1 hour ago, EmaRacing said:

Have you tried gaming at above 30fps? Otherwise we can't talk about this.
People were fine with their bonfires until they tried microwave  ovens...

Also, if the FPS is low but smooth, we won't see what amounts to as low as a true 22 FPS, because of the way display tech smooths out consistent frames. It's still not boosted to a normal 24/30/60 exactly, because there is some type of interpolation or pulldown, but it's not technically the same as only 22 FPS either, generally speaking. There is too much interpolation and complex algorithms in todays devices when it comes to assembling motion, pulldowns, and other weird stuff. Depends on display, but even without some type of Frame Interpolation enabled, most devices have some corrective motion attributes, as long as the frames are coming in as "consistently slow" and not fast - slow - fast - slow (then it doesn't know how to smooth the motion, hence the pulldown or dark frames don't work right).

 

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

6 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

Just checked my GPU usage.  Pegged at 99%.  If I lower my setting to the low end scale it still hovers in the 80% range.  The best FPS I can achieve is 34.  My PC handles xp11 and p3d v5 like a dream.

I'm at ultra and rarely hit 90% on GPU. Are you at 4K resolution or on multiple monitors? Are you using the latest Nvidia drivers (I installed the latest - which include support for MSFS - yesterday although it was working before I installed them.) Your PC is more capable than mine. There's no obvious reason yours isn't outperforming most of us. I know it has to be very frustrating and I know the following isn't helpful, but it certainly is an isolated if not unique issue. Please follow up with MSFS support. If there is an issue that is related to certain combinations of hardware and/or drivers, they won't know until they have enough reports to see common denominators. And hang in there. Your PC as is will be great for this sim for years to come once this issue is resolved.

5 minutes ago, SeanMo said:

Your PC as is will be great for this sim for years to come once this issue is resolved.

Funniest thing I heard all day...

 

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

yes truly shocking that system resources are relaxed in the middle of nowhere...

However that is not what the majority of users will fly, so it would be an utmost ridiculous PR stunt of Asobo to list 8gb RAM as recommended. 

At Barcelona in default A320 my RAM is 13,7gb/16gb. 

This thread is borderline misleading.

 

 

Guess you didn't understand his posts.  Using GA planes that are not complex jets.   Let that sink in for a minute.

 

4 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

Guess you didn't understand his posts.  Using GA planes that are not complex jets.   Let that sink in for a minute.

 

👍 👍

On a side note.....how nice is that Icon A5 to fly, Mitch? I am particularly interested to know how it reacts (and sounds) in the water. Any former FU3 pilots will know what I am talking about. If I do decide to buy the new Microsoft Flight Simulator at some point, I fancy flying that thing from the Mexico border to Vancouver (and passing through some favourite Flight Unlimited spots of yesteryear in the process)

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

29 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

Guess you didn't understand his posts.  Using GA planes that are not complex jets.   Let that sink in for a minute

Guess you don't understand MSFS, it's not the plane it is the scenery.

Let that sink in for a minute (or hour...whatever it takes chump)

32 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

This thread is borderline misleading

I believe that the review on guru3d indicated that the sim will work to best utilize the resources present. No different than photoshopped which will work on any amount of Ram, but if presented with more, will take advantage of it. 

And the next vid KJFK approach to GA parking yes. 

10 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Guess you don't understand MSFS, it's not the plane it is the scenery.

Let that sink in for a minute (or hour...whatever it takes chump)

Ok Scandinavian loser.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Oldschool61

1 hour ago, SeanMo said:

If you are expecting to run at 200fps like in F1 2019, you'll need to get a flux capacitor, a 1982 Delorean, and approximately 1.21 gigawatts of power, and go to the year 2029 and bring back a machine capable of running such a simulation at those framerates, gamer. This isn't a car racing game. It's a flight simulation. 

Yeah but calling 28fps "running like a champ" makes me laugh, hard.
I get seasick below 40, let's call it it doesn't bother me even if it's a slideshow, running like champ, no, really no.

9 minutes ago, EmaRacing said:

Yeah but calling 28fps "running like a champ" makes me laugh, hard.
I get seasick below 40, let's call it it doesn't bother me even if it's a slideshow, running like champ, no, really no.

Its a flight sim not a fps.  For helicopters you would want much more than 30 if possible.

4 hours ago, EmaRacing said:

Because it's not just bragging, 30 to 60 makes a huge difference. I can't even understand how people can watch movies because of all the stuttering at 25 fps, but this is another matter. 

Because of a phenomenon called "motion blur".

14 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

Its a flight sim not a fps.  For helicopters you would want much more than 30 if possible.

Try using a head tracking device at 30fps without feeling sick

Try running at 60FPS or higher, it will grab more RAM and VRAM as well as make your GPU work. I am also liking my performance/visuals at 30FPS capped but if I could do 60 I would. 

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by reignman40