Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ThomseN_inc

I just saw benchmark results and those left me disappointed.

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, threegreen said:

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.

Mostly agree. Since I have not tested MSFS 2020, I will withhold judgement. Just keep in mind the CPU improvement in the last 10 years has been marginal. We’ve gone from 4.6ghz to 5.3GHz in ten years. This is hardly  enough to process all the complexities and sceneries we demand from a flight simulator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 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. 

Luckily, PMDG has said that there was almost no noticeable performance decrease with their new 737NG3 that they’re working on!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a "Next-Gen" flight sim that even plays well on older hardware - please use real info rather than "he said, she said"
if you are really interested on what your performance might look like watch this

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huascar said:

The hardware technology isn’t there yet. 

Where have I heard this before? 🧐

Edited by Ianrivaldosmith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself that video is not very useful because:

1. 3rd person view is used which is notoriously faster than 1st person cockpit view due to all the panel gauges not needing to render (simmers use cockpit view, gamers use 3rd person, generally speaking).

2. The scenery tested is at hgher altitudes than you'll be using on approach/landing. The lower your altitude the lower your frame rate will be and it's on final approach when you'll need the most out of your performance to get smooth landings/controls.

3. The scenery used is easy on frames to begin with.

4. Aircraft used is default (of course it is since no 3rd parties available yet). Default aircraft will yield much better frames than 3rd party.

Do this test in 1st person cockpit view on final approach at various busy airports...with stormy weather and you'll see an entirely different story unfold. Just an educated guess of course as I'm not a tester, but im guessing half the frames, roughly.

Edited by hangar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hangar said:

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).

Stop making excuses for LR....small companies can "grow" to meet demands.

Austin had other projects going on (mobile apps etc.) that took away from from the development of X-Plane...and I am not faulting him for that...he is much bigger than X-Plane.

However, he did not see X-Plane as a priority and it shows. The sim got stagnant, he ignored basic things like clouds etc. As "he" said, he spends no money on market research...etc.

As the flight sim genre grew, the demands grew, and now requires a more robust development platform. Austin has been at this for 2 decades....and did not change "his" company / philosophy (nor did he partner with other companies) to meet that demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AirWayMan said:

its a "Next-Gen" flight sim that even plays well on older hardware - please use real info rather than "he said, she said"
if you are really interested on what your performance might look like watch this

 

Very interesting perspective. I was not expecting highly complex planes, but it appears as though MS is giving us a full package. What add-ons could I possibly want if I have majestic sceneries with complex aircrafts and super realistic aerodynamics and weather conditions?  I will not rush to spends hundreds or even thousands of dollars in add-ons that could only degrade a near perfect flight simulation experience. To my point, I want to spend as little time as possible troubleshooting and more time flying. 

Edited by Huascar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlyingInACessna said:

Luckily, PMDG has said that there was almost no noticeable performance decrease with their new 737NG3 that they’re working on!

Mmmm - how did they accomplish it this time? PMDG has been a frame killer in every platform. What’s different this time? I guess you have to pay $140 to find out. Of course they’ll say their planes have no impact on frames - what did you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

Stop making excuses for LR

I'm not certain but it sounds as if you may have missed the point. It's not about excuses at all, as  I have no agenda in defending either company (LR or MS). I have supported both and will likely continue to do so.

I was merely stating some facts about who & what LR is. It IS tiny and is simply not run as a public corporation like MS who's sole purpose is profits and answering to board members and stock holders. Austin runs it they way he wants as the code is his and so is the business. It's no mistake that it ends up taking ages to see large improvements because you're right...the software is NOT his #1 priority in his life. He doesn't need the money, never did. It's his passion, clearly, and will always remain that way. XP will always have its user base, its not going anywhere too soon regardless of what happens with the MS series, but it was always been that way for the past 25 years or so. XP is what it is...and MS leaving the genre behind for more than 10 years has give LR some catch-up time, but that catch up time is useless for LR because they are not in a race to begin with and could never compete in a time based race due to the obvious limitations they choose to operate by.

XP's biggest advantage to it's user base is that it's author/owner is a real world pilot and he employs other real world pilots which contribute to the project. But along with that advantage there are a few big disadvantages, some of which I was only trying to point out. The fact that it is somewhat of a dictatorship (and I use that term very loosely, mind you) enables the company to get in the way of itself.

Again, no excuses for anyone...there are clear advantages AND disadvantages to each way you do it.

Edited by hangar
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Huascar said:

Mmmm - how did they accomplish it this time? PMDG has been a frame killer in every platform. What’s different this time? I guess you have to pay $140 to find out. Of course they’ll say their planes have no impact on frames - what did you expect?

It makes sense - this sim is GPU intensive and leaves the CPU open, so PMDG systems can capitalize on the lack of CPU usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

It makes sense - this sim is GPU intensive and leaves the CPU open, so PMDG systems can capitalize on the lack of CPU usage.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The reason why PMDG was a frame killer in the single thread nature of P3D.  It has nothing to do with GPU usage.  If you pause the game, you will gain close to 70% performance. It just mean the sim is pilling all the draw call and flight dynamics on the same core.


https://fsprocedures.com Your home for all flight simulator related checklist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Huascar said:

I will not rush to spends hundreds or even thousands of dollars in add-ons that could only degrade a near perfect flight simulation experience. To my point, I want to spend as little time as possible troubleshooting and more time flying. 

Standing on shaky ground, I will say that many features currently part of the base sim are those we would expect from complex pmdg level aircraft, and sure enough, fps slowed to the expected degree at first, especially within the cockpit.

Over the next updates however, that slowdown essentially disappeared, and though I could be wrong, I suspect strongly that the slowdowns experienced in our legacy sims when using complex 3rd party aircraft will be much, much less of an issue in this new sim than some are suspecting and bracing for.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things worth bearing in mind for both those who like the default aeroplanes with some complexity, and those awaiting PMDG stuff who might have concerns about system overhead...

The default A320 in the new sim does simulate quite a lot of the flight protection modes of the real thing pretty well from what I can see, and although it might not rival FSL, nor be able to simulate the flight attendant call light above passenger 57's head, it's a lot better than you might think for a default aeroplane. A big improvement on default stuff in other sims, to the point where it does actually rival some payware airliners; maybe not the best ones, but certainly some you'd pay 40 quid for in FSX or P3D.

PMDG really got their act together on optimising stuff when they made their 747-400 for FSX and then P3D. The frame rates that thing manages and the fact it does really well in not prompting a 32 Bit OOM error for FSX on such a limited amount of addressing overhead, was nothing short of amazing. Say what you like about PMDG, but the team which made that 747-400 didn't half know how to squeeze some FPS out of a complex aeroplane.

Edited by Chock

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Huascar said:

Mostly agree. Since I have not tested MSFS 2020, I will withhold judgement. Just keep in mind the CPU improvement in the last 10 years has been marginal. We’ve gone from 4.6ghz to 5.3GHz in ten years. This is hardly  enough to process all the complexities and sceneries we demand from a flight simulator. 

Clock speed doesn’t tell the whole story. We have gone from 2 cores to 6-12+ cores as mainstream and some pretty big IPC improvements. GN did a pretty interesting video a couple weeks back of the 4790k vs modern processors, and while it delivered “acceptable” performance in some modern titles it was thoroughly beat in non oc and overclocked fashion but modern (this gen and the previous gen) Intel and amd processors at stock speeds let alone overclocks. 
 


Nick Silver

http://www.youtube.com/user/socalf1fan

Ryzen 7 5800x, 32gb ddr4 3200mhz ram, RTX 3080 FE, HP Reverb G2 v2, 4K Tv Monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...