1 hour ago, The_sas_man said:

Do you guys even remember how FSX and Xplane played out the box at launch?

Yes I do. FSX RTM did 10FPS on a 3.0GHz quad-core, FullHD resolution

22 minutes ago, Slides said:

At 11:00, he talks about graphics settings. You CAN get 60 fps by lowering your in game resolution on a high end system. The game will scale up to your native monitor resolution. Nice feature.

 

 

Now that is good! 

12 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.

Got you.

Are there any detailed airport reviews of the bigger airfields?

7 minutes ago, Emerson67 said:

Yes I do. FSX RTM did 10FPS on a 3.0GHz quad-core, FullHD resolution

This. 

MSFS's performance is not perfect, but it blows FSX and XP11 at their launches away in so far as playability. It's a much higher starting point that we have seen in the past. I used to only get 25FPS in the middle of nowhere in XP11 with medium settings on the same computer I'm on now. FSX for the first five years was an absolute dog with my older computers that were high spec for the time. In MSFS, I get around 30FPS in heavy load areas with very high settings (again, my computer is mid-tier at best). 

No, you aren't gonna get 60FPS on ultra over NYC at launch. It is what it is. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by bonchie

A reminder that the performance gains we are seeing in MSFS2020 are on DX11. They haven't even ported to DX12 and its supposed benefits yet.

2 hours ago, Slides said:

Aerofly FS2 looks like dogsh*t in comparison.

Well there we go again with the looks as the criteria. I mentioned Aerofly FS2 in relation to the comment about a flight simulator not being able to be decent-looking and still get good FPS, which Aerofly FS2 does. Sure nice visuals are welcome and Aerofly FS2 does lack some traffic and such which clearly assists it in the frame rate department, and in some sense these things can help with assisting with conveying the feedback you need to fly an aeroplane, but they are not really the bit which simulates flight, which Aerofly FS2 undeniably does, and at good frame rates.

The bit I'm really interested in with the new MS flight sim, is oddly enough, how it is as a flight sim. I know everyone else is wetting themselves over the visuals, and that's not a bad thing, but what we're after above all else, is a flight simulator, not a geography simulator.

Just now, Chock said:

Well there we go again with the looks as the criteria. I mentioned Aerofly FS2 in relation to the comment about a flight simulator not being able to be decent-looking and still get good FPS, which Aerofly FS2 does. Sure nice visuals are welcome and Aerofly FS2 does lack some traffic and such which clearly assists it in the frame rate department, and in some sense these things can help with assisting with conveying the feedback you need to fly an aeroplane, but they are not really the bit which simulates flight, which Aerofly FS2 undeniably does, and at good frame rates.

The bit I'm really interested in with the new MS flight sim, is oddly enough, how it is as a flight sim. I know everyone else is wetting themselves over the visuals, and that's not a bad thing, but what we're after above all else, is a flight simulator, not a geography simulator.

 

Huh? We're talking about FPS performance. Most of that is related to graphics quality. Systems modeling is a smaller chunk of the performance penalty usually. Aerofly FS2 is decent looking for 2001. We're in 2020.

45 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

But whats the point of all that eyecandy when the performance is awful?

performance is not awfull at all, you dont seem the grasp this sim..so i say not for you., while the rest will enjoy it.

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

 

Huh? We're talking about FPS performance. Most of that is related to graphics quality. Systems modeling is a smaller chunk of the performance penalty usually. Aerofly FS2 is decent looking for 2001. We're in 2020.

Nope, we're talking about FPS performance, in a flight simulator. That's the point. The product is called flight simulator, this is its main purpose, or at least it should be.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Chock

19 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

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?

if you push expectations unrealistic, result will be dissapointment, thats easy.

besides , graphic cards will become better, and so will be the performance with those cards.

this has been always the case with msfs, only after a few years the hardware is there to run it optimal.

for me low and slow in the cubs, its going to be awesome, saw that vid form that guy in new zealand, thats exactly what i want,

bushflying.

for bit realistic plane syou need to wait for 3rd party , and no one yet knows how that will perform.

but best thing is : you can test it out for yourself via the gamepass, only 1 euro for 1 month, thats really a great thing.

7 minutes ago, wim123 said:

performance is not awfull at all, you dont seem the grasp this sim..so i say not for you., while the rest will enjoy it.

I didn't say that MSFS' performance is awful in particular. But games in general don't work for me if they look great only after tweaking and fiddling for days.

1 minute ago, wim123 said:

if you push expectations unrealistic, result will be dissapointment, thats easy.

besides , graphic cards will become better, and so will be the performance with those cards.

this has been always the case with msfs, only after a few years the hardware is there to run it optimal.

for me low and slow in the cubs, its going to be awesome, saw that vid form that guy in new zealand, thats exactly what i want,

bushflying.

for bit realistic plane syou need to wait for 3rd party , and no one yet knows how that will perform.

but best thing is : you can test it out for yourself via the gamepass, only 1 euro for 1 month, thats really a great thing.

My expectation is to run this Sim at 60FPS. Not even in 4k which i just dont need. I dont even need all that roadtraffic, animals and stuff. Even AI traffic is a thing i could live without (so did i in FSX).

So my honest question: Am i expecting something unrealistic in 2020 here?

2 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

I didn't say that MSFS' performance is awful in particular. But games in general don't work for me if they look great only after tweaking and fiddling for days.

ha yes i get that, i am too old now for that stuff too, so thats why i get it on the xbox way way laters.

advantages, lotsa bugs have been solved, its way way cheaper, it will run very fluid.

12 minutes ago, Chock said:

Nope, we're talking about FPS performance, in a flight simulator. That's the point. The product is called flight simulator, this is its main purpose, or at least it should be.

Yeah and I'm telling you that graphics fidelity is a big part of FPS in a flight simulator. This is not a procedure simulator. I don't think you understand what this is.

11 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

My expectation is to run this Sim at 60FPS. Not even in 4k which i just dont need. I dont even need all that roadtraffic, animals and stuff. Even AI traffic is a thing i could live without (so did i in FSX).

So my honest question: Am i expecting something unrealistic in 2020 here?

watch the Digital Foundry video. You keep spurting off things that are totally unfounded. You can see he hits 60fps at Ultra on 4k!