Interpreting MS FS 2020 System Specs

[RobertRent 17]

Interesting - Mike's opinion is that the MS specs for FS2020 are for older PCs, not for a PC that one would build today using this generation's hardware.  Although this is just one man's personal opinion, keep in mind that he is somewhat of a guru in benchmarking flight sims and building flight sim PCs. 

 

[FrankR409 514]

I thought it was interesting to listen to the video.  I went through the ordering process last week and simply just over built the heck out of my new machine knowing that things will only get more complex once additional desirable content is released.  

It will be very interesting to see how “current” hardware stands up to the sim once it is released.
 

 

[Wewk584 137]

I disprove his theory all the time.. I constantly buy 3 year old equipment. Im cheap.. although i might regret it with MFS.. but we'll see...  Even if what i end up with doesnt look like the videos (the official ones) of FS2020.. i will be comparing it to what x-plane looks like on my same PC

 

[SP2472 2,292]

At least I can build a new system with some older parts (case, power supply, hard-drives, etc) and the new parts (motherboard, AMD 3900x processor, 32Gb Ram) plus a new video card (unknown at this time but not an overpriced RTX2080 which is extremely excessive) Hopefully there will be something using the new Pci-e4 bus that's not highly priced and under $500.

Darryl

[Chock 17,769]

It's not so much that it's designed for old specs as much as it's finally an MS flight sim which leverages the GPU properly. We've previously had to have a sledgehammer to crack a walnut with FSX simply because it was based on, and reliant upon, the old method of development which relied on processors constantly getting faster all the time, when in fact they reached a speed limit that necessitated going to multiple cores to get anywhere. Meanwhile all the other fancy games out there were not doing that.

Even before FSX came out, we all knew that what an MS flight sim really needed was a complete rewrite from the ground up which ditched the CPU-bound architecture. But  because it didn't get that, we were barreling down a road with a dead end in front of us as far as MS flight sim was concerned. Sadly, that was largely because the main patron for MS flight sims - Bill Gates - was leaving, and so he wasn't in a position to direct its development that way by ignoring the bottom line and just being the boss who wanted it done because he liked flight sims, as had been the case in the preceding years. If Gates had stayed on at the helm of MS for a couple more years, that probably would have happened in spite of the bottom line, but instead we got the bean counters in at MS, which coupled with a downturn in the economy, meant the writing was on the wall for the FS franchise, at least until things changed a few years later as we have seen. 

This is why your PC with a 500 quid GPU would still run your flight sim like a dog the moment you started to throw a few add-ons at it, but it could run Skyrim or FarCry or some such at frame rates which were in the multiple hundreds. We know this is true because we've seen the attempts to have ESP-based sims such as more recent versions of P3D attempt to use the GPU a bit more in spite of the disadvantages built into its core capabilities, able to run P3D at better frame rates than FSX.

Thus if you've got a PC which can run decent games at an okay frame rate, this is a better indication of whether it will run the new MS sim reasonably well, rather than basing your expectations on how it runs FSX or P3D. Most five year old flight sim PCs will have better internals than an XBox, and since the new sim is designed to run on an XBox, it'll be no surprise to learn that even a fairly old PC will probably run the thing pretty well. You don't have to be a PC guru to work that one out.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Chock

[FlyBaby 659]

The YT comments are hilarious....knowing his connection to X-plane...the commenters are ripping X-plane to shreds.

I think he should have just made the video...kept his comments about the system requirements, and not have made any reference to X-plane (especially being a preferred sim).

[goates 576]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

It's not so much that it's designed for old specs as much as it's finally an MS flight sim which leverages the GPU properly. We've previously had to have a sledgehammer to crack a walnut with FSX simply because it was based on, and reliant upon, the old method of development which relied on processors constantly getting faster all the time, when in fact they reached a speed limit that necessitated going to multiple cores to get anywhere. Meanwhile all the other fancy games out there were not doing that.

Crysis got caught with the same problem as FSX. And one of the big enhancements with the upcoming remastered version is moving to a modern, multi-threaded engine.

[March Hare 720]

Absolutely what Chock said. This version of FS has a new engine under the hood, built by an experienced games developer who understands various architectures and how to optimise for each variation. Graphics will be fully customisable, with various levels of detail that can be tweaked.

The specs are interesting. Usually you get a minimum and a recommended spec. With this, you also get an ideal spec. Recommended specs will give you high to ultra settings. An alpha tester, who commented in another thread here, said they are running it at high settings on a GTX 1070 at 4K resolution, with 45 FPS on average. The 1070 GPU isn't designed for Ultra HD gaming (that would be the GTX 1080). I don't know if their 1070 has 8GB of VRAM, because you can get the same GPU with less VRAM, but considering they can run it on high settings at a resolution not intended for the GPU, I'm guessing you'll be able to run it on ultra settings at 1080p resolution. Perhaps with a slight tweak on a couple of things like anti-aliaising to get better frame rates in built-up areas. So that is effectively the "highest level" of detail available on what is getting on to be an outdated GPU now.

But then you have the ideal spec with a RTX 2080. That will enable what, to me, is more of a nicety at the moment: ray-traced lighting, rather than dynamic lighting. Yes, it can make scenes more realistic, but I can live without that until hardware prices reduce significantly.

[G-RFRY 1,708]

I don`t plan on upgrading for MSFS but will later this year now my system is getting old.

[wim123 758]

from Chock 'Thus if you've got a PC which can run decent games at an okay frame rate, this is a better indication of whether it will run the new MS sim reasonably well, rather than basing your expectations on how it runs FSX or P3D. Most five year old flight sim PCs will have better internals than an XBox, and since the new sim is designed to run on an XBox, it'll be no surprise to learn that even a fairly old PC will probably run the thing pretty well. You don't have to be a PC guru to work that one out.

This is very incorrect, the new to come xbox(fs wont run on the now in use ones at all) has capabilities of a very good pc

graphical card equal to a 2080, so i think the minimun spec is going to be pretty meh.

ypou need a good system if you want it to look like somethimng of the promovid..and remember later the addons...

 

[G-RFRY 1,708]

As for XBOX just like present games some are being remastered for the XBOX Series X and some of the new games will not run on the older consoles, if it does run on the XBOX one it will not be the same version as the new XBOX which can match a high end gaming PC, Microsoft have developed it to do just that. 

[canadiantree 233]

At this point, anyone still arguing that MSFS will fail isn't doing their due diligence. Microsoft isn't stupid. They aren't going to advertise a product if the end result will be deceitful. Yes there will be bugs & yes some functionalities won't be ready at launch. But anyone still thinking this sim isn't the future of our hobby clearly hasn't been paying attention.

[flying_w 58]

I'd like to think MS have learnt as much from past "disappointments" as much if not more so than from past "successes" and that has influenced on the journey here.  Think of Vista, Windows 8, Windows Phone, Flight, I'm sure we can all think of other examples...  Did they not say something along the lines of "thanks for bearing with us despite a few mis-steps" when they first talked about MSFS?

[canadiantree 233]

1 hour ago, flying_w said:

I'd like to think MS have learnt as much from past "disappointments" as much if not more so than from past "successes" and that has influenced on the journey here.  Think of Vista, Windows 8, Windows Phone, Flight, I'm sure we can all think of other examples...  Did they not say something along the lines of "thanks for bearing with us despite a few mis-steps" when they first talked about MSFS?

You are correct, here's the official quote from the very first announcement on their website:

"On behalf of the entire Microsoft Flight Simulator team, we humbly and deeply express our gratitude for such an overwhelmingly positive response to our announce trailer! We recognize that without people like you, we don’t get to make experiences like this that span more than 35 years and maintain such a passionate following. Thank you for being patient enough to weather the turbulence caused by some of our previous missteps. Thank you for being willing to look to the possibilities of the future while asking us to be accountable for the past. We hear you, we value you, we want to make the next generation of Microsoft Flight Simulator for you, with you."

[flying_w 58]

Thanks - a timely reminder