So the graphics look absolutely spectacular! Here is my concern though; I see guys running MSFS2020 at 40-60 fps stock, with good computer systems but what happens when we start getting our PMDG loaded up, AIG air traffic, third party airports etc? Are we going to be dropping all our sliders to get 24fps departing KORD? For perspective, I can currently run P3D 4.5 with max settings including 100% GA and Airline traffic (a lot of dudes fail to let others know they have traffic at 0% when boasting of high fps) flying a high quality third party GA aircraft, complex scenery and weather at a pretty consistent 40fps. That drops considerably as soon as I hop in the PMDG NGXu. From what I understand I could gain a handful of fps switching to V5. And, while not at the reality level of "seeing my house", I do find P3D immersive.

So I guess my real question is; if I spend money on MSFS2020 am I going to end up having to compromise some of the visuals to use it AND run study level tubes, good looking airports and also, very important to me for immersion, a good amount of real world livery AI traffic in order to squeeze out a decently smooth frame rate? It seems to me that if 2020 is running at 40fps bone stock, that some folks are going to be disappointed when they start getting their third party goodies.

I'm going to wait and see what happens for a while. Right now, the option I'm leaning towards is going to V5 since it will take better advantage of my RTX2080 giving me a few precious fps, which can be the difference between a stutterfest and enjoyable flying. Also, many or most of my 3rd party addons can be used with little or no extra $$ investment. 

 

Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

 

I have an RTX2070 and very happy with MS2020 performance so far. 

Bear in mind it's still an immature sim. 

You mirror my thoughts.  I'm holding off on investing in new hardware and standalone purchase of the sim for these reasons.  I'm utilizing the GamePass version for $1 and it just renewed for another month for $4.99 US just to see how things shake out.  It's still very early to know exactly where we'll be with complex add-ons.  It will be an interesting ride.

I'm sure I would be happy and amazed now, no doubt! But, I am worried that third party developers will gobble up all of the performance "head room" leading to lengthy discussions on forums, and constant setting adjustments to get a smooth running sim. All that glitter is no good if you have to turn it all off to fly into or out JFK in a PMDG  with a usable amount of fps.

16 minutes ago, sivart2000 said:

So the graphics look absolutely spectacular! Here is my concern though; I see guys running MSFS2020 at 40-60 fps stock, with good computer systems but what happens when we start getting our PMDG loaded up, AIG air traffic, third party airports etc? Are we going to be dropping all our sliders to get 24fps departing KORD? For perspective, I can currently run P3D 4.5 with max settings including 100% GA and Airline traffic (a lot of dudes fail to let others know they have traffic at 0% when boasting of high fps) flying a high quality third party GA aircraft, complex scenery and weather at a pretty consistent 40fps. That drops considerably as soon as I hop in the PMDG NGXu. From what I understand I could gain a handful of fps switching to V5. And, while not at the reality level of "seeing my house", I do find P3D immersive.

So I guess my real question is; if I spend money on MSFS2020 am I going to end up having to compromise some of the visuals to use it AND run study level tubes, good looking airports and also, very important to me for immersion, a good amount of real world livery AI traffic in order to squeeze out a decently smooth frame rate? It seems to me that if 2020 is running at 40fps bone stock, that some folks are going to be disappointed when they start getting their third party goodies.

I'm going to wait and see what happens for a while. Right now, the option I'm leaning towards is going to V5 since it will take better advantage of my RTX2080 giving me a few precious fps, which can be the difference between a stutterfest and enjoyable flying. Also, many or most of my 3rd party addons can be used with little or no extra $$ investment. 

 

Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

 

In P3D 4.5 and in MSFS I always use vsync to a 30Hz screen, which means both CPU and GPU only need to crank out a minimum of 30fps to sustain stutter-free smooth flight.  W/ my particular system (under my sig) w/ HT enabled see an average CPU utilization of around 14%-40% tops w/ an average of around 25% so even in the densest scenery.  My GPU is by far the least capable in MSFS and is always the limiting factor by a mile.  This suggests to me more CPU-demanding study-level aircraft have ample are to play in.  That may not follow but to me it sure seems to.  My next purchase is a major upgrade in GPU, probably RTX 3090 or 3080 Ti depending on when they become available.

I feel for those stuck on need more than a very smooth 30 frames w/o stuttering.  Sure, vsync to 60 would be best, but not by very much.  Not everyone has a 30Hz capable screen so don't get a chance to see for themselves.  And there are those whose visual cortex gets goes into harmonic resonance they say by 30Hz screens, which I think may be leftover from the prior CRT era where 30Hz vertical refresh would really be a bad thing.  Not so w/ LCD/LED.  Yes, my opinion only YMMV.

Here's what remarkable about MSFS that will likely make you want to come back over and over again:  flying thru what amounts to the real world, versus the commonly used landclass w/ artwork from ORBX or whomever, is really way more meaningful than I imagined,.  IOW, it's not just 'eye candy', or for aesthetics.  It adds a level of immersion that isn't touched by P3D's scenery engine.  I like both platforms and use P3D 4.5 for long hauls in the PMDG 777, NGXu, and Maj Q400.  But I find myself much more in MSFS now.  It's got serious growing pains happening right this moment w/ a post-patch set of troubles, but they will sort it out and I would predict quickly.  And of course, it's chump change to play.

Edited September 18, 20205 yr by Noel

@sivart2000,

I was hoping for the MSFS2020 to be the answer based on video showcases and pictures.

I'm not gonna go on details, just read how many complains are out there.

IMHO stay with P3D V 4.5 (I would suggest to upgrade to the new V5 fix 2) this MSFS2020 is still an "early ALPHA" software and it will be there for a long time.

How will a complex add-on work in this sim?  That's a good question and a legit concern.  It is way too early to tell that, and we'll have to see what developers come up with. 

My 2 cents, if you want a sim to fly around in GA planes that are default or low end as far as systems and can tolerate some bugs and growing pains, this sim is amazing.  If you want a PMDG level commercial airliner, you definitely want to stick with what you have for now.  We don't even know when the first complex aircraft will hit.  

 

 

Who really knows? Until we get all these things in the sim, I doubt anyone really does.

I have a mid range system, and I'm quite happy with performance.

However,  I agree with kerosen31, the commercial airliner flights leave a whole lot to be desired.

1 minute ago, sivart2000 said:

I'm sure I would be happy and amazed now, no doubt! But, I am worried that third party developers will gobble up all of the performance "head room" leading to lengthy discussions on forums, and constant setting adjustments to get a smooth running sim. All that glitter is no good if you have to turn it all off to fly into or out JFK in a PMDG  with a usable amount of fps.

Your concerns are very valid and we've all had them regarding add-ons that historically push the performance envelope to its extremes.

From my very casual observations and what FSDT's @virtuali has take an immense amount of time going into detail from the scenery design standpoint, I see scenery, when coded properly, not having a huge impact on performance.  Complex airliners, and poorly coded AI traffic around JFK, Heathrow, LAX, etc...that remains to be seen.

I would suggest that if you have the financial means, and the drive space, and happen to like a stunning new platform...then you should take this weekend to see if you're really a VFR GA guy who didn't know it until you had a sim that exemplified that. 🙂

If you've never felt actual adrenalin trying to outrun a storm in flightsim...or be genuinely afraid to fly  into one...get this sim, load up the 172, set the weather to thunderstorms, and have at it...bet you'll have sweaty palms and an increased pulse rate like I did outrunning this monster. 😉

 

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

In P3D 4.5 and in MSFS I always use vsync to a 30Hz screen, which means both CPU and GPU only need to crank out a minimum of 30fps to sustain stutter-free smooth flight.  W/ my particular system (under my sig) w/ HT enabled see an average CPU utilization of around 14%-40% tops w/ an average of around 25% so even in the densest scenery.  My GPU is by far the least capable in MSFS and is always the limiting factor by a mile.  This suggests to me more CPU-demanding study-level aircraft have ample are to play in.  That may not follow but to me it sure seems to.  My next purchase is a major upgrade in GPU, probably RTX 3090 or 3080 Ti depending on when they become available.

I feel for those stuck on need more than a very smooth 30 frames w/o stuttering.  Sure, vsync to 60 would be best, but not by very much.  Not everyone has a 30Hz capable screen so don't get a chance to see for themselves.  And there are those whose visual cortex gets goes into harmonic resonance they say by 30Hz screens, which I think may be leftover from the prior CRT era where 30Hz vertical refresh would really be a bad thing.  Not so w/ LCD/LED.  Yes, my opinion only YMMV.

Here's what remarkable about MSFS that will likely make you want to come back over and over again:  flying thru what amounts to the real world, versus the commonly used landclass w/ artwork from ORBX or whomever, is really way more meaningful than I imagined,.  IOW, it's not just 'eye candy', or for aesthetics.  It adds a level of immersion that isn't touched by P3D's scenery engine.  I like both platforms and use P3D 4.5 for long hauls in the PMDG 777, NGXu, and Maj Q400.  But I find myself much more in MSFS now.  It's got serious growing pains happening right this moment w/ a post-patch set of troubles, but they will sort it out and I would predict quickly.

I run everything pretty dense on 4.5. At the gate at FSDT KORD V2, heavy AI traffic, DD Chicago X, I get 18fps and probably average 30fps for a whole flight. Usable but hardly ideal fps at ORD. I'm good with my fps smoothness enroute and flying into say, FT Tampa. I'm actually cool with 24fps which is where I set my frame rate, not asking for 60 fps. But, I have reservations about respending thousands of dollars moving to MSFS unless I know I'm going to get 30fps solid ,NO exceptions, without having to compromise on visuals, AI traffic etc. 

 

17 9700 4.8ghz, RTX2080, 32GB@4000mhz

Why are all these choices always binary?  Buy the standard edition for VFR.  How much is that?  Less than one PMDG aircraft in P3D or FSX?

Imagine if we all had to pick just one FPS or one RPG to enjoy.

 Should I buy Skyrim or Zelda? 
 

MSFS doesn’t have cooties.  It will coexist with your other products just fine.

2 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

Your concerns are very valid and we've all had them regarding add-ons that historically push the performance envelope to its extremes.

From my very casual observations and what FSDT's @virtuali has take an immense amount of time going into detail from the scenery design standpoint, I see scenery, when coded properly, not having a huge impact on performance.  Complex airliners, and poorly coded AI traffic around JFK, Heathrow, LAX, etc...that remains to be seen.

I would suggest that if you have the financial means, and the drive space, and happen to like a stunning new platform...then you should take this weekend to see if you're really a VFR GA guy who didn't know it until you had a sim that exemplified that. 🙂

If you've never felt actual adrenalin trying to outrun a storm in flightsim...or be genuinely afraid to fly  into one...get this sim, load up the 172, set the weather to thunderstorms, and have at it...bet you'll have sweaty palms and an increased pulse rate like I did outrunning this monster. 😉

 

I do mix in GA (70/30) and had high hopes for "Deadstick" but I think that will never be released. Been doing a lot of DCS the last 6 months and am thoroughly pleased with both the graphics AND performance on my system! Also, the DCS community is pretty outstanding.

13 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

My 2 cents, if you want a sim to fly around in GA planes that are default or low end as far as systems and can tolerate some bugs and growing pains, this sim is amazing.  If you want a PMDG level commercial airliner, you definitely want to stick with what you have for now.  We don't even know when the first complex aircraft will hit.  

Pretty sound advice also. Yo! Lightning or Stars?

1 minute ago, sivart2000 said:

Also, the DCS community is pretty outstanding.

Sigh....DCS....

I have the Hornet, F16, Av8B, updated A-10, Persian Gulf Map, Las Vegas....and still have only taken off and flown around.  The depth of detail in that sim is far beyond my mental capacity...but I hope one day to get a good Maverick Kill on a T72 in the Warthog! 🙂

 

5 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Why are all these choices always binary?  Buy the standard edition for VFR.  How much is that?  Less than one PMDG aircraft in P3D or FSX?

Imagine if we all had to pick just one FPS or one RPG to enjoy.

 Should I buy Skyrim or Zelda? 
 

MSFS doesn’t have cooties.  It will coexist with your other products just fine.

Money no object, you are absolutely correct and if MSFS had come out 10 months ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. But current events have me in a position where I'm struggling to keep a once successful business alive so discretionary spending is now a concern for me. Gotta make sure everything counts.