Two phenomenal screenshots (from the Airports video) which make me most excited are:

And

The accuracy of the lighting in each photo is outstanding. The level of detail in both is unbelievable. 

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by poplar

Although everything looks a bit clean in the first pic (most airliners are a bit filthy, especially underneath where exhaust streaks and dirt from the runway tend to stick), I agree that it could pass for being a real photograph.

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by Chock

The second one makes me wanna grab some coffee and get ready to head for the gate. 😄

Captures the spirit of a rainy day morning departure perfectly!

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by tweekz

Just wondering what sort of a PC is going to be required.  So much detail, so realistic, and tons of new animations.

15 minutes ago, stans said:

Just wondering what sort of a PC is going to be required.  So much detail, so realistic, and tons of new animations.

If you want to run it on 4K + Ultra settings, you should expect a high-end PC will be required. But if you just want run it (not caring much about eye candy) I bet a budget gaming PC will do it very well.

The dev Sebastian Wloch said he runs it on a GTX 1060 pretty well. It’s an “old” and budget GPU. There are cheap options today to get the same performance a GTX 1060 has.

I am playing Red Dead Redemption 2 on an i9700k, 1070GTX card. I have it maxed out at 4k and the graphics, lighting and effects are at a higher level than FS2020 (from what I see in the videos) and it is still smooth. No overclock on the cpu. So I think it will run quite well. Before anyone says FS2020 is different the devs have said themselves the flight model uses 5% of one core.

 

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by sanh

It looks like the interior of the A320 is modelled. Some shots you can see straight through the windows.

9 hours ago, Chock said:

Although everything looks a bit clean in the first pic (most airliners are a bit filthy, especially underneath where exhaust streaks and dirt from the runway tend to stick)

Maybe that could have been an Airbus company request? Make their planes look pristine?

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by Tuskin38

4 hours ago, sanh said:

Before anyone says FS2020 is different the devs have said themselves the flight model uses 5% of one core.

 

In my opinion that statement does not mean anything at all without comparative data. For example, what percentage of a single core on that same "benchmark" machine does FSX or P3D use for the flight model? I don't believe they mentioned this but am happy to be corrected. It might well be far less, though it could be more. If the old sim with the old flight model used more then yes, it is an incredibly impressive achievement, but I doubt that it is. After all, Microsoft persisted with their original flight model with tweaks (rather than outright evolution) over a 20-plus year period. I think if they had found a way to make it far more efficient at some point, they would have. But there is only so much you can do to make code more efficient. You can't achieve miracles.

I tend to think that physics in PC based simulations have been pretty decent since the age of the earliest Pentiums - and that it is the rendering of the complex world itself and the AI that consumes almost all the available power of a modern machine.

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by JonP01

I think the point they're making  with that 5% is that it's not the physics engine dictating overall performance, it's the rendering engine. Thankfully with today's techniques and hardware they can essentially build the most capable physics engine possible without it having a detrimental affect on other areas, namely rendering.

The few million physics calculations per second are almost background tasks in comparison to the billions of ops required to draw the graphics.

21 hours ago, ca_metal said:

 But if you just want run it (not caring much about eye candy) I bet a budget gaming PC will do it very well.

In which case you might as well just stick with P3D.😏

13 hours ago, JonP01 said:

In my opinion that statement does not mean anything at all without comparative data. For example, what percentage of a single core on that same "benchmark" machine does FSX or P3D use for the flight model? I don't believe they mentioned this but am happy to be corrected. It might well be far less, though it could be more. If the old sim with the old flight model used more then yes, it is an incredibly impressive achievement, but I doubt that it is. After all, Microsoft persisted with their original flight model with tweaks (rather than outright evolution) over a 20-plus year period. I think if they had found a way to make it far more efficient at some point, they would have. But there is only so much you can do to make code more efficient. You can't achieve miracles.

I tend to think that physics in PC based simulations have been pretty decent since the age of the earliest Pentiums - and that it is the rendering of the complex world itself and the AI that consumes almost all the available power of a modern machine.

You cannot compare the two flight models between MSFS and FSX, the former calculates 1,000 data sets for it's flight model while the latter used 1. So for the MSFS flight model to only use 5% of one core is impressive, and my new CPU has 8 cores.😁

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

In which case you might as well just stick with P3D.😏

Not necessaraly... The new sim is seeming to be better than FSX/P3D in a lot of other areas than graphics.

Also I think it will look better than prepar3d even using low settings.😉

What a deeply impressive sim this is. I may have to upgrade to see it at it's best, but I think even scaled back it's going to be better than anything currently available. I only fly XP at the moment, but that will change come release, and I have a feeling the new girl will be kicking the old but faithful out of the house 😍