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

[JimmiG 244]

A lot of reviewers and non-simmers ("gamers") consider games these days unplayable if they ever drop below 60 FPS. That's why there are so many complaints about the frame-rate in MSFS. Those coming from X-Plane and especially FSX/P3D on the other hand are used to flight sims barely running over 30 FPS (in fact, many still limited the FPS to 30 Max to avoid micro stutters), so seeing a flight sim run at even 35 - 40 FPS is mindblowing.

On my system, there isn't any one setting that causes the frame rate to tank, but the cumulative effect of all the different enhancements between High and Ultra cause a somewhat noticeable difference between the two presets. I started with the recommended High, but cranked a few things up to Ultra. Still getting very decent frame rates.

Edited August 20, 2020 by AdvancedFollower

[MarkW 1,494]

15 minutes ago, Nedo68 said:

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!

 

 

Very informative, I have been playing around with setting but cannot figure out which ones will impact frames and what they all do re: quality of the scenery.  I have an 8700K Overclocked and a 1080Ti card.  16GB of ram.

[SeanMo 140]

4 minutes ago, MarkW said:

Very informative, I have been playing around with setting but cannot figure out which ones will impact frames and what they all do re: quality of the scenery.  I have an 8700K Overclocked and a 1080Ti card.  16GB of ram.

Maybe this will help:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-graphics-settings-and-performance-guide-8-18-2020/132407

BTW, your 8700K is fairly close to my 9700 and I believe your 1080ti close to my 2060. I too have 16GB of RAM and am loving 1080p Ultra.

[Nedo68 533]

1 minute ago, MarkW said:

Very informative, I have been playing around with setting but cannot figure out which ones will impact frames and what they all do re: quality of the scenery.  I have an 8700K Overclocked and a 1080Ti card.  16GB of ram.

i think someone will post some guides in the next days, i just dont have time to talk about everything i wanna fly now 😉

But i would set Clouds allways on Ultra because they look really best on Ultra.

I also have just a small Impact wit FPS if i set Reflections to Ultra, visually reflections on water looking best too with this setup.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

The actual frame rate doesn't seem to be a great indication of how smoothly it is running, unlike FSX/P3D/XP11 (where it was a good indication).

Hence there can be choppiness even at 40fps, and then later 25 fps looks fine. Of course once it gets under 20, it's almost always bad.

It could just be the XBOX FPS overlay counter I am using isn't working perfectly.

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by SceneryFX

[David Mills 4,774]

I completely agree with @SceneryFX: "The actual frame rate doesn't seem to be a great indication of how smoothly it is running."

I'm getting good frame rates, but I'm currently experiencing the stutters, some of which are caused by problems with SimConnect and some caused by the CPU spiking to 100 despite lowered resolutions and lowered settings. Asobo is well aware of both these problems, and I'm sure they'll be updating the sim soon to correct them.

[MatthewS 761]

On 8/18/2020 at 8:53 PM, ajaybala said:

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

Just for fun try running Render Scale at 90%, 80% and 70% to see how much it improves FPS (at the slight cost of image quality).

[March Hare 720]

3 hours 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.

 

Mine runs fine over Manhattan on ultra, at 1080p, with a GTX 1070. Live weather but no live air traffic. Still, it really does run nicely.

[ajaybala 66]

8 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Just for fun try running Render Scale at 90%, 80% and 70% to see how much it improves FPS (at the slight cost of image quality).

Thanks for the suggestion.

[MrFuzzy 2,121]

10 hours ago, SeanMo said:

Maybe this will help:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-graphics-settings-and-performance-guide-8-18-2020/132407

BTW, your 8700K is fairly close to my 9700 and I believe your 1080ti close to my 2060. I too have 16GB of RAM and am loving 1080p Ultra.

The 1080 Ti is closer to the 2080 standard. Very nice guide anyway, should be put on sticky!

Edited August 21, 2020 by MrFuzzy

[EBanalian 19]

Hard to believe. My specs ivy @4500 24GB 2400 RAM SSD 1080Ti and i'm getting 25-27 drops and stutters to 5-6fps on medium and high settings 4k 

[Marco Manieri 194]

4k is 4 times 1080p that is probably the resolution of the previous poster.

My i7 3770k and GTX 1660 super are giving 25/40 fps in 1080p with base high settings with some notches upped to ultra in GA planes standard scenery areas.

Prior to the 18th I was sure a new rig was needed and a 1600€ build was ready on partspicker.

I took the 1€ game pass just to have a glimpse to the sim and I also had a huge surprise being able to fly as well if not better than in P3D v3 (I know, it's old) with orbx global/lc + regions.

Will now wait longer for a new rig build to see the new CPUs and GPUs and the effects on current gen parts prices

[scotchegg 4,217]

24 minutes ago, EBanalian said:

4k

There's the difference.

[ShawnG 1,823]

It’s getting to the point where I think that as a society, we need to start issuing 4k licenses.  In order to purchase any 4K monitor or tv, you will have to undergo training about how much harder your system has to work in order to push all those pixels that you probably can’t even see because you bought a size screen where 4K is functionally indistinguishable from 1080p.  They will have to sign a paper indicating that they understand that by purchasing a slightly more expensive 4K screen, that it means they have to purchase a ridiculously more expensive gpu.  Any license applicants who insist that their 13 inch laptop screen be 4k should simply be executed.

after that we can work on VR licenses.

[RaptyrOne 1,447]

I'm running everything to the max, except ground vehicle and shipping traffic. I set up a flight out of Chicago and flew around the city in the C172. Set a broken cloud layer, so plenty of cloud cover. Performed really well. I have not set FPS to show on the screen, quite frankly I don't want to know but it has to be in the 30+ area. As long as its smooth, what difference does it make? PC specs below in signature. Mine was a high end system maybe 7 years ago, today it's pretty average I guess. Of course when we start getting PMDG grade aircraft, things will change but my PC specs are sufficient for Ultra using a vanilla installation of MSFS. Monitor is 2560 x1440 27 inch.

I have turned off Rolling Cache and Manual Cache, have a 50MB fibre connection. I have been very pleasantly surprised. Yet to visit NYC though.....

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by RaptyrOne