30 fps IS all you need, i have 35 fps on ultra settings 1920*1080 and it is butter smooth.

4 minutes 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?

I hope this is sarcastic.

If you have a nice system, running @ 1080p will no problem at all 

2 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

I hope this is sarcastic.

😂 😂 😂 

5 minutes ago, jlund said:

I really don't get why fps is such a big deal? In all the time I have used flightsims (20+ years) I have NEVER used the fps counter, no I'm not kidding. Whether it would say 10 fps or 60, I really don't care as long as is flies and feels smooth, and if not, I know I have to turn the settings down, until it does.

I don't think there has ever been a sim out which has run flawlessly with the PC's of that time, but we all upgrade them bit by bit and at some time we get a good looking and fluent experience, if we only accept that maybe we can't run everything at ultra settings. I still have a fairly old system, but I'm not worried until I have MSFS installed and see how it actually runs on it, before I think of upgrading.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not new to Flightsimming. I went through all that suffering as everyone did. I just can't play a game or a sim at below 60FPS. I really cant. And i do not believe anyone saying "The human eye can see 24FPS so your sim should be smooth at 30." It's just not true.

This isn't meant to be a trollpost or something but some people seem to never have experienced a game at or above 60FPS. For example i play Death Stranding at the moment at 120FPS and even turning it down to 60FPS makes a whole world of a difference in smoothness. Believe it or not. :)

I don't care about fps as long the sim runs smooth. had to live with fps way below 30 in FSX and it was still flyable

saying that you dont want 60 fps is just being in denial.. once you see how fluid things are at 60 you can't go back to 25 fps.. even in P3D or XP11 i get 60 fps in wing view, etc.. and it feels sooo smooth.. 

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?

It is like any advanced software, if you try to push it far beyond what your hardware is capable of then of course it will not perform great. If you manage your expectations and adjust the settings reasonably then you will find an enjoyable experience. 

On video cards there are versions specifically designed to suck air through them like a jet engine because they are overclocked by the manufactures. So hardware that is being pushed beyond nVidia's stock limits will need exotic cooling. I would be careful with any reviews and realize that some peoples home setup will be different. My nVidia manufactured GTX 1070FE has no problems and does not sound like a jet engine despite being hammered at 100%. 

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by KenG

How you fly can also make a significant difference in FPS. I would expect the combination of flying low and fast over a dense area to put the max stress on the system as it tries to keep up with the fast changing detailed scenery. Flying low and slow, or high (less scenery detail) and fast, over the same area should put less stress on the system. Fortunately, the FAA says you can't fly over 250 kts below 10,000 ft.  🙂

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by ark

5 minutes ago, vin747 said:

so do I continue investing in P3D or wait for MSFS to catch up?

I would say if you're hoping to get 60FPS in ALL places with a 1070, please, please, please, for all our sakes, go back to XP11 or P3D. 

1 hour ago, cepact said:

I think at this point we have to accept the fact that we will sadly never have a flight simulator running smoothly at 60 fps

Unless you try Aerofly FS2. Even a mediocre PC can run that at 200 fps.

And incidentally, the human eye is not a movie camera, projector or computer monitor, it does not have a frame rate, it sees stuff in a continuous stream of info.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Chock

1 minute ago, Chock said:

Unless you try Aerofly FS2. Even a mediocre PC can run that at 200 fps.

Exactly... I have flown into LAX at 200 FPS with all settings on ULTRA in Aerofly FS2.. so i was hoping that at least 30 FPS should be easily possible on medium settings.. some of the videos show the sim struggling at 10 fps or so.. you can see how jittery it is when they pan the camera around the vc.. if default planes are like this, imagine what PMDG 777 can do to this?

Delete -- duplicate

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by ark

11 minutes ago, vin747 said:

2. ASOBO mentioned that the sim was so well optimized that it was barely utilizing 5% of the CPU/GPU in some

If this isn't a clear cut case of wishful thinking turned into a fact then I don't know what it is. I've been paying pretty close attention to the project and haven't heard anything like this before. Can you find the source?

They mentioned the flight model calculation takes 10% of the cpu resources. Surely this statement didn't derive from that? That would be just brain dead.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Kopteeni