I just saw benchmark results and those left me disappointed.

[Wanderkroete 31]

6 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

We don't know but since the Xbox Series X is a DXR api and the game is coming to Series X. We can make the assumption that Asobo will convert the game to DXR api in a near future. that should bring us a good performance improvement.

 

Thanks for the kind word about name/logo. I like turtles !

What I don't get... DirectX12 has been introduced in 2014 or 2015? Why does it seem that is barely used.

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

Just now, 2reds2whites said:

Don’t be ridiculous. 

I think we're living on a different planet then...

[HiFlyer 9,359]

I guess I'm lucky that I opted for a 2K monitor. I think that 4K monitors are pretty much asking for trouble.( but that's just me )

Edited July 30, 2020 by HiFlyer

[FlyingInACessna 656]

1 hour ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Nope, but maxing out and expecting 1080p @60FPS should be realistic.

I don't necessarily think so. That would imply that they aren't utilizing the extent of the resources given to them and that the graphics and modeling could be better.

As Austin Meyer says about X-Plane 11, if you're getting 60 FPS, you're missing out on graphical quality and should increase your settings.

Edited July 30, 2020 by FlyingInACessna

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The main factors in any 3D app's performance are the hardware, the OS and the video driver. People can swoon over this graphics engine and that graphics engine, but the three previous factors are what really counts. If a flightsim is either devoid of critical features (like Aerofly FS2) or is more complete (like XP11 or P3d5), but run with no add-ons, sure, one can get decent performance on a wide variety of hardware and IQ settings.

MSFS has a ton of incredible features which outgun those available in a fully loaded version of P3d5.  What did you all expect? And you wonder why MSFS's ATC isn't vastly improved and it doesn't have VR for the moment.

I don't want to get too off the track, but I commend Asobo and MS for sticking to supporting one top of the line VR headset initially, rather than trying to support every headset that's out in the wild.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Well I just flew the A320 right over New york at high settings at almost 70fps.......

To bad about the autopilot, though..... 😛

[sidfadc 1,344]

I’ll be flying 1080P.  All I want is SMOOTH 30 FPS coming into EGLL in a detailed payware tube liner with AI traffic and bad weather.  If I can achieve as a minimum then everywhere else on the planet will give me higher performance.

[dfanucci 127]

1 hour ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Nope, but maxing out and expecting 1080p @60FPS should be realistic.

Uh, no.

Not realistic at all. Every sim created since the dawn of man never achieved the performance demanded by some on release... 

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

15 minutes ago, dfanucci said:

Uh, no.

Not realistic at all. Every sim created since the dawn of man never achieved the performance demanded by some on release... 

Well for me that should not be a reason for a Sim released in 2020 to do so too. Just because cars built in the last decades consume certain amount of gas doesn't mean cars built today should consume as much just because they did in the past.

[FlyingInACessna 656]

1 minute ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Well for me that should not be a reason for a Sim released in 2020 to do so too. Just because cars built in the last decades consume certain amount of gas doesn't mean cars built today should consume as much just because they did in the past.

This is more like your old car being recreated and upscaled to be the size of an 18-wheeler big rig and asking, "why is the gas mileage barely better than my old car?" when in reality it's crazy impressive that the gas mileage is actually better at all...

[OzWhitey 3,353]

9 hours ago, Slides said:

Aerofly FS2 looks like dogsh*t in comparison.

Classy, and also dubious in terms of accuracy. Have you ever flown Aerofly with an Orbx addon? Looks great.

Aerofly lacks a lot of things - developed by a very small team - but it has a very well-optimised engine.

[Slides 1,552]

4 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Classy, and also dubious in terms of accuracy. Have you ever flown Aerofly with an Orbx addon? Looks great.

Aerofly lacks a lot of things - developed by a very small team - but it has a very well-optimised engine.

No you can't gaslight me into thinking that piece of you know what doesn't look like gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

[W2DR 1,860]

Wow! A complete rehash of the last 20 years of FPSitis all in one thread. Impressive..........

[decker89 110]

10 hours ago, vin747 said:

What bugs me the most?

1. Was expecting AAA eye candy and performance.. only got the eye candy.. seems like a slideshow from the various videos and the arstechnica article.. was hoping to throw an i7/GTX1070 at it on medium settings and get smooth 60 fps at all places.. doesn't look like we found the holy grail yet.. this is FSX all over again..

2. ASOBO mentioned that the sim was so well optimized that it was barely utilizing 5% of the CPU/GPU in some article.. doesn't look like that at all.. 

3. The long pauses that i see are probably from scenery streaming, decompressing etc. maybe i should see an offline landing to compare.. 

4. Flight model behavior (and sounds) are pretty bad for the tubeliners.. knew it wont be study level, but at least expected aerofly fs2 level...

5. I get much more fluid FPS in P3D V5 & XP11 than this.. Shouldn't a next-gen platform easily beat those old sim engines?

I'm so glad i didn't pre-order this sim.. will wait to see how PMDG 777 performs at moderate settings from an established streamer who knows how to fly tubeliners. 

It is still a great sim for VFR, no doubt about it.. but was hoping it can replace my P3D V5 for the widebodies.. doesn't look that's gonna happen anytime soon.. so do I continue investing in P3D or wait for MSFS to catch up?

So I have your same specs, gtx1070 with i7. What I will say is that my performance in High settings in MFS alpha is as good as my default xp11 with similar "high" settings. Of course the visuals dont compare.

[Dermot McClusky 494]

Personally I never left MSFS 98. The frames are INSANE on my current hardware!