Hello there, I have a system with

CPU: Intel Core i9-10900X (3.7 GHz) 19.25 MB Cache

Graphics card: 8GB NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2080 SUPER - HDMI, 3X DP GeFroce

I have watched some YouTube videos with a much better scenery than mine.

Can I ask what is the best setup, please?

Thanks and all the best

40 minutes ago, Penaranda said:

Hello there, I have a system with

CPU: Intel Core i9-10900X (3.7 GHz) 19.25 MB Cache

Graphics card: 8GB NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2080 SUPER - HDMI, 3X DP GeFroce

I have watched some YouTube videos with a much better scenery than mine.

Can I ask what is the best setup, please?

Thanks and all the best

Assuming you are new to FS 2020, a lot of it depends on your settings + where you fly.

You'll have to experiment, as there is no real best settings, but you can Google "settings for FS 2020" and you'll get several results like below:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/optimal-settings-for-flight-simulator-nvidia/183444

https://fs2020.surclaro.com/fs2020-nvidia-best-graphic-settings/

Beyond that, the main thing you will find is that it depends where you fly...

I suggest trying some flights around San Diego, CA, as that area is a bit loaded down, but not as much as say NY. If you can get about 30 or so in that area, you aren't doing half bad. If you want a slightly better performing area, maybe try North of Denver, or any smaller towns. I get about 20-25 flying suburbs of San Diego, but only have an RTX 2060, so you're a couple steps ahead of me performance wise. In the rural areas, you should be able to run everything on Ultra, but again you'll need to tone it down for cities.

Generally, the higher the population of a given area, the worse the performance will be.

As far as improving visuals, the aerial imagery looks better in some parts of the US over others. IMO, the best areas visually for the Western US will be the West Coast (Seattle down to California), and the Colorado area (say Telluride to Aspen or Vail or Durango even). Many of the other states (ID, UT, MT) have a lot of issues with imagery (and much of Canada and Alaska has issues as well), though they look ok in some places.

Most of the Eastern US is higher quality than the Western US, as far as aerial imagery goes anyhow. So for the Eastern US, almost everywhere looks fairly good.

If you want improved visuals for a specific area (like better city or airport), you might want to check this site to see if any freeware interests you, some of it is good.
https://flightsim.to/

 

Edited January 16, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

Resolution? 

3840 x 2160

13 minutes ago, Elaviador said:

3840 x 2160

3090 territory, you'll be struggling with a 2080, unless you dial back some settings. 

22 minutes ago, Elaviador said:

3840 x 2160

You certainly don‘t need a 3090. Don‘t believe all that BS talk. I ran 4K just fine on a GTX 1070 and was able to maintain 30 fps. It‘s all a matter of settings. Dial down render resolution to 70%. That‘s the setting with the highest impact. Clouds and reflections also eat into fps. 

Edited January 17, 20215 yr by carlito777

4 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

3090 territory, you'll be struggling with a 2080, unless you dial back some settings. 

 

I wonder if the youtube review crowd arent explaining that you need a beefier setup to drive these big monitors?

I personally think you don't quite need a 3090 right this minute considering the horrible price to performance but at the same time once the sim matures a little more and the addons start to flow your going to be needing that VRAM. So if you have the cash to spend on a 3090.. otherwise a 6800Xt (a good model like strix or Red Devil) will fit your longer term requirements or if you can wait and the 3080ti gets released thats your ticket.

For now your gonna have to turn down a few things to get performance acceptable to you (do not try for 60fps) aim for high thirties mid forties and dont be surprised if in some scenarios it falls to the 20's.

8 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

You certainly don‘t need a 3090. Don‘t believe all that BS talk. I ran 4K just fine on a GTX 1070 and was able to maintain 30 fps. It‘s all a matter of settings. Dial down render resolution to 70%. That‘s the setting with the highest impact. Clouds and reflections also eat into fps. 

If your drawing down the render resolution then your not running at 4k

I think Lanrivaldosmith's response is yes slightly overkill atm but to have stock ultra at acceptable frames (if that is indeed the overall aim of the user) then yes his response is not far off. (After that the CPU will have to be up to snuff to match) 

Otherwise if the aim is to compromise to get the frames to an acceptable level then yes there are options available.

Don't run it in 4k, it's not needed unless you have an 80" screen or are sitting super super close to your monitor. Just use 2560x1440. There isn't much reason to run 4k on monitors other than some anti-aliasing benefits it gives. Having to turn down the settings will make it look worse than the added benefit, and I'm pretty sure most people cannot see the difference, though they may be able to see some minor anti-aliasing differences at 4k vs 2560.

It will be fine, but even the best cards would likely still struggle if flying low over dense photogrammetry areas like NYC.

The chart below isn't perfect because it does not take into account pixel pitch or anti-aliasing and processing, but even if you were to give it another 50% threshhold, it still doesn't really fit within science to say that you can see a difference, other than processing issues or pixel size. Of course it also depends on your vision, someone with 20/15 would have a much better shot at seeing a difference.

 

Edited January 17, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

41 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

I ran 4K just fine on a GTX 1070 and was able to maintain 30 fps. It‘s all a matter of settings. Dial down render resolution to 70%

Soooo, you weren't running 4k then were you? ............... You were actually running 2688*1512

To be honest, I DO see a noticeable benefit between 1080P and 2160P on my 27" monitor. My viewing distance is 2 - 3 feet.

The same goes with my TV's: at 10 feet there is a huge difference on a 42" screen.

My eyes do not agree with this chart.

Andrea

 

17 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

To be honest, I DO see a noticeable benefit between 1080P and 2160P on my 27" monitor. My viewing distance is 2 - 3 feet.

The same goes with my TV's: at 10 feet there is a huge difference on a 42" screen.

My eyes do not agree with this chart.

Well the chart used reference level video content with no processing issues, which is slightly different than a PC. There is a difference on smaller screens with streaming or even because of codecs, but it's not actually the resolution, it's the processing. As far as gaming goes, we are talking 2560 vs 4k though, there are other studies (many many) that are very ballpark to that chart. So it is slightly optimistic when it comes to gaming (or even streaming), but I noted that when I posted it. The general theory has been tested many many times across many different population samples, and the other charts are not that far off from this one, so it is what it is I guess. I didn't run the test, so I don't know. 

It should be noted that 60%+ of the tested population those charts are generated from said the same thing (that they can see a difference), but they were proven wrong when they were tested. They could not decipher the details according to the test.

10' from a 42" screen, no you should not see a difference unless there is something severely degrading the processing. That is way too far back to see a difference, and even the most optimistic charts would not allow for that.

 

Edited January 17, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

I sit about 12-16" from a 43" screen.  The move up to 4k was very noticeable and I wouldn't consider going back.  But I agree sometimes that requires certain sacrifices.