I'm a little bit worried about the slide below, shown on yesterday's live stream, and I'll tell you why. I think performance is more important than resolution. More accurately, a stable, consistent performance is more important. From this slide and what Matt has told us during the stream, it looks to me that 4K will be fixed and the only way to run Train Sim World 2 on Xbox Series X, no matter the performance sacrifice it will mean on different routes. In a video game "should achieve around 60 fps" is just not enough in my opinion. There are techniques which can be used in order to assure that a game never, or only very rarely deviates from its target framerate. These techniques are used to provide a consistent, stutter-free gameplay experience. In short, you don't notice a temporary drop in resolution but you do notice even a momentarily drop in framerate, which hinders the experience. I think that forcing a fixed 4K resolution is not a good way forward. Pixel count should be allowed to drop in cases where the game can't keep to the 16.66 ms rendering budget, instead of keeping it up and letting the framerate drop. One route may run very well while others struggle. It's just not a great experience in my opinion, and I would like to see more options in the game to mitigate this. In short: - Train Sim World 2 should use DRS (Dynamic Resolution Scaling), which is fully supported by Unreal Engine, in order to keep the 60 fps framerate and drop resolution when needed. Due to efficient upscaling techniques in UE this would provide a much more consistent experience, without visible drop in image quality, even on a 4K screen. and/or - There should be an additional, lower resolution (say, 1440p) graphics mode with the same shadow and texture detail setup, in order to make sure the game never deviates from 60 fps (although in all fairness, I don't know if the CPU or the GPU is the bottleneck in over-the-budget cases). This way players could decide whether they favour resolution at all costs or are willing to sacrifice some pixels to get a fully stable experience. ------ Right now, due to an unlocked framerate and backwards compatibility, TSW 2 runs extremely well on Xbox Series X, which achieves and keeps 60 fps most of the time even at 4K rendering. I honestly wouldn't like to see this ruined by a new setup that is much more variable. 40-45 fps is not enough. 50-55 is not enough. On a traditional 60Hz screen anything that's between 30 and 60 fps causes distracting stutters and/or screen tear. I wish the developers were willing to sacrifice resolution in order to assure a perfect performance. I personally would hate to load up TSW 2 after the update to find that it runs worse than before, in that case I wouldn't even care about the graphical enhancements. Resolution and graphics are not everything if there's no performance to back them up. ----- And finally a side note on the Series S. It was not designed for 4K gaming, forcing 4K on it doesn't make much sense in the case of most games, even if technically it can render and output at such pixel count. Simply unlocking the framerate and hoping for the best, while forcing (again, a fixed, non-dynamic) 4K resolution is not a good way to utilize its capabilities in my opinion. If anything, framerate should be capped at 30 fps in that mode, so that when there's GPU overhead, it just sticks to a perfectly stable framerate, instead of fluctuating up and down. Again, variable framerate on a 60Hz screen doesn't provide a good experience - it doesn't matter if it's 35 fps or 40, if it's not 30 or 60 it will stutter. So I think the 4K "hopefully around 30 fps" mode on Series S is overkill and only forces the GPU to work at 100% at all times, providing an unstable performance. Personally, I would choose a 1440p resolution capped at 30 fps on that machine. ----- I'm looking forward to see the Series X version in action on Thursday (please enable the frame counter), and more so on my own console later. But in any case, I would really like to see the option to at least lower the resolution on Series X, because I simply don't trust that a "should achieve 60 fps" performance profile will be adequate in the long run, especially if it's variable by route.