performance Users with low-end PCs: please share your findings

[ThrottleUp 630]

TLDR:

If you have a low-end PC could you comment on how you find this title at reduced settings?

FULL:

I have been holding off on getting this game due to owning an old PC (in the process of saving to get a beast machine). However 6 months post-launch and I'm finding it harder and harder to resist not getting it right now. The nice YouTubes and screenshots I've seen dont help (although I know they were taken on powerful rigs running things on Ultra).

Now I know that many people out there with weak machines have still got this title and are running it with reduced settings. I was wondering if I could ask a favour from users on here with similar specs to mine - could you share what the sim is like at those low settings? I'm not a fan of flying in urban areas so I'm not bothered about what city buildings look like. How does it look out over the countryside at low settings? Trees, vegetation, terrain, river, creeks, streams, river banks etc.

Do the settings you have to reduce make things look terrible? Or does it still look decent?

What other compromises have you had to make and what kind of FPS does this give you? I know every PC is different and theres gazillions of combos but if you could share your findings that would be great 😃

My spec
 

• i7 920 @ 3.00Ghz
• 12GB DDR RAM
• nVidia GTX 1060 6GB VRAM
• 1 X Samsung spinner drive
• Win10 Pro (latest build)

Thanks!

Edited February 21, 2021 by ThrottleUp

[RaptyrOne 1,453]

My sons PC, GTX 780Ti, i5 CPU, 16 GB RAM. He runs with most settings on Medium or Low and the sim looks better than FSX or P3D ever did, and flies pretty darn well. Your spec should be just fine, providing you don’t try to run everything at Ultra. You my want to avoid detailed areas like New York though.

[ThrottleUp 630]

5 minutes ago, RaptyrOne said:

My sons PC, GTX 780Ti, i5 CPU, 16 GB RAM. He runs with most settings on Medium or Low and the sim looks better than FSX or P3D ever did, and flies pretty darn well. Your spec should be just fine, providing you don’t try to run everything at Ultra. You my want to avoid detailed areas like New York though.

Thanks for your feedback this is good to know 🙂

[TexasGary 47]

Here are my specs:

i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz
32.0 GB RAM
GTX 1080
Windows 10 Pro Version 20H2

I have about 1/2 of my settings on high and the other 1/2 on medium running at 2304 X 1296 resolution and I get a smooth, stutter free 30 fps experience in most places.

  

[aspenleaf 4]

My computer was built in 2012 with a Sandy Bridge i7 running at 3.8 GHz, 32 GB 1066 RAM, and I recently installed an MSI GTX 1660 Super 6GB.  Using a 27" monitor at 1920x1080 and most of the graphics settings on high or ultra it is running smoothly and I generally get FPS in the low to mid 30s.  But I fly the little Icon float plane or a Cessna most of the time.  I'm not sure how well it would perform with the larger planes or at higher video resolutions.

Under certain lighting and weather conditions the graphics are amazing, but there are some problems that I hope will be fixed.  Water levels seem to be too high in most places, with boats in marinas submerged.  Rivers in some places look very good. In others, like the Snake River in Jackson Wyoming, look good but in early morning when heading toward the sun there is some kind of reflective overlay that is too narrow compared to the width of the river and when there is a bend in the river the overlay is very angular.  There are geometric spikes in some areas, and in others rock outcroppings in the wilderness render as buildings. If you use a float plane there are lots of details missing, like a convincing wake. 

Overall the scenery is very good, and if they continue to correct issues and develop refinements it will be a great simulator.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by aspenleaf
Had wrong model graphics card.

[rayharris108 259]

Hi

Good question and a valid one - even new PCs can apparently have problems with MSFS. or so we keep reading, so I have not been tempted to change as yet.:

Not sure if you would consider this 2014 PC low end...

i5-4690k @4.4GHz

32.0 Gb RAM

GTX 1080 Ti - running a 2k monitor

Win 10 Pro 20H2 up to date.

I can run MSFS well on mostly HIGH to ULTRA settings and get very pleasing performance. No comparison with P3D, and much more stable on the same machine. You might find the 12Gb RAM and 6Gb graphics card running a bit short of resource - for DX12 especially. I'd also say better to get to 4GHz or above for decent performance on any Sim CPU if you can. 

For me the critical items were the overclock to 4.4GHz (which was how I bought it) the addition of a fast NVMe SSD to run MSFS, and more recently the GTX 1080 Ti.

I think these made a big difference, and get me I reckon to within a sliver of what you might get even with a newer PC. NVidia RTX 3090 will def. take you further - esp when DX12 arrives - then GRAM will become critical - hence my 11Gb GRAM on the 1080Ti should help at least.

ray

 

[TacomaSailor 191]

You can see I have i3-9100 (4-processors no HT) running at 4 GHz with 16 GB memory and a really slow GTX 1650 graphics card with 4 GB memory.  Flight Sim lives on a dedicated SSD and I have a 500 Mbs connection

Flying around San Diego or Seattle with a lot of mods installed and photogrammerty turned on I see 24 - 29 FPS while at 3,000' AGL.  Taking off or landing at the big airports the FPS might drop to 20 or so for a couple seconds.

Flying around the Cascade mountains, San Juan Islands, or Sierra Nevada mountains I consistently see 32 - 34 fps while at 1,000' AGL in the XCub.

Flying around Santa Barbara with ORBX KSBA - FPS is between 26 and 30

I never fly big or commercial jets and have not tried NYC airports.  I did fly the TBM 930 into EGGL and saw a low of 18 fps and high of 22 on final. 

Flying the TBM out of LAX (7R) the FPS stayed between 20 and 26 over the airport and over downtown LA with all the LA mods installed.

Only on short final with a faster plane at bigger airports do I feel like the sim might be a little slow in it's display.  DEV Mode always shows that the sim is waiting for the GPU and never waits for the main thread. 

1920x1080  Anisotropic 16x  Texture Super Sample 6x6
Render scaling 100
TAA 
Terrain LOD 100
Terrain Vector, Building, Trees, Grass and Bushes, Texture Resolution  ULTRA
Volumetric Clouds, Texture Syn, Water Waves HIGH

most everything else is at HIGH

All traffic is set to 50%

AI traffic is OFFLINE

I will upgrade both the processor and the GPU when the RTX 3070 becomes available.  But FOR NOW - I never see stutters or have the feeling a low frame rate is a problem.
 

.

Edited February 21, 2021 by TacomaSailor
correction details

[DAD 2,659]

Mine is low end for sure. i5 2500k (not o’d) with 8GB from 2008! Since Oct 2020 an MSI 1660 super and since Jan 2021 2 SSDs, one for Win10 and once for MSFS. Works just fine at HD 1920 times x what I can never remember. Nothing on ultra but most on high and veery smooth. 

[ThrottleUp 630]

Thank you all for taking the time to give your detailed replies 😃

I have decided to increase the RAM on my system and get a new HD solely for the sim. While running Ultra would be nice I accept that even lower settings will look miles better than FSX ever did. 

Plan is to use X-Plane 11 for my airliner fix (Zibo) and MSFS for GA and back country goofing around. 

[Tom Wright 438]

My specs are in my signature, but similar to yours except a slightly stronger CPU (4770k). Same GPU as yours.

I use the global High preset and performance is generally quite good at 1920x1080. I probably average about 40fps in something like the C172, lots of photogrammetry brings it down to high 20s. The FBW A32N averages about 30fps, lowest low 20s at a big airport with lots of traffic.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Tom Wright

[Bert Pieke 7,589]

25 minutes ago, ThrottleUp said:

get a new HD solely for the sim

Make sure to get a 500 GB SSD.. they are not expensive anymore 😉

Something like: SAMSUNG 870 EVO

[Bert Pieke 7,589]

28 minutes ago, ThrottleUp said:

While running Ultra would be nice I accept that even lower settings will look miles better than FSX ever did. 

I think you will be pleasantly surprised... Running on Ultra is definitely not required to get good visuals.

[Chock 17,769]

ASUS Z270P, Intel i5 7400, ATI RX480 8Gb DDR5, 44Gb DDR RAM, 500GB SSD:

[Bert Pieke 7,589]

4770K@4.1,  GTX 1070, 24 GB RAM

[Dominique_K 10,151]

I get a good visual experience with my 8-year old 4770k @ 3.5 with 16 GB of RAM and a GTX 1080 with 16 GB of VRAM running a 27" at 2560*1440. Most of the sliders are at high and some on ultra and the FPS set at 30 without any problem. MFS is on a SSD.   

Be aware though that I tend to fly low populated areas.

EDIT Also the internet connexion is a major factor. Mine is on 4G and very average (50 Mbps max)  below 10 Mbps you may get problems.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dominique_K