off SSAO, it eats up frames without barely any quality added.

[room217au]

It makes me wonder about the IQ (and performance) of 5760x1080 (6.2 million pixels) WITH scaling vs 7680x1440 (11 million pixels) WITHOUT scaling???

As I understand it, scaling renders the frame at x%, then scales it back to game resolution on the fly. That's an enormous amount of pixels and GPU cycles.
Given your scenarios above, the fact that 1440p is sharper than 1080p you'll see a visible improvement without changing anything else.
Drop the scaling to 100% @ 7680x1440. No ssao, no antialias. See how it looks.

What is the refresh rate set in game compared to what the monitor can handle?
Are you running these monitors from HDMI? DP? or DVI?

[Brian Benton]

@jeefAD 32" for 1080p. What a nightmare... This is such a huge pixel density that you can poke at them with your index finger to recalculate... Unless you're looking at this screen from the next room, of course . The 3x1920x1080x200% option is worse in performance and quality compared to 3x2560x1440. Native resolution always looks better than scaled. Within reasonable limits of the screen diagonal, of course. Even though you really need 178% scaling for the same performance, native resolution will be better. I am writing this to you as someone who tested native 4k and improvised on a 1080p monitor + 400% scaling. The question of expediency and pricing remains open.

I would also like to add that personally, according to my preferences, the minimum comfortable resolution in this game is 4k, due to the fact that scaling is the only way to at least partially eliminate ladders and flickering. Therefore, the combinations of resolution and scale for a minimally (in an ideal scenario, even more scale is needed until SCS introduced us to good anti-aliasing methods in their games) comfortable level of gameplay are as follows: 4k + 100% scale; 1440r + 200%; 1080p + 400%. Anything below these values is a compromise between performance and the "quality" of smoothing by scaling.

[VTXcnME]

I was on 3x1080 and I'm now on 3x1440.

On a RTX3080 12GB GPU I'm asking most of the capacity of the card I think, as my FPS stutter a bit in cities/organized areas (though I've read that's par for the course for everyone).

I went from 3x1080 at 400% scaling to 3x1440 at 300% scaling. Everything else set at high/ultra/max. It looks cleaner now than it did at 1080 (to Brian's point). I'm hoping that some of the upgradees in 1.47 help smooth out some more of the FPS around cities and at night with the ambient city lighting. We'll see.

[Tomsun]

You will encounter the stutters in dense modern areas, cities and forest, in harsh words even in 640*480*16 colours.
If you have installed MSI Afterburner and Riva Statistics you can monitor this quite well.
Focus on the following values: GPU TEMP, CPU TEMP, GPU LOAD, CPU LOAD, Be aware of the corecount of your CPU (2/4/6/8/12/16/...).
In areas where your system struggles for sure you will notice an increase of CPU Temp, You will notice the CPU load will be slightly over 100 divided by corecount in percentage (e.g. for 8 core 100/8 = 12,5%), you will notice the GPU is nearly ideling, and almost the coolest component in the entire PC. Why slightly over 100/corecount, easy because the system of course uses another core and can slightly contribute to the CPU Load.
For my system, normal around up to 60°C CPU Temperature, in the dense modern areas it goes up in to the 70s near to the 80s, while GPU Temp stays in the low 50s. Of course if i screw up scaling i can turn the GPU into a bottleneck, but what for, more heat, more noise, more energy consumption, more stutter, inconsistent framerates (the most annoying). I limited my FPS to the monitor maximum or slightly below.
What benefit is a hovering FPS up to e.g. 200 FPS, bought with steady stuttering? In opposite is it worth to cap the the FPS by e.g. 5 Frames, and getting almost stable framerates. Everything above 60 FPS is perfectly suited for a sim like that, Below check your settings and reduce where needed (Mirrors?), LOD, ...

[VTXcnME]

If I can sit around 55-65FPS for ATS it's MORE than enough to be smooth. The 35-40 around some cities is where it starts to look jittery to me.

[Brian Benton]

GPU TEMP, CPU TEMP

Overheating issues in 2023... This is the last thing I would think about when we talk about performance in ETS 2. Although this is still true for "gaming" laptops. If your CPU gets up to 80 degrees in a single core game that doesn't even use 50% of your CPU resources, then you should consider upgrading your cooling system (although you didn't list your CPU model as you might have a pentium 4 and it is loaded 100% all the time)... Because in normal multi-threaded games or when rendering in a video editor, you will instantly get guaranteed throttling.

Monitoring MSI Afterburner to keep track of CPU usage in ETS 2 is far from the best idea. You will get false information about the actual loading of cores. Forum member @Some newbie driver can explain this problem to you in more detail.

There is no benefit from 200 FPS on a permanent basis. These values should be achieved in performance testing. The recipe is simple: the more the better. Three-digit FPS values are simply necessary in order to enable V-Sync after testing and get perfectly smooth gameplay at 60 FPS consistently with a huge margin of performance in case of difficult situations in the game. Drops in FPS with image tearing below 60 due to the low performance of the video card with V-Sync turned on are not the most pleasant pleasure... Playing without V-Sync with constant video tearing is also a dubious idea. G-Sync will allow you to swim within 50-60 FPS, but monitors with this technology are not the cheapest and it is more logical to spend this money on a new powerful video card.

[Tomsun]

It's far from overheating,it simply shows where the bottleneck is, when your cpu temp rises and your gputemp doesn't rise the situation is cpu intensive and when your fpsrate drops in that situation you are mostlikely cpu-limited, in another situation where your gpu-temp rises and your cpu-temp won't rise and your fpsrate drops you are mostlikely gpu-limited. that has nothing to do with overheating, you are in most cases not limited by temperature, but by reaching max frequency. and when a gamenegine is far from multithreading, that is mostlikely the issue.
of course you can try to put as much stress as possible on the GPU so the cpu bottleneck is not feelable, but it does not solve the problem. As the scenery gets more and more sophisticated (compare e.g. Texas cities with ancient basemap areas) the more stress ist put on the gamethread. You don't need high FPS for a simulation like ETS2 or ATS, but you need stable FPS, its annoying to have vehicles stuttering in your peripherical field of view, the more monitors you use the bigger is this peripherical field of view.