Why are flightsims almost always plagued by FPS issues?

[RetardRetard 2]

When I first started flightsimming, the current (and only) available flightsim was MS Flightsim 98. From then, I've been flying 2000, 2002 and 2004. All of them had the same ongoing issues and forum discussions. FPS, tweak, stutter, "best PC to run...". Sometime in 2007 I gave up flying (mostly because it took too much time). Fast forward 10 years. Computer power is beefier than ever with GPUs larger than my vacuum cleaner and RAM memory almost the size of the harddrive I was running.

So... enter FS world...and same old issues. Sure, visually everything is better. But why...why oh why is it so difficult to get butterysmooth FPS ALL the time? Are the graphic engines STILL old tech? Or are Flightsims always extra demanding?

I'm about to invest in a new computer and honestly...the only thing I can think of is an i7 8700K with a 1080 ti. Expensive, yes! But even with that, I fear that XPlane 11 won't run 100%? At least not with add-on aircraft? 

Or?

Edit: I would like to point out that I currently don't own a PC at all - I am basing this on discussions and youtube videos.

 

[tonywob 4,769]

Well P3D and FSW are based on old FSX tech, and in my opinion they'll continue to suffer similar problems until they break away from that old engine.

X-Plane is in the process of moving up to the modern graphics API Vulcan, so time will tell if this improves things. Whilst it is a more modern engine than the FSX one, it still struggles, but the devs have to fix this if they are to break into using VR headsets which demand good performance.

The main reason is probably that they are simply very very demanding. Unlike games, they have to render an entire planet, simulate weather, systems, etc.. and this is no easy thing to do. Games concentrate on one small area and do it well, flight simulators don't have this luxury.

If you're looking for a stutter free and very fast simulator, try AeroflyFS 2. The reason this is probably fast is that it actually doesn't do that much compared to the other sims. The scenery is static orthophotos and autogen, it has no roads, water or anything too complicated. The other sims have to render complicated scenery on the fly (layering textures together etc).

I run X-Plane 11 with very good performance on a 1070, so I think you'll have absolutely no problem with this hardware configuration.

 

[kneighbour 32]

And bear in mind - fps is not the end of the road. I have a top of the line system and routinely get 50-60 fps with XP 11. But I still get stuttering and have other graphics issues. So even getting the top system you mention is no guarantee. And of course, even worse is the CTD. It is a very hard system to keep tuned for best performance and really not for the casual game player.

[Colonel X 1,430]

49 minutes ago, RetardRetard said:

When I first started flightsimming, the current (and only) available flightsim was MS Flightsim 98. From then, I've been flying 2000, 2002 and 2004. All of them had the same ongoing issues and forum discussions. FPS, tweak, stutter, "best PC to run...". Sometime in 2007 I gave up flying (mostly because it took too much time). Fast forward 10 years. Computer power is beefier than ever with GPUs larger than my vacuum cleaner and RAM memory almost the size of the harddrive I was running.

So... enter FS world...and same old issues. Sure, visually everything is better. But why...why oh why is it so difficult to get butterysmooth FPS ALL the time? Are the graphic engines STILL old tech? Or are Flightsims always extra demanding?

I'm about to invest in a new computer and honestly...the only thing I can think of is an i7 8700K with a 1080 ti. Expensive, yes! But even with that, I fear that XPlane 11 won't run 100%? At least not with add-on aircraft? 

Or?

Edit: I would like to point out that I currently don't own a PC at all - I am basing this on discussions and youtube videos.

 

With the specs you listed, you will be fine running X-Plane at very high settings. But it is important to understand that there is always a slider in the settings that will push your system over the edge. In your case, I image that would be the reflections slider. Having everything at max and runnng fine, move the reflection slider to the right and it will all fall apart. Good thing is, that slider is completely useless, minimal reflections are just fine.

[Longranger 148]

1 hour ago, Colonel X said:

 Good thing is, that slider is completely useless, minimal reflections are just fine.

It MUST not be totally on the left. The reflections are much more in use these days, but the second setting to the left is fine.

But to get to the principal problem of most flight sims: They often has an unlimited world. This means you can´t design the areas, but many elements depend on AutoGen and you can never know how much details are available in every area. So they often have to handle ridiculous amounts of simple objects. In most other games you at least know how high you are and how fast you are.

But in a flightsim you could be in a helicopter or a Space Shuttle. For optimizations a real problem.

[Janov 2,383]

We are trying to simulate reality - the equation is: Visual quality x frames/second = processing power.

With limited processing power you have to limit both visual quality and frames per second to not break the above law.

Until there is enough processing power to have both terms at "lifelike" quality, we will have to make sacrifices in both.

Jan

 

[CFIJose 5,485]

4 hours ago, RetardRetard said:

When I first started flightsimming, the current (and only) available flightsim was MS Flightsim 98. From then, I've been flying 2000, 2002 and 2004. All of them had the same ongoing issues and forum discussions. FPS, tweak, stutter, "best PC to run...". Sometime in 2007 I gave up flying (mostly because it took too much time). Fast forward 10 years. Computer power is beefier than ever with GPUs larger than my vacuum cleaner and RAM memory almost the size of the harddrive I was running.

So... enter FS world...and same old issues. Sure, visually everything is better. But why...why oh why is it so difficult to get butterysmooth FPS ALL the time? Are the graphic engines STILL old tech? Or are Flightsims always extra demanding?

I'm about to invest in a new computer and honestly...the only thing I can think of is an i7 8700K with a 1080 ti. Expensive, yes! But even with that, I fear that XPlane 11 won't run 100%? At least not with add-on aircraft? 

Or?

Edit: I would like to point out that I currently don't own a PC at all - I am basing this on discussions and youtube videos.

 

I've been using flight sims since FS 98 and I can honesty say that with my 2600k at 4.7  and a GTX 970 I can get butter smooth fps with low reflections and medium texture setting with xp 11.10. I have objects at high and it's butter smooth. If I had a an 8700K and 1080TI, I imagine I could up the settings and still remain smooth. XP 11 is the smoothest sim I've ever purchased.

[N1G 88]

On 12/7/2017 at 3:31 PM, tonywob said:

Well P3D and FSW are based on old FSX tech, and in my opinion they'll continue to suffer similar problems until they break away from that old engine.

X-Plane is in the process of moving up to the modern graphics API Vulcan, so time will tell if this improves things. Whilst it is a more modern engine than the FSX one, it still struggles, but the devs have to fix this if they are to break into using VR headsets which demand good performance.

The main reason is probably that they are simply very very demanding. Unlike games, they have to render an entire planet, simulate weather, systems, etc.. and this is no easy thing to do. Games concentrate on one small area and do it well, flight simulators don't have this luxury.

If you're looking for a stutter free and very fast simulator, try AeroflyFS 2. The reason this is probably fast is that it actually doesn't do that much compared to the other sims. The scenery is static orthophotos and autogen, it has no roads, water or anything too complicated. The other sims have to render complicated scenery on the fly (layering textures together etc).

I run X-Plane 11 with very good performance on a 1070, so I think you'll have absolutely no problem with this hardware configuration.

 

Hey, hope all is well with you.

Just curious as I also have a 1070 and doing fairly well with it. Is there an nvidia driver that you have settled in on, or do you just upgrade the drivers to stay current? Bob