38 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

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'.

 

 

First of all, I agree on the performance comparison part. But it's apples and oranges, with Asobosim being vanilla, and X-Plane with addons, especially unoptimized homemade stuff that can be hit and miss performance wise. And DD - after trying one of their products, this junk will never even come close to my XP installation. God how awful that was, back in the day.

To make it short, the performance as is (future patches may come), if your system is affected by frametime issues, it certainly is a show stopper. Losing 74% of FPS when switching to Asobos (toy)A320? By that metric, you end up at 1FPS with a PMDG plane. 

There is no disclaimer by Asobo to expect your perf. to be butchered once you take an airliner - no - in their marketing, the 747 glides in 60FPS grace like everything else. They were just lazy and released a product that's absolutely messy and unpredictable in terms of performance and stability.

I totally agree that 30FPS is sufficient, and also that we want more and more - but - Asobo states this is a platform. Now, we all basically have high end systems here. And yet we are dealing with 20FPS plus microstutters in a default plane with zero add-ons. It's a sh*t-show performance wise, sorry.

What do you say to the inexperienced user who tries to run this on the recommended spec - turn everything to low, enjoy 20FPS and shut up? Is that Adobos product proposition? Wait for a patch?

I will ignore your other comments about what the community needs and what not. My community reputation is "Excellent". Take it away.

12 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

30FPS is sufficient

Not in the modem era of gaming or entertainment it is not. 60 fps is the benchmark. This is a generally accepted fact with any enthusiast.

4 hours ago, Colonel X said:

Bashing lol. People really have an issue with cold, hard facts nowadays.

The cold hard fact is that the engine still blows all other sims out of the water, and the flight model can only just get better. Considering FSX barely ran on "cutting edge" hardware of the time, I'd say the performance is a triumph.  

16 minutes ago, Jose Munoz said:

Not in the modem era of gaming or entertainment it is not. 60 fps is the benchmark. This is a generally accepted fact with any enthusiast.

Of course 60FPS is the enthusiast benchmark. It's a simple fact though that flight simulation has always been too complex to achieve this. Yes, there are some things that work in Asobosim and X-Plane, like a Cessna in Kansas, where you can get 60FPS. But it's safe to say that no simmer has ever landed a 747 with 60FPS at LAX.

Also, since simulation is kind of slow paced most of the time, I do believe 30 is alright - it's entirely different from say, playing Call of Duty.

25 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

 

First of all, I agree on the performance comparison part. But it's apples and oranges, with Asobosim being vanilla, and X-Plane with addons, especially unoptimized homemade stuff that can be hit and miss performance wise. And DD - after trying one of their products, this junk will never even come close to my XP installation. God how awful that was, back in the day.

To make it short, the performance as is (future patches may come), if your system is affected by frametime issues, it certainly is a show stopper. Losing 74% of FPS when switching to Asobos (toy)A320? By that metric, you end up at 1FPS with a PMDG plane. 

There is no disclaimer by Asobo to expect your perf. to be butchered once you take an airliner - no - in their marketing, the 747 glides in 60FPS grace like everything else. They were just lazy and released a product that's absolutely messy and unpredictable in terms of performance and stability.

I totally agree that 30FPS is sufficient, and also that we want more and more - but - Asobo states this is a platform. Now, we all basically have high end systems here. And yet we are dealing with 20FPS plus microstutters in a default plane with zero add-ons. It's a sh*t-show performance wise, sorry.

What do you say to the inexperienced user who tries to run this on the recommended spec - turn everything to low, enjoy 20FPS and shut up? Is that Adobos product proposition? Wait for a patch?

I will ignore your other comments about what the community needs and what not. My community reputation is "Excellent". Take it away.

 

To each their own.  Even your quoted German author didnt seem as bothered by the occasional stutter as you are.  Some people can be overly sensitive to things and easily triggered I guess.

Asobo never promised more than default planes.  The majority work well enough for a lot of responders here.  We are happy to enjoy them now (bugs and all) rather than having to wait needlessly for every issue to be ironed out.  It seems you'ld prefer the rest of the world to be deprived and wait til its all up to your impeccable standards.  Why don't you just try to have some fun? 🙂.   I certainly dont feel cheated and I'm sure a lot of people could find worse ways to spend 1$.  As I said before, X-Plain still exists.  Nothing's stopping you from strappin on the Zibo.

As for the reputation?  meh...  Adjectives are subjective.  If I scroll back through the previous comments, I'd say 'excellent' is not a universally shared opinion.

Cheers

27 minutes ago, Jose Munoz said:

Not in the modem era of gaming or entertainment it is not. 60 fps is the benchmark. This is a generally accepted fact with any enthusiast.

gaming OR  ... entertainment ...?  Bring that up with any film-o-phile.  Anything other than 24fps is garish soap-opera video trash.

30fps is plenty when the incremental image delta from frame to frame is as low as a flight sim.  Fortnite, no.  Flightsim, plenty.

3 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

 

To each their own.  Even your quoted German author didnt seem as bothered by the occasional stutter as you are.  Some people can be overly sensitive to things and easily triggered I guess.

Asobo never promised more than default planes.  The majority work well enough for a lot of responders here.  We are happy to enjoy them now (bugs and all) rather than having to wait needlessly for every issue to be ironed out.  It seems you'ld prefer the rest of the world to be deprived and wait til its all up to your impeccable standards.  Why don't you just try to have some fun? 🙂.   I certainly dont feel cheated and I'm sure a lot of people could find worse ways to spend 1$.  As I said before, X-Plain still exists.  Nothing's stopping you from strappin on the Zibo.

As for the reputation?  meh...  Adjectives are subjective.  If I scroll back through the previous comments, I'd say 'excellent' is not a universally shared opinion.

Cheers

I might be oversensitive to microstutters. But in flight sim, perfect fluidity is above everything else. Once you achieved it once, you can't go back. Also, none of the other games I play EVER stutter. It's a flight sim disease. 

Your point is it's cool to have it out now, even with some bugs. Well, we'll see how it plays out, but I think a holiday release that would have allowed a few months polish would've been better for everyone.

 

5 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

I might be oversensitive to microstutters. But in flight sim, perfect fluidity is above everything else. Once you achieved it once, you can't go back. Also, none of the other games I play EVER stutter. It's a flight sim disease. 

Your point is it's cool to have it out now, even with some bugs. Well, we'll see how it plays out, but I think a holiday release that would have allowed a few months polish would've been better for everyone.

 

You are obviously entitled to your opinion.  I'll take the experience and awe of suspended disbelief that these amazing visuals provide over fluidity any day. (not that I really have a problem with the fluidity as it stands now).  "Fluidity over everything" is but an opinion, not a universally established fact.  For me, I'm more apt to call previous gen scenery a "hot mess"

And we will certainly see how it plays out.  I'm happy to play it now in the meantime, and will again over the holidays with all the additional polish it receives.

Best

No, not everyone. I have purchased and installed every flight sim game since DOS days. Why? Not to become a pilot, nor to pretend to be able to fly a study model aircraft. I simply have wanted the feeling of flying anywhere and taking in what the world has to offer. None of the games ever gave me more than a couple of days excitement. To me, they visually sucked. I purchased a couple of scenery packages, flew around them and got quickly bored. I had no desire to invest thousands of dollars to keep buying more areas to explore. 

With this release, as flawed as it may be, I am excited to grab my joystick, spin the globe, and think of somewhere I would like to visit. Most times I just start in the air. When I press fly, I don't care about weird scenery artifacts, or whether the autogen is 100% accurate, or even if the photogammetry is wonky. I just explore. 

My nineteen year old daughter arrived home today from three weeks in Saskatoon. I fired up the game, loaded up Saskatoon, and not only was she amazed that she recognized where she just was, but had me fly to the airport to show me the hotel she stayed at, and couldn't believe it was there. 

No not everyone. 

Grant 

The best part is we're only two days in...

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by DylanM

Anyone else notice if the vsync is on and frame set to 30 or 20 the GPU utilization is rather low...40 or so. Start moving the render slider towards 200 and the GPU utilization moves up (even if level of detail is set to ultra along with ultra settings). On my set up (see signature) the GPU utilization won't reach 90 range until the render is 190> My CPU will range 60's

13 minutes ago, udidwht said:

Anyone else notice if the vsync is on and frame set to 30 or 20 the GPU utilization is rather low...40 or so. Start moving the render slider towards 200 and the GPU utilization moves up (even if level of detail is set to ultra along with ultra settings). On my set up (see signature) the GPU utilization won't reach 90 range until the render is 190> My CPU will range 60's

you are being bottleneck by the IPC and Ghz of your processor. Everyone is. DX11 is limited in it's multithreading capability and just generate too many draw calls that exceed any CPU in existence today. Even if it scale to other threads, the mainthread is really the cause of your lower GPU usage. It is the case in P3D, XP11 and FSX.  This has always been the #1 reason why frames are always lower in flight sim. You would think that P3D, as being a DX12 application, would fair better but the legacy ESP engine code is still way to single threaded focus. It's very easy to see. Load a PMDG 777 in P3D. The frame will vary to 40-50FPS. Pause the sim and your frame will jump by almost 80%. This is because simulation code and drawcall are on the same thread and limited your CPU to drive your GPU.

This is not rocket science. Asobo needs to port their engine to a proper DX12 engine. (not like LM did) and implement DLSS. This is the only way we will ever get 60 fps in this sim. A RTX 3000 series will not help us. We need lower draw calls or spread the load across enough thread that it doesn't bottleneck the GPU. When you increase the render scale, all you are doing in loading higher resolution to your GPU (just like DSR), it doesn't provide you more frames.

18 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

you are being bottleneck by the IPC and Ghz of your processor. Everyone is. DX11 is limited in it's multithreading capability and just generate too many draw calls that exceed any CPU in existence today. Even if it scale to other threads, the mainthread is really the cause of your lower GPU usage. It is the case in P3D, XP11 and FSX.  This has always been the #1 reason why frames are always lower in flight sim. You would think that P3D, as being a DX12 application, would fair better but the legacy ESP engine code is still way to single threaded focus. It's very easy to see. Load a PMDG 777 in P3D. The frame will vary to 40-50FPS. Pause the sim and your frame will jump by almost 80%. This is because simulation code and drawcall are on the same thread and limited your CPU to drive your GPU.

This is not rocket science. Asobo needs to port their engine to a proper DX12 engine. (not like LM did) and implement DLSS. This is the only way we will ever get 60 fps in this sim. A RTX 3000 series will not help us. We need lower draw calls or spread the load across enough thread that it doesn't bottleneck the GPU. When you increase the render scale, all you are doing in loading higher resolution to your GPU (just like DSR), it doesn't provide you more frames.

Unsure of that entirely. I can lock DCS at 60 and it will stay at 60 (High-ultra settings-any map) and we haven't received the new DX12 yet with it. Best guess is sim needs more optimization. Setting it at 30 or 20 should not limit the GPU by such a spread even on my system (or any for that matter). All in all though....it does run fairly well. I;m only running 1920x1080p

1 minute ago, udidwht said:

Unsure of that entirely. I can lock DCS at 60 and it will stay at 60 (High-ultra settings-any map) and we haven't received the new DX12 yet with it. Best guess is sim needs more optimization. Setting it at 30 or 20 should not limit the GPU by such a spread even on my system (or any for that matter). All in all though....it does run fairly well. I;m only running 1920x1080p

you haven't tried at higher resolution, you will soon see how you CPU won't keep up. 

2 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

you haven't tried at higher resolution, you will soon see how you CPU won't keep up. 

Monitor is my limiting factor. 24inch LED curved. Zero desire for 4k.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by udidwht