5 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I would say if you're hoping to get 60FPS in ALL places with a 1070, please, please, please, for all our sakes, go back to XP11 or P3D. 

that is exactly what I am doing.. I have a P3D v5 flights starting in 10 mins on the PMDG 747.

Just to clarify my Specs:

i9-9900K

RTX2080ti

32GB Ram

and so on....

Of course you are going to have to have a pretty beefy PC to run MSFS on high settings that is why there are sliders and different graphics options available. 

42 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

60 fps?  That's more than double what the eye can see.  Remember that movies only run at 24, and do they look choppy to you?

Not this rubbish again? 

13 minutes ago, Chock said:

Unless you try Aerofly FS2. Even a mediocre PC can run that at 200 fps.

And incidentally, the human eye is not a movie camera, projector or computer monitor, it does not have a frame rate, it sees stuff in a continuous stream of info.

Alan, I always thought there was - with all things - a quantifiable tangible limit to the rate at which our brains interpret data. Surely the axons and dendrites, with their 200mph electro-chemical relay speed limit, can only change the frequency of the pixel each rod or cone is attempting to communicate, a certain tangible amount of times per second?

I always thought - and I've been wrong before - that the tangible limit of "this cone cell is seeing blue. No wait now it's green" can only be changed about 120 times per second with decreasing accuracy and resolution the further you get from the center. It's a figure and concept I learned in high school, but I know American school isn't the greatest.

Cheers.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by WestAir
Poor spelling.

45 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

60 fps?  That's more than double what the eye can see.  Remember that movies only run at 24, and do they look choppy to you?

Why do people log on to message boards to be wrong about things? lol

11 minutes ago, vin747 said:

Exactly... I have flown into LAX at 200 FPS with all settings on ULTRA in Aerofly FS2.. so i was hoping that at least 30 FPS should be easily possible on medium settings.. some of the videos show the sim struggling at 10 fps or so.. you can see how jittery it is when they pan the camera around the vc.. if default planes are like this, imagine what PMDG 777 can do to this?

Aerofly FS2 looks like dogsh*t in comparison.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Slides
Typo

Wait till the 19th then see for yourself.

I know.. that's why i don't expect 200 fps.. just 30.. but can it deliver that without stutters or pauses at medium settings.. maybe it can after a few iterations.. will have to wait and see.

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

Aerofly FS2 looks like dogsh*t in comparison.

I was thinking the exact same thing, Slides, lol. Side by side it's clear which is better...

Now that the cat is out of the bag. It's true. The games doesn't scale very well on high end system as you are CPU limited but the good news is that  it actually scaled very well on the low end.  It just that you hit a diminishing return point.  I am only confirming what the Ars Technica has been saying.  Hopefully there is so optimization soon

3 minutes ago, vin747 said:

I know.. that's why i don't expect 200 fps.. just 30.. but can it deliver that without stutters or pauses at medium settings.. maybe it can after a few iterations.. will have to wait and see.

What? Literally 30 mins ago you were saying it must be 60 fps, and that once you'd had 60 fps you could never go back to 25fps. 

How many fps do you need?!

From what I've read, you should be very careful about interpreting benchmarks just yet. Yesterday some who-cares-about-NDA alpha tester on the FS Facebook page was complaining about the sim performance on his very decent computer (rtx 2070, ryzen 7, 32gb), with 30-50 fps on high. Lots of cries of despair and hair pulling from other posters, total meltdown. Then some other testers with gtx 1070 and lower CPUs started to write that this was strange since they could get excellent FPS. Finally, after 100+ posts of "omg this is awful I am gonna cry", the OP wrote back saying that he just had to disable Gsync and his framerate was now 60-70 on ultra settings.  🤣

60 is ideal.. but I have been compromising at 30 fps with P3d and XP11.. so its the next best thing.. even the best PCs out there can't give you 60 fps in p3d/xp11 in a complex tubeliner.. i was hoping a MSFS being like a AAA title might do the trick.. maybe we were all too optimistic.. 

1 minute ago, Turpentine said:

From what I've read, you should be very careful about interpreting benchmarks just yet. Yesterday some who-cares-about-NDA alpha tester on the FS Facebook page was complaining about the sim performance on his very decent computer (rtx 2070, ryzen 7, 32gb), with 30-50 fps on high. Lots of cries of despair and hair pulling from other posters, total meltdown. Then some other testers with gtx 1070 and lower CPUs started to write that this was strange since they could get excellent FPS. Finally, after 100+ posts of "omg this is awful I am gonna cry", the OP wrote back saying that he just had to disable Gsync and his framerate was now 60-70 on ultra settings.  🤣

That`s normal P3Dv5 CTD`s DX12 loads complaining others no problem better performance. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by G-RFRY