I just saw benchmark results and those left me disappointed.

[hangar 661]

The answer here is the same as it always has been over the years with this series.

The simmers among us will need to lower and tweak settings to suit their desired smoothness -vs- visual nirvana's according to where, geographically, you do most of your flying regardless of how good your current machine is. You will not be able to "eat your cake too" unless you fly in a graphically forgiving local, or fly in an aircraft that is less resource intensive.

There will be lots of disappointment if you think you'll be able to fly around Manhatten and JFK in a 3rd party 737 at all High settings, for example. If you want butter smooth frames for landings in graphically intense visual settings then you will need to turn down your settings as much as possible, for now.

Yes, this sim is much more well optimized than it used to be considering how much more is going on under the hood now yet getting same comparable results as in their older versions of the software...but this series is no Xplane...and what I mean by that is MSFS will not feel smooth at 15-20 frames, whereas Xplane does feel smooth at that rate (smooth enough to perform a good landing anyway). I get the feeling that as usual, in MSFS, you'll never want to dip below 20-25 frames if you want a smooth approach/landing. This will require lots of give & take for most of us who fly in intense areas of the world.

That's why, IMO, if your sole reason for buying into this software is to be able to fly around with all settings at high or extreme in graphically intense areas you would just be setting yourself up for a negative experience. I think those who stand the best chance at getting along with this new release are those who temper their visual performance expectations and are very interested in all the other aspects that the title will bring (such as physics, weather, atc, etc).

Some of us will hit the jackpot, yes...because we fly in areas mostly where the sim may perform quite well at high settings. But many of us will not and I just think that we have to be willing and ready for that as it happens after the 18th.

My own question about the graphics are: Will it end up looking alot better than what I have now after I turn down the settings so I get good smooth landings? Answer: I can't really tell yet, but even if it looks on par with what I have now perhaps the new physics will be alot better anyway! If not, then I likely won't be going anywhere 🙂

[hangar 661]

29 minutes ago, Janov said:

One thing that certainly weighs LR down is that they need/want to maintain compatibility as much as possible for all legacy add-ons and 3rd party apps. It is easier to write a completely new simulation without regard to backwards compatibility. But lack of experience? No.

Yes, lets also not forget that LR is a tiny company with a lot less man power than MS and it's managed as such (non corporate). It takes a very long time for them to release each update and it's business model as is basically has it in a constant state of Alpha/Beta since forever (which also makes it very difficult/expensive to develop for as a 3rd party).

Edited August 2, 2020 by hangar

[Janov 2,383]

8 minutes ago, hangar said:

as is basically has it in a constant state of Alpha/Beta since forever

This is not quite correct. There is always a "stable" version that is neither Alpha nor Beta.

If a user elects to do so, he can voluntarily join the Beta cycle - with all the usual caveats.

The claim that X-Plane is a moving target is a two-sided sword. Yes, you can develop for P3D and then you don´t have to touch your product again for ... never, because the simulator does not evolve core features like flight or system modeling. Is that good? Well, if the simulator is perfect, it would be. Is P3D perfect in that regard?

I have started developing an add-on for X-Plane about 10 years ago during XP9. It was released for XP10 and transferred pretty much flawlessly to XP11. And now to Vulkan. Hardly any drama.

We have recently had to spend a day or two to adjust to the new and improved flight model. No drama, either.

I am happy to be developing for a platform that tries to find the balance between backward compatibility and putting in technological advances. I could not imagine it being any other way.

Jan

 

[hangar 661]

15 minutes ago, Janov said:

There is always a "stable" version that is neither Alpha nor Beta

HI Jan...I was already referring to the stable version, as it changes roughly every 4-6 months. Whether or not you like that as a developer I think will largely depend upon what sort of product/s you develop and how much of that base reliant code in the sim changes for you, personally. For example I believe if you developed aircraft you wouldn't be so thrilled, or lucky 🙂. For the past 3 years it seems as though there are changes to either physics and other code that 3rd parties have have been needing to constantly fix/update as each "stable" version of xplane releases. It has been a nightmare for many of the 3rd parties who make planes as they seem to be effected more than everyone else over the years.

Like yourself, I also like that xplane is always updating and trying to improve as I feel that is very important for obvious reasons, but as you said...it can really be a double edge sword as its more time consuming and expensive for many developers (and customers too who need to pay for new planes all the time because most of the old ones dont get updated by their authors, or it takes forever).

XP seems to require a longer period of commitment to get the most out of it (im talking 5 years+) whereas something like FSX never really changed much after it's release. Now, however, with this new 10 year plan thing from MS perhaps things will truly get interesting 🙂

Edited August 2, 2020 by hangar

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

and now I understand Janov's loyalty towards X-plane.  XP11 , even with Vulkan,  it still a CPU single threaded mess. It always has been this way.  Now we have finally have new player in tow that is willing to build that thing we always dreams. a real VFR worthy sim.  It might not matter to you if you only fly airliners but for GA folks , this is a big deal.   Don't forget the game is still in beta yet and normally optimization gets done last.  There is also DX12 on the roadmap which also will bring another level of performance. 

I think the major difference between MS/ Asobo and LR is as hinted by RSR at pmdg, When 3rd party ask Asobo if they can do something , they answer is always, sure we can try. He hinted that this was not the case with others. I believe deeply that Austin just does what Austin does. I might be one of the reason why the DC-6 was abandon in Xplane.   I think XP11 has enough loyal fan that it's going to be fine for now but you will slowly see people move away from it if things don't change drastically. 

[Chock 17,769]

 

25 minutes ago, Janov said:

technological advances. I could not imagine it being any other way.

Jan

That's fine in theory as far as developing goes, and if you are happy to work that way, then good luck.

But as an example of those who are not, PMDG are on record as saying that one of the reasons they wouldn't be doing their 747 for XPlane was because it couldn't support stuff they wanted to do and they didn't want to dumb it down, and it's not as if they didn't try doing anything for XPlane, they had a go at it before they drew this conclusion. Conversely, they came right out and said they're gonna have at the new MS sim straight away, so it's quite apparent that there is something very different between how MS and LR go about things which is affecting that process.

Similarly, whilst some ESP stuff makes it over to XPlane, the big realism ones which everyone rates never do and are conspicuous by their absence in XPlane. Majestic Dash 8, iFly and PMDG Boeings, FSL Buses, and many more which would make this a really long list if I named them. Part of that is the fact that XPlane is a moving target as far as developing goes which means it is a real risk to commit to a five-year development process on something of that nature.

There are some pretty decent payware TPD airliners in XPlane which you can have fun with (personally I like that A350), but its not geared toward complex airliners enough to make it a realistic prospect for many developers froma commercial sense standpoint. And I can sympathise with their decision too, because I've tried to like it in this regard, and found it's just not up to snuff and that's the truth of it. Great for GA, but for airliners, not so much.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Chock

[Huascar 179]

The underlying reality is that you shouldn’t expect perfect frames in a flight simulator packed with amazing  sceneries. The hardware technology isn’t there yet. But here is the thing - I guess third party add-ons could make MSFS 2020 impossible to fly. Think PMDG, New York City and ultra high graphics. It ain’t happening. Complex airplanes with high texture resolution will be tough.

[HiFlyer 9,371]

10 minutes ago, Huascar said:

The underlying reality is that you shouldn’t expect perfect frames in a flight simulator packed with amazing  sceneries. The hardware technology isn’t there yet. But here is the thing - I guess third party add-ons could make MSFS 2020 impossible to fly. Think PMDG, New York City and ultra high graphics. It ain’t happening. Complex airplanes with high texture resolution will be tough.

The reason I suspect that PMDG and others are so excited, is that given this new tech, they don't agree with that.......

[threexgreen 3,156]

How many of you in this thread are actually Alpha testers? I'm not asking to be condescending or anything but because in the last days since the veil was lifted a bit I've seen tons of premature conclusions about this sim based solely on the released PR videos and some side info. Don't get me wrong, videos can tell a lot, but ultimately it's how the simulator runs on your system with your settings while you do your kind of flight simming. There are tons of variables that come into play that determine how the simulator performs in your specific case that one can perhaps begin to derive from PR videos, but it's not much more than that.

I've found that this simulator performs well and better than my P3D installation on my system over the course of various Alphas. Even at the Ultra settings preset. On top of that I still get tons of eye candy even at lower settings which still outdo P3D with addons for me.

This simulator will not be perfect and it won't be perfect in terms of performance either, but it's a significant improvement over P3D nonetheless. I can't speak for XP as I've never tried it and that's exactly the reason why I won't judge its performance: because I've never had it running on my own system.

So I think people might want to dial back a bit on the conclusions being drawn here and in other forums as well. There is simply no way to know that e. g. addon aircraft will be impossible to fly in MSFS with decent settings. The overall picture I get from all the performance discussions across the community seems to be that most people have already put the "looks good, performs bad" tag on the simulator based on PR videos while the thing isn't even released yet. If it was performing that badly I don't think 414 developers would have adjusted or created their roadmap to work on addon stuff for months.

Edited August 2, 2020 by threegreen
I can't grammar.

[Huascar 179]

I am 100% in for MSFS 2020. I think it’s majestic and comprehensive. My view is that once you start brining in third party add-ons, you are inviting degraded performance. The default planes, at least for me, will be sufficient. I don’t need a PMDG plane that will cut my frames rates by 20 or 30 percent. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Huascar

[GBee777 8]

35 minutes ago, Huascar said:

The underlying reality is that you shouldn’t expect perfect frames in a flight simulator packed with amazing  sceneries. The hardware technology isn’t there yet. But here is the thing - I guess third party add-ons could make MSFS 2020 impossible to fly. Think PMDG, New York City and ultra high graphics. It ain’t happening. Complex airplanes with high texture resolution will be tough.

Agreed. For me, FS2020 will be a "Scenery Simulator" with a bit of VFR sightseeing thrown in. As part of Games for Xbox, it's a freebie...!

For the next year or two, I'll keep with P3D for serious stuff.

[Wewk584 137]

8 minutes ago, Huascar said:

I am 100% in for MSFS 2020. I think it’s majestic and comprehensive. My view is that once you start brining in third party add-ons, you are inviting degraded performance. The default planes, at least for me, will be sufficient. I don’t need a PMDG plane that will cut my frames rates by 20 or 30 percent. 

That will be the case for many people.. I will say, however, I think the SIM itself will need PMDG (and/or other study level add on makers)  Just for the added credibility.  

[GBee777 8]

27 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

The reason I suspect that PMDG and others are so excited, is that given this new tech, they don't agree with that.......

Of course they don't.  They make 'em and people will buy 'em... heck... even me !

They (and I) will spend 2 years moaning...just like it was with FSX, and then hardware will arrive that will improve the situation.

Then,  as usual, all the devs will "up the ante" ....8K textures, bigger this, better that, and so on. It's a never-ending arms war, with its roots in 'Parkinson's Law'.

Quite amusing how history will always repeat itself.

[threexgreen 3,156]

11 minutes ago, Huascar said:

I am 100% in for MSFS 2020. I think it’s majestic and comprehensive. My view is that once you start brining in third party add-ons, you are inviting degraded performance. The default planes, at least for me, will be sufficient. I don’t need a PMDG plane that will cut my frames rates by 20 or 30 percent. 

You're right about the performance hit that comes with many third-party addons, but that's just how it works when you throw more and more at the simulator and your system to handle and that's always been the case with any simulator before. There is no reason why this would or should be any different for MSFS. That still doesn't mean however that you won't be able to fly with addons. Performance will go down and you'll likely also have to adjust your settings in certain scenarios, but in any case, based on my own testing experience at least, performance should still be less of a worry than with P3D, even with addons like complex aircraft.

I'll also reiterate what I said in my previous post. Even at lower settings this simulator looks amazing. Given that graphics are arguably what's impressing people the most about this simulator I think many, subconsciously at least, 'shudder' at the thought of having to reduce graphics settings. But it's really not that big of a deal.

[odourboy 1,290]

30 minutes ago, Huascar said:

I am 100% in for MSFS 2020. I think it’s majestic and comprehensive. My view is that once you start brining in third party add-ons, you are inviting degraded performance. The default planes, at least for me, will be sufficient. I don’t need a PMDG plane that will cut my frames rates by 20 or 30 percent. 

Not me. I want the highest fidelity aircraft available.