I just saw benchmark results and those left me disappointed.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

24 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Let’s not be naive. I

It is excited that MSFS is going to be released but let’s be realistic: you will have to find the right balance between quality and performance for you.

 

For the sake of discussion, Gerard. 

I am not exactly the naive kind of guy 😄 but I am a little wary of such a generalization. We have a new software construction built from scratch for today hardware (including very powerful GPU) with new ideas on how to do things. Not a slightly pimped up version of our old loves.  A good example is the FPS decoupling as presented  in the aerodynamics trailers.

Will the new construction be up to snuff performance-wise. ? I do not know but the general history of personal computing over 45 years now , as I have lived it (YMMV),  shows that the accumulation of new features can go fairly  well with an amelioration of performances (not always there are duds ).

One thing is sure, there is a parameter relatively new to our hobby, the streaming, which will be a road block or  a source of stutters for many. But there is not much that you can do except going on a hunger strike in front of your City Hall building with a « I Want Fiber » placard around your neck.

[Slides 1,552]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

Good to know that you can apparently read my mind to the point where you know what I do and do not understand, and all this from reading a couple of posts on a forum. 🤣

I mean that's how language and communication works.

[GSalden 4,657]

Downloading tiles and converting them into the ground as you see it can take a lot of performance, depending on the resolution.

The idea of using map tiles is not something new as Tile Proxy already provided it for FSX ( starting about 10 years ago ). The max speed you could fly and not see blurries was 90-120 knots...

[HiFlyer 9,359]

32 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Downloading tiles and converting them into the ground as you see it can take a lot of performance, depending on the resolution.

The idea of using map tiles is not something new as Tile Proxy already provided it for FSX ( starting about 10 years ago ). The max speed you could fly and not see blurries was 90-120 knots...

Of course, average internet speeds back then were also much slower, so......

[suncoastflyer 685]

I would just like to say, if you want to have 1080p 60FPS locked, you can. The settings in this sim scale really well.

I dare say this is pretty much the first "next-gen" game we are getting our hands on. Current hardware will not be able to keep up if we want to crank the settings.

I for one am happy to increase visual fidelity in exchange for some FPS in a flight sim, I'm not snapping crosshairs to kill enemies with a 360, the camera is mostly fixed, and the world moves around me in a steady rate.

(can I just say, this runs way better than I expected for the level of detail, that's just a credit to the new rendering engine. Imagine ESP with all this detail jammed in there. Even with the performance boost DX12 gave, that headroom would be eaten up in no time if more modern rendering techniques were added to that engine)

[HiFlyer 9,359]

51 minutes ago, suncoastflyer said:

Imagine ESP with all this detail jammed in there.

This is a point we all might consider keeping in mind.

I remember purchasing Skymaxx for X-plane.

While the program certainly advanced the sims cloud depiction, the simple fact was/is that heavy weather slowed the sim to a crawl, especially with God-rays and a wide viewing distance and other settings that became available. In fact, many of the settings seemed to me to be simply too heavy for regular use.

We also know how detailed water and reflection settings can be in all of our sims, not to even mention shadows and tree and building density.

Almost all of us have spent years learning to balance the trade-offs of graphics vs speed in our legacy sims, and this very forum conservatively probably has thousands of posts and threads on the subject, even as we buy new graphics cards and computers, chasing a better experience that seems always just a few hours of tweaking out of reach.

Now we have this new sim, with beautiful reflections and shadows, including self shadowing throughout multiple layers of clouds with a density and view-distance unheard off in volumetric depictions, gorgeous night lighting, realistic grass and bushes, 3D trees tessellation.......

The list goes on and on....... and on, and its clear that just about everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown in there.

Yet here we are, some of us already unhappy that with all of this going on this new sim "only" runs a little bit faster than our current sims with all these new settings and effects enabled.

Its....... like getting your beat up old Volkswagen bug replaced with a Maserati, then complaining that its not worth it because you're are still stuck with a 65 mph speed limit on the highway......

Alrighty then. Lets..... go with that, I guess.

(Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the 3090's to come out)

Edited July 31, 2020 by HiFlyer

[GSalden 4,657]

40 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Of course, average internet speeds back then were also much slower, so......

10 years ago I had 100 mb/s IN and today I have 250 mb/s

Tile Proxy could not generate the tiles from G..gle fast enough on my system above 110 knots and that was without AG...

[LHookins 3,103]

Lots of cloud layers in P3D with Active Sky would affect frame rates too.  So far I haven't noticed this in MSFS.  That's not to say it's not there, just that I haven't noticed it.

Hook

[HiFlyer 9,359]

2 minutes ago, GSalden said:

10 years ago I had 100 mb/s IN and today I have 250 mb/s

Tile Proxy could not generate the tiles from G..gle fast enough on my system above 110 knots and that was without AG...

I think streaming and especially data compression has come a long way since then. I remember even with a good connection how things stuttered in streaming scenery such as the original Viewterra (Now known as Viewterra evolution) and how things steadily advanced for Google Earth 3D, Outerra and others, finally leading onto this new sim.

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

15 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Lots of cloud layers in P3D with Active Sky would affect frame rates too.  So far I haven't noticed this in MSFS.  That's not to say it's not there, just that I haven't noticed it.

Hook

That was one of the first things I noticed when testing. One of the first things I did was turn the clouds on and off, and then try various levels of density. It actually took me a while to accept how little effect comparatively  even the hugest storms had on FPS.

[psolk 3,040]

20 hours ago, andyjohnston.net said:

60 fps?  That's more than double what the eye can see.  Remember that movies only run at 24, and do they look choppy to you?

Oh PLEASE don't start this again.  One of the most misinformed pieces of information sadly still floating around... 

[HighBypass 2,339]

Hmm... Loads up flightsim and goes flying..

Doesn't look smooth... calls up FPS display... dials back some settings until I'm flying smoothly, in that I perceive "smooth" via my own eyes looking at my own monitor..

Glances at FPS indicator for reference.. turns off FPS indicator.. doesn't care if it's showing 124 fps or 24 if I see "smooth"

[KenG 492]

3 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Glances at FPS indicator for reference.. turns off FPS indicator.. doesn't care if it's showing 124 fps or 24 if I see "smooth"

This. If you turn off the fps monitor most cannot tell how many fps the game is pushing. 

FPS are only a tool for testing various hardware and tweaking your system for a smooth and stutter free environment.

It is like the dyno kiddies and horsepower. Dynometers don't win races. 

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

9 hours ago, wim123 said:

this is totally unrealistic expecxtations, so0 you sure are going to be dissapointed.

you create your own dissapointment.

Yeah i rather create my own dissapointment than play a choppy sim at 30FPS...sad but thats the way it is. I'll buy it anyway and see what's doable and what's not. If it doesn't satisfy my needs it'll be sent to rest like FSX did some years ago.

Edited July 31, 2020 by ThomseN_inc

[odourboy 1,289]

Can someone in the know comment on how much system memory is required so as to not be a limiting factor? I have a upper midrange system with 16Gb (see signature). Will adding 16Gb more make any difference?