These forums are truly incredible. It's like watching my Granddad explain to me why VHS is better than Blu-Ray.

For those who use AVsim and wonder why the community here has such a bad name in the flight community, you only need look at this topic!

Literally people complaining about running a game at 70fps on Ultra at 1440p... and this is the state it is in now at launch without all the future updates like DX12 (which may bring DLSS too). People not paying attention to any of the videos being released where stutter is explained (due to capturing), or the videos released that show very impressive benchmarks in the high 60's.  

 

 

5 hours ago, devgrp said:

That's bs. My system is a gtx 1070, 16gb ram, i7 4770k and 4k monitor. With the latest alpha or beta, I get around 35 fps on high settings. I have trees on medium and lens flare off. Only time my frames dip is in dense areas like lax and NY with lots of ai traffic and I think they are still optimizing 

Interesting this is pretty similar to my current build that's soon to be retired, just got the I7 4790k instead. Was hoping to have the new PC, I9-9900k, 32GB of ram built and ready before the sim cam ou.  Wasn't expecting a release middle of summer, caught my by surprised.

so seems like the sim should run okay on the old girl, maybe a little bit to playing around in the setting to get the best out of her, before she is retired at the end of next month when i get the last few bits and put the new machine together. 

I'd rather have a sim that looks good with low FPS at the start but with a foundation written in a way that it can take advantage of future hardware improvements. Nobody knows how much effort will be put in maintaining and improving MSFS in the future or for how long. What we do know is that hardware will continue to improve. If we can take advantage of that without having to rely of constant redesigns of the core engine, like with certain other sims, that's a good thing.

Too much eyecandy than we can handle can be a good thing. In other sims we pretty much the only improvement we see is increased FPS for every release. It's up to the point where we get an average FPS of 100+ but the sim still looks and feels like 5 years ago. That's a bad priority. If you get 150 FPS instead of 100 FPS with no other improvements, that's just a fail.

12 minutes ago, The_sas_man said:

These forums are truly incredible. 

Yup, It is baffling and depressing. I would like to say I'm surprised by some of the twaddle posted here....but🤪

 

The Digital Foundary video is a great watch as usual. I love those guys and I can't wait for their more in depth look when it's released.

 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Novation

24 minutes ago, Chock said:

Right, I'll try to explain it to you without the use of crayons...

Someone posted that we would have to resign ourselves to low FPS on flight sims, I wrote that FS2 can get 200 fps on a low end PC, someone said FS2 looked bad, I said the point is it could simulate flight at 200 fps. Thus, in context the comment, it was related to FPS.

Is that straightforward enough for you to follow, or do you want me to get those crayons out after all?

Your comment is nonsensical. I can create a flight sim that can simulate flight at a 1,000 fps using vector graphics. And no one except maybe you will want to fly it.

I don't think you understand that you are just commenting for the sake of commenting with no real point. 

People should not expect their top of the line gaming rig to have 60 fps in 4k with ultra settings with this new sim.  Not gonna happen, at least not on release.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by ryanbatcund

Wow.  I didn't read the entire 10 pages because my head started to hurt. But just turn.down.your.settings. until you get the fps you want.  There's tons of graphical adjustments available.  From the video posted above this, looks like your desired fps can be achieved, just not at 4k maxed out settings maybe.  Even with settings turned down, the sim still looks pretty word not allowed good. 

I won't be breaking my NDA to publicly state what the Asobo team has already said numerous times in public: This sim works in a very different way from previous sims. So 30FPS in MSFS2020 is not the same thing as 30FPS in P3D or X-Plane. Even at very low framerates, the new sim works in a very fluid manner. I use the notorious GTX 1070 at 4K with high-to-ultra settings. I get about 30FPS. It's as fluid as 90FPS on other simulators. So any comparisons between FPS among the new and obsolete sims is based on ignorance. I'm sorry. But you'll soon discover that's the case.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by David Mills

And there's nothing wrong with using resolution scaling. The scaling algorithms are really good these days.

48 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

have you considered that possibility?

Actually I have. But they make a distinction between "recommended specs" and "ideal specs". Something you usually don't see.

Under "recommended specs" you could chalk up lackluster performance to settings being implemented with future hardware in mind. For example "Kingdome Come: Deliverance" had such settings.

But if a developer goes out of their way to release "ideal specs" then I expect their program to run ideally on the maximum settings. Anything below 30fps is not ideal.

15 minutes ago, Slides said:

And there's nothing wrong with using resolution scaling. The scaling algorithms are really good these days.

true

14 minutes ago, Slides said:

And there's nothing wrong with using resolution scaling. The scaling algorithms are really good these days.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Again without breaking any NDAs, if a person merely knew to set a certain slider from 100 to 80, he would increase his FPS by a huge factor with no visible degradation in resolution. I use a 75" 4K TV as my monitor, and I sit very close to it. I can't notice any difference to resolution whatever until I get to about 70 on that same scale. So let me summarize: Don't worry about performance with the new sim. If you're getting any kind of acceptable FPS in P3D or X-Plane, then you'll be more than delighted with the new sim. Don't rely on benchmarks that are comparing two completely different universes. Relax!!!

6 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Hello everyone,

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed somewhere before but i just read an article on a germen gamingsite about MSFS benchmarks with different System specs.

And what i did read there left me a bit disappointed and anxious.

It was stated the benchmark using pretty much the same Hardware as i do (i9-9900K, RTX2080ti etc.) gave a result of 68FPS average on medium details flying over countryside with a low of 25 FPS. Flying over New York 52FPS vs. 19FPS.

Actually i don't know what to think know. I was planning to buy the new sim right at release but taking these results into account, i'll pretty sure wait a bit and see what the reviews say.

I really hoped that the times of "Yeah 30FPS is really all you need!" were coming to an end. But i'm not sure anymore.

 

Best regards,

Tom

Dang!!! Wait till its at least out before starting the Sturm und Drang! 😏😃

Simply removing the dozens of roving watermarks from the alpha/beta builds should double FPS. 🙂

 

A review with benchmarks on a German website said it's very stuttery even with a 2080ti.

On the other hand I'm sure there will be plenty of testers here who will swear it's very smooth.

So overall there's conflicting information. As with all the rest, only the widespread reports of paying customers after release will give a reliable answer. And then of course it's still a pre-release for now, hopefully with the possibility of significant optimization.