Has anyone here been able to keep a consistent 60+FPS while flying over London with maxed out settings?

 

I've noticed that Flight School still uses CPU Core #1 to render buildings and traffic, so I don't think this would be possible unless you have a ridiculous clock speed.

 

I only get around 30FPS with my i5-3570K 4.5GHz.

What is wrong with 30 fps?

What is wrong with 30 fps?

 

I don't suppose anything is wrong with 30 FPS, however, that wasn't the question asked.

What is wrong with 30 fps?

 

It's not 60 fps.

Why are  users  fixated on  what fps  they getting  is more  to the point

30 fps is good enough for human eyes.

If I may hazard a guess, 60fps is kinda that much smoother.^^;;

 

I also think what OP actually wanted is a performance buffer for when high-detail addons catch up. For when default scenery go slow, what would high-detail addon ones do?

My best result is either "constant" 30-35 FPS or 40-45 FPS with stutters. The second i accomplish by playing with FFTF. Couldn't get it in the middle though. For your reference i use ORBX Global + Vector (most things disabled) + LC + Aerosoft LHR + ASN. I'm "benchmarking" from the cockpit of a heavy payware airliner

It's not just frame rate obsession. If we're looking at Flight School as a technology preview for the upcoming flight sim (which is what we're all doing here, right?), then you'll probably want to see 60 fps or higher now, when it's running planes and scenery this basic in Flight School.

 

If you can get 60 to 70 fps now, then maybe you stand a chance of getting 30 fps when running a PMDG-level plane and tons of custom scenery in the full flight sim.

It's not just frame rate obsession. If we're looking at Flight School as a technology preview for the upcoming flight sim (which is what we're all doing here, right?), then you'll probably want to see 60 fps or higher now, when it's running planes and scenery this basic in Flight School.

The trouble with looking at Flight School as a technology preview is that DTG probably didn't do too much optimisation. Martin was pretty clear in the 'Ask DTG' thread that they weren't doing too much work in Flight School apart from DX11 & 64bit.

Right, I'm sure it's not as optimized as the final sim will (or should) be. But it would still be a good sign if people can reliably get 60 fps on systems that could be considered decent gaming computers, at a reasonable resolution like 1080p. 

 

Any stuttering or "long frames" would be more worrying, because that can happen even at otherwise high frame rates. It would point to deeper problems with the software than just optimization. 

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

Why are  users  fixated on  what fps  they getting  is more  to the point

 

Well, for starters, it could show what kind of headroom the program has. Yes, it'll hopefully be optimized further, but it's also not realistic to expect DTG to somehow magically double the FPS in the next 6 months before they release the other simulator. 

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

 

What do you mean by upping the geometry?

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

 

Yep, it looks like the the building density Flight School can show on the ground is higher than I can get with X-Plane's autogen and SkyMaxx Pro clouds at a reasonable frame rate. That's impressive.

 

However... I wouldn't call it "winning," because it's only in the area close to the plane. Ground detail blurs out very quickly in the middle distance, which doesn't happen with X-Plane. I can still see high resolution when zoomed out to the distance and looking for a bush runway. So it looks like maybe a trade-off in close-up density vs. resolution in the distance?

 

It will be interesting to see if this trade-off remains over time. X-Plane has spoiled me for seeing high res scenery and 3D objects when zoomed out to the limit of weather visibility at low altitudes. I hate seeing pop-in and blur out there. 

bonchie -

What do you mean by upping the geometry?

 

In X-Plane that would be increasing the number of trees, objects, roads and vehicles,  Same thing for FSX.