Nah I'm all good having a ball here.

15 minutes ago, TheRandomGuy said:

Having the same issues with stuttering myself. According to a hot forum thread on the official board certain configurations seem to perform horribly. Sky lake and Kaby lake CPUs coupled with 10xx series Nvidia gpus seems to perform particularly bad.

I had a feeling that was the case, I noticed that pattern with people with Core i9s complaining the most yesterday. I have a Ryzen 2700x cpu and am not noticing micro stutters, although I only run my sim on High

2 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

My agenda... right. I deleted X-Plane before I installed FS. If I have an agenda, it's point at the word not allowed once I see it. And I do see it.

Tell you what MrX, I’ll bestow upon you the munificence of my forgiveness if you promise me that you’ll file Zendesk reports for each ‘bug’ you find? Cool?

32 minutes ago, DJJose said:

Thanks for the video link, but I did not need a video to confirm what I saw with my own eyes on my computer.

Don't you have an i7 2660? 

16 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

Cool, those are the most widely used components, great job, Asobo! Thanks for that clue, interesting. You have a link?

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/dreadful-performance/130689/56
 

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/frame-stuttering-to-no-end-please-help-2080ti/134261

Most ppl with issues reporting CPU pegged at 100% with low to medium GPU usage. Lots of stutter and micro pauses.

I have a 1080T1 with a I7-8700K overclocked.  32 gig ram.  No stutters or pauses, running ultra on a 4K 36 in monitor. 100 gig manual cache.  A beautiful running sim on every plane I've tried so far.

My GPU usage is usually pegged at 98-99%, CPU ticks along at 20 to 30 %

Lon Duncombe

 

Does the OP really need to use the word "Massive".  Turns me off right away and detracts from the thread.

Cheers

bs

2 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

Since Ich spreche kein Deutsch, I can't really read the bad review...

You have heard of online translation tools like DeepL, have you?

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Red ones are faster.. 

Did you know that the Ferrari's original color is yellow? 😉

32 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Does the OP really need to use the word "Massive".  Turns me off right away and detracts from the thread.

Cheers

bs

Looking at the disclosed numbers, I thought massive was a fair description. High-end systems struggling to achieve 30FPS - that's a singularity in todays gaming world.

EDIT - It also made you click.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by Colonel X

3 hours ago, Colonel X said:

https://www.computerbase.de/2020-08/flight-simulator-benchmark-test/?amp=1

Well, there you go, it's not "our system". Basically, it's FSX tech - CPU bottlenecked, bad GPU usage, wildly varying loads depending on plane. Asobos descision to go with DX11, what a fail. 

Up to 74% FPS loss by plane - good night PMDG.

It appears to me that you hate this flight sim hobby.  I am basing my view on how you wrote you comments.

1 minute ago, Tierborn said:

It appears to me that you hate this flight sim hobby.  I am basing my view on how you wrote you comments.

That’s all I’m seeing too.

Complaining relentlessly on this forum isn’t going to change anything. All you’re doing is making the hobby less enjoyable for others. If you hate it so much, don’t use it. That’s all you have to do. But don’t drag everyone else with you.

3 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

 

Since Ich spreche kein Deutsch, I can't really read the bad review...

 

 

 

 

Open the page in Google Chrome if you have it. It will translate the page automatically.

30 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

Looking at the disclosed numbers, I thought massive was a fair description. High-end systems struggling to achieve 30FPS - that's a singularity in todays gaming world.

Yawn,

I read the numbers.  With the exception of the heaviest areas in a jet, high end systems are clearing 50fps easily.  Even with the worst case, 33fps average with a occasional (2%) drop to 18.  Hardly a show stopper.

You do seem to ignore the entire rest of the article who's conclusion states:

"In the end, the good news is more like this: Fast hardware is needed for 60 FPS and more, but such a high frame rate is simply not necessary: The Flight Simulator still plays well with only 30 FPS and always leaves the pilot back in amazement in front of the screen"

It will always be true in the world of simulators that we will continue to ask more and more and will always tax whatever the latest state of the art of computing power is by lumping on more and more detail and features.  You could, if you wish, plant a flag in the ground and stop advancing - sticking with whatever something like ..  X-Plain .. can handle.. Moore's law will catch up and soon every pc will able to handle it.  Props to Asobo for raising the bar.  While we're at it, I'll call your bluff on the X-Plain performance thing.  I used it happily for 4 years, but running that sim with anything close to the detail level MSFS is providing causes it to struggle mightily with stutters all over the place.  Just try running DD's New York City and New York Airports together with full ortho and W2XP (which is about as close as you'll get to whats in MSFS) - you'll be lucky to clear a slide-show.  Throw in volumetric weather (xenviro) and its even worse.  To say otherwise is delusional.

I'm sure Asobo can continue to optimize - its a new engine afterall.  Could they have waited longer to release to fix everything?  Sure, but then we'ld all have had to wait longer to experience the amazing stuff that's already working great.  No harm in getting to enjoy a huge amount of what I paid right now while they perfect the rest.

In the meantime, the community doesnt really need your help.  We can all read the same articles, but when we do we read the whole thing.  I happen to agree with the German author, the fps doesnt really matter.

Thanks for trying tho.

p.s. I know how to spell 'plane'.

 

Deleted.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by Colonel X