16 minutes ago, Lidad97 said:

Thank you anyway. I'm looking forward to MSFS to be useable as a simulator instead of a game. 

I think you’ll find MSFS is even more demanding of graphics power than P3D.

This comparison shows it’s not too different to my 1080Ti. Look at your scenery settings again. Reducing Scenery Complexity by one notch will give you a decent bump in performance.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080S-Super-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti/4050vs3918

I'm using MSFS 2020 already from time to time, for me it's working perfectly with 60 FPS. Sure, when I fly into areas like NY I will reduce the settings. 

6 minutes ago, Lidad97 said:

I'm using MSFS 2020 already from time to time, for me it's working perfectly with 60 FPS. Sure, when I fly into areas like NY I will reduce the settings. 

That’s good but once you’re in the air and away from airports and cities in P3D your frame rates are also very good. 3rd party complex aircraft in MSFS will also impose a fps hit.

58 minutes ago, Lidad97 said:

I'm using MSFS 2020 already from time to time, for me it's working perfectly with 60 FPS. Sure, when I fly into areas like NY I will reduce the settings. 

It's seemingly a common misconception around here that MSFS is generally more demanding on your system than P3D. Going from P3D 4.5 to MSFS practically doubled my FPS in comparable situations. And that was after having dropped my overclock from 4.6 to 4.4...and leaving aside that MSFS always looked about twice as good.

Aside from a seemingly much more efficient engine, a key factor is that in P3D you start hemorrhaging performance when you add in stuff like Orbx regions (or even Vector). In MSFS that stuff is effectively baked in as "default." No need to chip away at performance for visuals. It already looks great!

6 minutes ago, honanhal said:

Aside from a seemingly much more efficient engine, a key factor is that in P3D you start hemorrhaging performance when you add in stuff like Orbx regions (or even Vector).

I've added FS Global, FTX Global and Ultimate Terrain X (Europe, NA and Caribbean) to P3Dv4.5 and the performance hit is negligible. Never opted for Vector or photo areas as I knew the hit was unacceptable and the visual appearance of the scenery was transformed.

28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I've added FS Global, FTX Global and Ultimate Terrain X (Europe, NA and Caribbean) to P3Dv4.5 and the performance hit is negligible. Never opted for Vector or photo areas as I knew the hit was unacceptable and the visual appearance of the scenery was transformed.

Ok, that's fine. My point, directly relevant to what the OP has said here, is that my experience of going from P3d 4.5 to MSFS is of substantially better -- not worse -- performance. I'm not referring only to places where I was using e.g. Orbx full-fat regions, which I'd mostly stopped anyway by the time I switched since they performed so poorly. I'm talking also for example about places like NYC, London or Paris. Those places were always so sluggish in P3D that it never felt much fun to fly in or out of them. In MSFS I'm able to fly into them with a relatively complex airliner (A320 FBW), full AI air and sea traffic, and multiple cloud layers and it's consistently above 40 FPS and completely smooth. In P3D 4.5 those were always a stuttering mess, and I would be lucky to get 20 FPS in e.g. the PMDG NGX, let alone the FSL Bus under those conditions.

I know you haven't tried MSFS, but I'd consider that you might have that same experience of improved performance if you did. What is certainly not the case is that "MSFS is even more demanding of graphics power than P3D." It really, genuinely isn't.

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll leave it there. I just had to chime in since I've seen a lot of folks in the P3D forum -- I have to assume mostly or exclusively people who haven't actually used MSFS -- assert as a fact that MSFS is more hardware-demanding.

James

James, you’re able to speak from a better position than me as you have both sims. I’m just going off the videos I’ve seen and forum discussion.

You don’t list your hardware or resolution so it’s impossible to gauge how MSFS would work for me. Looking at the extensive testing done by Guru3D with all major graphics cards I noticed the maximum average frame rate was just 44 and that’s with a 3090 in 4K. Clearly the resolution has a major factor in how well MSFS performs. Here is how they summarised their findings...

”Even in 2021 Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 remains to be a title that shocks and awe's in various ways, both good and bad. Performance remains wretched and bottlenecked for numerous reasons. The game engine, world, and scene complexity are the main ones.”

Full survey available here. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/ms-flight-simulator-(2020)-the-2021-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review.html

 But as you say this is derailing the topic so I’m happy to leave it there.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You don’t list your hardware or resolution so it’s impossible to gauge how MSFS would work for me.

Ok, Ray, last post I promise. I'm running 1080p in both sims.

Hardware:

i7 6700K overclocked to 4.4GHz (down from 4.7GHz that I was running for P3D, so I could turn on hyperthreading for MSFS), GTX 1070 8GB, Asrock Z170 OC Formula MB, 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB DDR4 3000 RAM, Intel 600p 512GB SSD, Win 10

I strongly, strongly suspect the guru3d author is referring to "wretched and bottlenecked" performance not in comparison to other sims, but in comparison to other hardware-demanding applications. MSFS is simply a performance breath of fresh air after 15 years of trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer as far as chasing decent performance in FSX/P3D went. 🙂

James

Ok I spent 3 days reinstalling prepardv4 and I couldn't figure out why my gpu stayed at base clock and that is because prepard runs on the FSX engine and is not optimised really for a 64 bit this video helped me a lot I advice to do the settings exactly like it shown and do some adjustments,in if you have a high end GPU like max clock is atc1800 plus the first 2 settings in the graphics set it to high and ultra that will increase you load on the GPU more also another thing that helped was setting the shadows cast and receive if i untucked them my gpu goes back to base clock,expect high gou clocks speeds and low fps in heavy areas with heavy addon aircraft like the milviz king air,in fly tampa klas with the milviz king air I get 25-30  fps with a clock of 1980 but is smooth ,prepard is on an engine that was designed in 2006 but we make it work because we love it.       I forgot to mention you need a program to set affinity in prepard   affinity mask setting does not do a good enough job I use process lasso you can try it free for 30 days it takes a little bit to set the affinity just right.this should eliminate bad performance.

 

Edited March 11, 20215 yr by pelgrin21