Just now, Nedo68 said:

I dont think so, with the old Flightsims we had to install tons and tons of addons to get an decent looking FS

the time is over, MSFS looks from start that good.

Just install FSX or P3D without any addons and see how they look and how the run.

Did you get my point? Of course when you are not a "hardcore simmer" and just want to enjoy that what you get on delivery, I think everything will work perfect those who stick to that. However, when you want to use detailed aircraft like PMDG, FSLabs, different airport developers (flightbeam,flytampa etc (don't know if they are onboard or not), fps will drop.

We are saying NOW, that this sim looks insane as we did when we saw the difference between FS9 and FSX. Just wait until 3rd party developers create more stuff into it, then I am not sure if you stay with standard or just make the sim more beautiful than it already is.

I am not evaluating anything yet, just saying that this needs to put in consideration either when you say 30 fps are good.

btw. I had constantly unter 20 fps in fps and was quite happy with it. Although, I wish that this will change for me with the new sim. Chances are good, since I will "invest" in a good system this time.

21 minutes ago, 737_800 said:

I think there is an issue in comparsion. We're still talking about a sim without any addons. When we get 30fps with the standard sim, that will drop at least to 20fps if you fly pmdg aircraft to an detailed 3rd party airport.

When we had at least 60fps on the standard sim and get like 20-40 fps with detailed addons, then that would be totally fine. Nonetheless, we barely know nothing about it yet and people seem to evalute the sim with 4k and not correct settings etc.

We'll see in a couple of weeks, what the reality is about.

You are thinking with a very old-school, outdated mindset. MSFS is very GPU dependent, to the level of no other sim before. I can attest to that personally. There's plenty of CPU power left to run add-on airplanes in the sim. The idea that a PMDG plane "must" drop FPS by 20 is not necessarily correct. The textures, cockpits, etc. are already at PMDG level graphically (not systems, don't misunderstand me) and that's what eats up so many frames in the other sims. Remember when we used to adjust the .cfg to raise the resolution to get better visuals for PMDG planes? That's not a thing anymore. High resolutions are default. There is no major difference between low-res default planes and add-on airplanes anymore because the default planes are also high-res inside and out. 

As to the worry about a detailed 3rd party airport, those already exist in the sim (complaints about accuracy aside), and they run fine. The scenery itself is already well above the older sims, even with add-ons, so of course it's not gonna run 80FPS off the bat. 

If you run 4K, you better have a good GPU. If you run 1080p, it's mostly gravy. 

And just like any other sim, if you can get a consistent 30FPS in high load situations, you are doing great. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by bonchie

1 hour ago, Turpentine said:

Back a few years ago, on the tail end of my flight sim days, I had to stop visiting the avsim forums because I could not take the negativity anymore. It hasn't changed that much, but somehow age has helped me tune out when needed 😉

that seems to be the case over all game forums lately..its not the games, but these new gamers..its a different brand, apparently

lol

1 minute ago, bonchie said:

You are thinking with a very old-school, outdated mindset. MSFS is very GPU dependent, to the level of no other sim before. I can attest to that personally. There's plenty of CPU power left to run add-on airplanes in the sim. The idea that a PMDG plane "must" drop FPS by 20 is not necessarily correct. It all depend on how they code it. 

As to the worry about a detailed 3rd party airport, those already exist in the sim (complaints about accuracy aside), and they run fine. The scenery itself is already well above the older sims, even with add-ons, so of course it's not gonna run 80FPS off the bat. Again, this sim is GPU dependent like all modern games. 

If you run 4K, you better have a good GPU. If you run 1080p, it's mostly gravy. 

Did you watch the Digital Foundry video? His finding is pretty much opposite of what you are saying. He had the same FPS on 540p and 1440p - clearly showing that it is CPU-bound.

 

In the Digital Foundry video it was said that the team will keep updating the visuals with even higher quality settings (I'm guessing shadow, texture and mesh resolution as Bing imagery is upgraded) as well as ray-tracing. Safe to say this simulator will keep giving us an incentive to upgrade our hardware for the foreseeable future.

 

2 minutes ago, espent said:

Did you watch the Digital Foundry video? His finding is pretty much opposite of what you are saying. He had the same FPS on 540p and 1440p - clearly showing that it is CPU-bound.

 

My CPU comes nowhere close to maxing out playing MSFS. It slams my GPU. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by bonchie

2 minutes ago, bonchie said:

You are thinking with a very old-school, outdated mindset. MSFS is very GPU dependent, to the level of no other sim before. I can attest to that personally. There's plenty of CPU power left to run add-on airplanes in the sim. The idea that a PMDG plane "must" drop FPS by 20 is not necessarily correct. It all depend on how they code it. 

As to the worry about a detailed 3rd party airport, those already exist in the sim (complaints about accuracy aside), and they run fine. The scenery itself is already well above the older sims, even with add-ons, so of course it's not gonna run 80FPS off the bat. Again, this sim is GPU dependent like all modern games. 

If you run 4K, you better have a good GPU. If you run 1080p, it's mostly gravy. 

With the technical part you are probably right. I don't know how the inside of the sim works with the hardware, but thanks for enlighting me on that aspect 🙂

However, to my knowledge there are some detailed airports (up to 40), but I want to fly most likely to different airports that are not covered and get these by 3rd party. Despite that, when you say that it's technically possible to develop aircraft without them dropping fps drastically by using different cores than yeah, should be fine.

you wait the 18

there will be carnage; when those running low spec machine will not see on their screen what they see in the videos; as their systems will cough up.

absolute carnage

 

2 minutes ago, 737_800 said:

With the technical part you are probably right. I don't know how the inside of the sim works with the hardware, but thanks for enlighting me on that aspect 🙂

However, to my knowledge there are some detailed airports (up to 40), but I want to fly most likely to different airports that are not covered and get these by 3rd party. Despite that, when you say that it's technically possible to develop aircraft without them dropping fps drastically by using different cores than yeah, should be fine.

What I'm saying is there's no reason an add-on airport should perform any worse than the 40 included high detail airpots if they are developed properly.

The baselines for quality of graphics is much higher in MSFS than the previous sims, where a default "high-detailed" airports were ugly blocks with nothing else. Default airports, cockpits, etc. in MSFS are already high res and that's why you aren't seeing the 80-90FPS like you do in other sims in some areas. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by bonchie

6 minutes ago, bonchie said:

If you run 4K, you better have a good GPU. If you run 1080p, it's mostly gravy. 

 

That.

1080p ultra settings and it's butter...

2 minutes ago, arsenal82 said:

you wait the 18

there will be carnage; when those running low spec machine will not see on their screen what they see in the videos; as their systems will cough up.

absolute carnage

Whatever. I have an 8600K, GTX970, and 16GB of RAM and it runs fine in almost all situations for me. 

I'd consider my system mid-tier at best. 

You can still be CPU bound without your CPU running at 100%. You are core bound by the limit of DX11 and it's limited capabilities of multithreading. Until the games switch to DX12. High end system will be limited in performance.

4 minutes ago, wim123 said:

that seems to be the case over all game forums lately..its not the games, but these new gamers..its a different brand, apparently

lol

New gamers? Well im not a new gamer but i don't want to live in the past forever. Software keeps advancing, Hardware keeps advancing...so why shouldn't i push my expectations up a bit?

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

You can still be CPU bound without your CPU running at 100%. You are core bound by the limit of DX11 and it's limited capabilities of multithreading. Until the games switch to DX12. High end system will be limited in performance.

That's probably correct. I shouldn't have mentioned it in my post because it's ancillary to the point I was making. 

The point is this: MSFS is already high res default with stunning graphics default. You shouldn't expect to see a 20-30FPS drop adding add-ons like in older sims because the add-ons are not going to be dramatically different technically than default (i.e. you aren't going from FSX's default 1024 to a 4096 resolution). They will just be more in depth system wise when talking about aircraft and different locations when talking about airports. 

 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by bonchie