pstrub

What exactly do you mean by " But when I try to install/enable it"? Did you install the latest Nvidia driver *and* use DLSS swapper to place it in MSFS's program folder? What are the options that remain unavailable to you?

They surely didn't say MSFS 2020, as the year 2020 was never part of the name until MSFS 2024 was announced, and still hasn't officially been adopted as its title. They said "Microsoft Flight Simulator" was supposed to have a ten year run. Which may have been a bit ambiguous but is still true to the letter even now, with MSFS 2024 being sold as a new installment. It's not clear what exactly you searched for and which search engine you used. I tend to think that it's part of an AI generated text, as is now common as the first search result shown by Google. That's why you should at least include a link, otherwise it's worthless.

If you rename or move the files to a different folder on the same disk, it doesn't matter how many GB you move. The data itself doesn't need to move, only the directory entry. If by "the same school" you mean that we actually know something about hunting down bugs, instead of just ridiculing those trying to help, then yes.

It is. Your statement doesn't become any more true just by repeating it. "wrong"... when locating a problem you just try to eliminate possible sources of error one by one. And trying without any add-ons first *is* a sound advice.

Not a big effort either if you cut/paste instead of copy/paste. Ok, copying them back in batches is a bit more work, but this is only necessary if it really was the fault of an add-on, and then it's well worth it. Using binary search, i.e. copying half of the add-ons to see whether or not the issue returns, then half of the remaining add-ons and so on. I didn't read it like that. Standard practice in troubleshooting to rule out a few common issues.

How so? It's enough to rename the community folder, and that's a matter of 10 seconds, no risk involved.

Changelog: Fixed a regression where airports could ignore weather information from their METAR https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sim-update-3-beta-1-5-26-0-release-notes-august-15-2025/733937 Minor fixes only, seems like we're getting very close to release of SU3.

You're right, of course! Stupid me, must've been too distracted! 😅

Ok, thanks! Seems like I missed that - would be nice though to make sure it's scheduled on Twitch ahead of time too!

There was a dev stream yesterday? I thought it was about time for another dev stream, and checked the Twitch schedule a couple of times this week and last week and never saw anything announced, nor in the Thursday update blog posts... They should advertise it just a *bit* better

This can be avoided by increasing the scaling factor to 150% or more in the Windows 11 display settings until the icons have the desired size, but fonts are still sharper than on 2K. Whether or not it's worth it is highly subjective, and then there's the added cost of more GPU power needed to render all the pixels, but DLSS / FSR upscaling can help with it. My feeling is that the 7800XT is at the lower end for 4K, but it might still be ok, especially when making use of FSR.

You sure hold some strong opinions about things you apparently don't have much experience with, and then even berate others... I should've emphasized "recent" when speaking of gaming titles. Of coures most people should cap their fps once they reach the monitor's refresh rate, the only exception maybe being competitive gamers, but that's beyond the point. In many modern games you more often than not need to use upscaling to get anywhere near the desired refresh rate, and for many gamers that's way above 60fps. And that's before frame generation, because latency is key. Cyberpunk 2077 for instance is Personally I'm ok with framerates around 60 (pre frame-gen), but higher still feels better. I don't play competitive games, and I have the reflexes of a 20yo anymore, so I don't set a high standard by any means. In civil flight sim it's different, it's relatively slow-paced and the only case where I can feel latency is when panning around in the cockpit. I totally understand that some people are ok with 30fps here, but I prefer the latency of at least 60 fps native, and the smoothness of 120fps after frame-gen.

Yeah, and as others already said: As long as the temperatures are within specs, you shouldn't be worried about running your GPU at 100%, that's what it's made for. Almost any gaming title other than MSFS is expected to fully load your GPU most of the time. The difference with MSFS is that it's a lot more CPU-heavy than modern games - especially with the main thread that runs on a single core and can't be distributed to all the CPU cores, so that you can be CPU limited at way less than 100% CPU load.

What resolution do you use? @Simicro has 4K in their signature, so this obviously makes it easier to fully load the GPU than e.g. 1440p or FullHD.

Thanks for clarification! I thought I'd heard it in one of the interviews pre 2024 release... but as you (and others) pointed out, the purchases carry over between MS Store and Steam!

One thing to consider: You bought MSFS 2020 on Steam. I seem to remember they once said you need to stay on Steam with MSFS2024 to keep your store-bought and in-sim purchases, and this includes the Deluxe / Premium items. If you switch to MS Store, you need to buy the Premium Deluxe in order to keep the planes. I'd go with Steam. You already have an account there so it's not like you have to make an effort to buy there, or install an additional piece of software you don't already have on your PC. I tried MSFS2020 using MS Store and Gamepass, but switched to Steam when buying it. I've always used Steam without any issues, and also the directory structure made sense. Both were things I had issues with in MS Store, I remember the update process occasionally wouldn't start in MS Store after a sim update was released, also the base game is installed in a weird folder with a cryptic name that's hidden and has restricted access rights, which I found super annoying. For MSFS this isn't very relevant, as the bulk of the install is downloaded in-game to a separate user-defined folder anyway, but these were a few of the reasons why I prefer Steam. Overall MSFS 2024 runs great on my system, but on complex airports I feel my 5800 X3D struggling and I'm strongly limited by main-thread, even though I use AutoFPS to adjust my TLOD / OLOD on ground. Frame generation helps to a degree, but when panning I get to a point where I really feel the lag between the movement of my mouse and the reaction on screen.

On a Friday? I totally missed it, thanks for posting!

Absolutely, but this seems to be more common in the young generation of Tiktok users with short attention spans, not so much with long-standing and experienced community members such as Bob. Edit: And there's another thread with a similar title on page 1, but I won't be bothered to repeat my comment there too...

Yes, me too... I basically haven't flown them since 2024 was released for similar reasons, but I don't have so much time to spare for flight simming right now so for the time being I'm kind of ok with enjoying what works well in MSFS 2024.

It's beyond me how people fail to come up with descriptive thread titles. I (and probably most forum users) would love to know what a thread is about before clicking it. "This should attract attention." does certainly not serve this purpose, but using "Navigraph consumer survey" instead would help a lot. Is this really that difficult to think about when starting a thread?

If I were to express it cynically: They are experienced with Boeing airliners like no one else, but their approach to software development and 3d design is about 20 years old. TBH, I don't think this is entirely true, they've been hiring new people in the past year that are surely improving their development process. Anyway, even RSR admitted that they might be a bit old and slow to adapt to the new ways needed in MSFS 2020/24. I've hoped for them to move at a faster pace many times, but still I have to admit their 737 has been one of the most satisfying add-on aircraft I've flown in MSFS.

You're missing the point that latency from mouse input to screen visibility is about 3-5 longer than render time, depending on the engine. 45 fps feel genuinely sluggish when you're playing a fast-paced shooter. That said, it's a very subjective matter, and I don't think your flying skills get better above 45fps, except maybe in some of the racing scenarios. Other than that, it's a personal preference, and a trade-off between image quality and framerate. (excluding the case of VR and headtrackers, with them a sufficiently high framerate is a must)

You attach a frametime measurement from Cyberpunk 2077 and talk about smoothness only, while one of the major points in shooters is latency. And contrary to your calculations, the time it takes from a mouse input to seeing the effect on screen takes 3-5 (real) frames, depending on the engine, double that for FG. And at 75 Hz with FG these latencies can be felt quite drastically like a rubberband between moving your mouse and the actual panning seen on screen. This is a major reason for why framerates way above 75 Hz make sense, especially for competitive players. I'm too old to really profit from this, my aim is too bad to profit from framerates above the 60-100 range. In MSFS this matters a lot less - you won't crash your plane because panning your fov feels sluggish. Unless you use VR or a head tracker, but IIRC we can agree that this is a different topic. I can perceive all of this, but for me (personally, on a screen without head tracking) the zone of diminishing returns starts somewhere around 60-80fps. When panning quickly, however, I can still make out an improvement in the smoothness of motion at higher framerates, I just don't really care. I totally get that some people prefer higher settings over higher fps, as the perception of fluidity differs a lot among individuals. This is all about perception, and this is by nature a very subjective topic. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that anything above 75fps is unnecessary while clearly ignoring major points.

One thing people seem to forget here is latency. It's not a big issue in a slow-paced title such as a civilian flight simulator, but it has a big impact on faster games, especially when playing competitively. And while the numbers in the post quoted below are correct, I'd debate the conclusions drawn: The point being that latency from mouse input to seeing the rendered image on screen is typically 3-5 frames, depending on the game engine, leading to latencies of 160ms for 30fps and 80ms for 60fps. This is definitely something I can still feel as a "rubber band" effect when the image lags behind the mouse movement. So much so that I barely could use an old computer connected to a 4K monitor at only 30fps because the mouse movement felt so sluggish. At 60fps it feels ok to me (as an occasional gamer in my 40s my reaction time leaves much to be desired), and I certainly feel an improvement going from 60fps to 120fps, but I guess around 90 I enter the zone of diminishing returns. Visual smoothness is something else, and independent of the input latency. I used to be ok with 30fps when I was a student and had to make do with old hardware, but now I'm glad when I can get more. In this regard, frame generation is amazing. However, keep in mind that frame generation doesn't help with latency, in fact it has a negative impact. It's kind of counteracted by Nvidias anti-lag features, but you can still turn these on without using FG. Anyway, while the numbers can be measured precisely, the way we experience it is very subjective. I totally understand that some people prefer to turn up the visuals in MSFS and accept lower framerates, whereas other simmers aim for a stable 60fps. Still doesn't mean that measuring fps is useless, and that more than 60fps are for bragging rights only.

I think this includes an important observation: The C172 is the only aircraft that reacts close to the expectations of how the wind affects planes. The C172 is the only default aircraft that has the full range of improved physics including soft body simulation (SBS) implemented, and the latter is likely what makes aircraft shaking in the wind possible at all. The sim has supported this for a year or so, but few aircraft have actually made use of it. To my knowledge, this hasn't changed yet with MSFS2024, see list here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/new-propeller-cfd-soft-body-simulation-aircraft-list/504719 . They said they'd overhaul the included planes one by one in one of the Dev Q&As, when they talked about the improved physics. As with the improved propeller simulation and CFD, SBS is opt-in per aircraft, and doesn't automatically apply to existing aircraft because it requires tuning of the flight model. My take is: It appears that MSFS 2024 is fully capable of simulating the wind effects properly, but so far, very few aircraft make use of the improved physics that's necessary for a realistic behaviour.