More data

 

 

Reality sets in! Finally. It’s an piece of software not the second coming! Love the human psyche. 

1 minute ago, UAL4life said:

Reality sets in! Finally. It’s an piece of software not the second coming! Love the human psyche. 

Man, I love the content and am so excited by what I'm seeing. Maybe it's because my expectations were realistic to begin with (the human psyche can, indeed, be funny), but I can't even begin to empathize with the doom-and-gloom.

OP.. You currently have a 5 pound bag with 5 pounds of stuff in it.. FS2020 is a 10 pound bag with 15 pounds of stuff in it. 

FS2020 better optimized but its trying to accomplish a massive amount more. 

 

If FPS means more to you than visuals then, the choice is easy...   look a few posts up (MSFS98)

 

Seriously though i just listened to a pod/youtube that reminisced about how when sims were wire frames, people could get fully immersed in it.. Just a matter of training your brain. Besides being all there was. I almost envy you.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disappointed. That was probably the wishy washiest OA video I have ever seen from him.....

Also surprised his machine seems kind of average too. If you are a famous reviewer, you should probably have the very best.

Bleah

 

I am more concerned about the core usage than low benchmarks, hope it isnt single core dependent and scale out to multiple cores evenly, as one can better address the latter with new hardware but not so much the former.

7 hours ago, Slides said:

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

Good to know that you can apparently read my mind to the point where you know what I do and do not understand, and all this from reading a couple of posts on a forum. 🤣

Some good news re performance

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/ms-flight-simulator-our-yoke-on-look-at-new-features-gorgeous-flights/

"Thus, I'm not in a position to speak to the game's scalability across systems, nor about how settings impact performance. Something still needs optimizing on Asobo's end. Curiously, one of my worst and most consistent framerate chugs came from a prebuilt destination in the Balkans that the game encourages players to visit in one of its menus, and I was able to reproduce the issue on multiple PCs. That frame rate hovered in the 12 fps range while inside of the cockpit, whether on the ground or in the air, and closer to 30 fps (albeit quite unsteady) when the camera floated above the plane. Is the current issue due to the in-plane view? The specific number of trees rendered below? Something about the atmospheric systems being simulated? Asobo reps didn't have a good answer as of press time."

"[Update, 4:10pm ET: A Microsoft spokesperson forwarded the following statement to Ars Technica: "Development is now heavily focused on making build optimizations for a variety of PC setups within our recommended specs. We anticipate additional performance improvements to be implemented as we arrive to launch on August 18 and beyond."]"

Edited July 31, 20205 yr by DMojo

10 minutes ago, DMojo said:

That frame rate hovered in the 12 fps range while inside of the cockpit, whether on the ground or in the air, and closer to 30 fps (albeit quite unsteady) when the camera floated above the plane.

I would tend to think that is the fact that there are essentially more pixels having to change on an internal view that an external view most of the time, i.e. if you are flying over a forest on an external view, much of the screen area is simply shifting tree pixels from one position to another, whereas internally, it is having to swap out one texture for another as the cockpit view tracks over the external view, so there is more data being shunted about.

Edited July 31, 20205 yr by Chock

15 hours ago, cepact said:

it's very sad to see people are mocking someone with a 1070 expecting to get descent fps. 1070 is a good card running every AAA title at 60 fps in 2020 with high settings. But when someone expects the same for MSFS, the arrogant people of avsim with their 2080ti mocks him. 

I agree, and a 1070 is still a high end card. Outside of the 2080 series, there are still new cards being released with 8GB VRAM. 3 more GB and you are looking at over a grand for a card that will be relevant for who knows how long. That is what is making me hesitant about upgrading in the first place. At least right now with the way prices are.

There are laws of physics that apply to everyone. The problems of getting data onto your computer screen as pixels that resemble the real world is the same for every flightsimulator out there and there is always a tradeoff between visual fidelity and hardware load.

Technological advances bring more fidelity - and flight simulation has always been on the spear´s tip of that. Early Microsoft´s flight simulator versions especially NEVER ran satisfactory on current release day top hardware with ultimate settings.

I always liked that, because it meant that you could "grow" your simulator over the years after release with growing hardware compatibility. But I doubt it was ment that way - I believe the intent for coding it that way was to create great screenshots that would help sell the product.

Now the industry standard for AAA shooters and other games is nowadays to limit the users ability to "overtax" his hardware. Studios found out that most people can´t handle the choice, and "pushing all sliders to the right" is something that most people can´t resist. The result basically tells them "your hardware is inadequate" - and no one likes to hear that! 😉

I applaud Asobo for giving us that choice - and encourage everyone to see the ultimate settings for what they are:  A setting for the future that we will be able to use in 2 or 3 years, growing your flightsimulator along with your hardware.

Jan

Well, yes many people do have the instinct to push all the sliders to the right. However, this simulator interrogates your Hardware and makes recommendations as to your settings. In my case, the system recommended Ultra, which is what I generally use.

Other people's mileage may vary.

The real problem comes, when the system sees a 1070 and recommends low or medium settings, and somebody decides to use ultra nonetheless.

Edited July 31, 20205 yr by HiFlyer

5 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

The real problem comes, when the system sees a 1070 and recommends low or medium settings, and somebody decides to use ultra nonetheless.

I have a 1070 and was recommended High, but set Ultra instead.  I wanted to see what the sim was capable of regardless of frame rates.  I'm still on Ultra, but I'm not a frame rate junkie.  If I decide I need more performance, I'll selectively reduce a few settings.

Hook

9 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Nope, but maxing out and expecting 1080p @60FPS should be realistic.

this is totally unrealistic expecxtations, so0 you sure are going to be dissapointed.

you create your own dissapointment.

Let’s not be naive. If MSFS has :

- better skies

- better AI 

- better effects

- a more realistic environment 

- a better weather engine 

- better flightdynamics

- better shaders

- etc etc

 

You really expect the franerate to be higher and the sim to be smoother than the other flightsims ?

The complete sim is more enhanced than the alpha’s parts that were tested.

It is excited that MSFS is going to be released but let’s be realistic: you will have to find the right balance between quality and performance for your system....