I can't believe that I can run it on "ultra" smoothly... wow

[Weatherman 193]

2 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You obviously have no clue of who you are talking to. Pointing out a reality is not bashing the sim and at 55, I have no reason to whine.

But since you decided to issue a personal attack when all I tried to do was issue a warning, I'll simply add you to my ignore list.

I did not intend to attack you personally. But having the intention to give others helpful information based on personal experience and being accused to spread false information in combination with a demand to stop that feels like a personal attack as well.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

The amount of useless posts is increasing exponentially by the minute, as was to be expected.

I'm still waiting for solid comparisons between low/medium/high/ultra settings across a range of hardware.

[CFIJose 5,485]

Just now, Weatherman said:

I did not intend to attack you personally. But having the intention to give others helpful information based on personal experience and being accused to spread false information in combination with a demand to stop that feels like a personal attack as well.

I did not mean to attack you personally either and you are not the first to come to AVSIM after a fresh new sim is released and make claims about high fps and old hardware. A few weeks later simmers find out the truth.

 

3 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

The amount of useless posts is increasing exponentially by the minute, as was to be expected.

LOL

[ajaybala 66]

avg of 24 fps with 2160p high. rtx2070 i9 9900k 32 gb

[ckyliu 1,749]

49 minutes ago, Weatherman said:

No it's not useless. I just wanted to give the advice to everyone, to first try and then judge whether you want to upgrade your hardware.

We can't make a judgement because we haven't got all the info we need: your resolution, external view, scaling (as I stated before); it's not information or advice because you haven't provided context, you could be at 1024x768 over Greenland in external view! You're not being attacked or nitpicked, we're just trying to make what you've said actually mean something to us.

I can travel at 50 mph with a full stomach... if I'm on a pedal bike that's very impressive, if I'm on a long distance train that's poor, if I'm in a car that's normal - context is key

Edited August 18, 2020 by ckyliu

[Rodster 0]

I signed up so I can post a reply in this thread which I found by Googling i7-3770K and if it would work with FS2020. Well it does work and I was rather surprised since my CPU was not listed under the minimum specs.

My pre-built  rig is 7 yrs old and my specs are i7-3770K, 16GB G-Skill RAM, GTX 780 and a 7200 RPM HDD. My experience and system performance was somewhat different from the OP. FS2020 set my default graphics setting at "MEDIUM". I live in SW Florida so my local Airport is just south of the Sarasota-Bradenton airport. Taking off in a Cessna at night heading towards Sarasota was decent, there was some skipping and stuttering but it smoothed out after 2-3 minutes. As I got closer to the Sarasota-Bradenton airport that's when things got really choppy and FS2020 momentarily froze. My HDD light came on and once it was thru loading terrain it came back but was still choppy.

I'm not discrediting the OP because I have had games that defy logic and run at 60FPS in ultra-high settings and the most recent is the racing game Automobilista 2. Some games can run great on one machine and not so much on a different similarly spec'd PC.

I've been playing MSFS since 1991 (MS4.0) so I plan on buying a new rig or building it myself again but i'm waiting for the Intel Rocket Lake and the AMD Zen 3 4xxx CPU's to drop before I consider buying a new pre-built machine (looking at Alienware or buying the parts to build it myself.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Rodster

[Rodster 0]

So I tried it again this time HIGH-END graphics, Windowed Mode 1600x900, same aircraft, flight plan but daytime flight, and DATA is now ON. Now I average between 15-20 FPS. Not bad but not great either.

[Gomoto 31]

I can't believe you as well.

[RXP 2,338]

On 8/18/2020 at 5:57 AM, Weatherman said:

I simply can't believe that I can run it on "ultra" settings smoothly... on my i7 3770k with a GTX 970. That is just insane. Wow.

Many can't believe you can either 😈

Edited August 20, 2020 by RXP

[RudiJG1 172]

On 8/18/2020 at 6:38 AM, Ricardo41 said:

The amount of useless posts is increasing exponentially by the minute, as was to be expected.

I'm still waiting for solid comparisons between low/medium/high/ultra settings across a range of hardware.

not exactly what you might be looking for, but perhaps a start:
 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/microsoft-flight-simulator-(2020)-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,1.html

Edited August 20, 2020 by RudiJG1

[Nedo68 533]

folks, listen, you dont have to play with just one setting ie. medium or high,

as an example if you have alot ram on your GPU you can easy leave Texture Resolution on Ultra,

absolutely no fps impact, otherwise you have to lower it maybe.

I run a mixed setup with medium, high and ultra settings.

Another example are Terrain Level Of Detail and Objects Level of Detail, going over 100 will hit your FPS

and for flying 100 is more then enough if you dont pause the Sim to recognize everything in the Ultra far distance 😂

or maybe for the special Screenshot.

Render Scale is the only thing i change now depending where i fly, i try to keep allways 60FPS,

if i see my FPS drops to 50 i decrease Render Scale just one step back.

Some places gives me 80 and more FPS so i increase Render Scale.

 

...I going to fly now, checking a small Airfield near Berlin, never been there but a good friend is skydiving there, cu!

 

 

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

I have a 6700K @ 4.2. A GTX1070 Stryx with 8gb ram 32gb 3200 DDR4. On installation the default settings, High End, I left alone. Apart from tussling with the controls everything looked better than I EVER expected.

Just for a laugh I switched over to Ultra, fully  expecting a stutterfest and a lot of complaining, but no, it runs as sweet as a nut. I was amazed.

Maybe people who have just laid out for expensive new gear don't want to hear this but it's true.

If it does all go tits up I WILL come back and say so.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

3 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

I have a 6700K @ 4.2. A GTX1070 Stryx with 8gb ram 32gb 3200 DDR4. On installation the default settings, High End, I left alone. Apart from tussling with the controls everything looked better than I EVER expected.

Just for a laugh I switched over to Ultra, fully  expecting a stutterfest and a lot of complaining, but no, it runs as sweet as a nut. I was amazed.

 

Try ultra when flying over NY, specifically the Empire State Building area. It totally depends on where you are flying and how dense the area is.

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by SceneryFX

[David Mills 4,771]

The only people doing 60 frames a second in large cities are corrupt prosecutors and police chiefs.

[eslader 1,783]

4 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

Try ultra when flying over NY, specifically the Empire State Building area. It totally depends on where you are flying and how dense the area is.

 

Yeah, but that's true of the previous sim too. Actually the previous sim didn't run smoothly for me over NYC, and while my computer isn't the absolutely most powerful system you can get, it's no slouch either.

I'd be impressed with a 970 running at ultra settings smoothly in the middle of the ocean. While the OP didn't give us enough to fully evaluate what he said, I think there's a nugget of useful info in there, and I didn't take his OP to mean "all you need is a 970 to run at ultra at 60fps in 4k over the densest area in the sim."