5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

In a sim, 30 FPS gives  smooth motion . $20,000,000 sims for the airlines use 30 FPS. 

Not saying it isn't okay (but it isn't even close to okay for VR). Just saying its pretty poor. That shot in P3D and I'd be well over 100 FPS.

Regardless, while Chock's getting 30, I'm getting 5.

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by odourboy

Just now, odourboy said:

Not saying it isn't okay (but it isn't even close to okay for VR). Just saying its pretty poor. That shot in P3D and I'd be well over 100 FPS.

VR is a totally different kettle of fish. The more FPS the better cause you are feeding stereo images. 120 HZ or 60 hz for each eye is optimal. 

Running MSFS at 1080P is not the answer to the massive problem introduced with SU3, I assure you. For reference, I have an I9-9900k w/32gb ram and a 2080 Super, installed on a 1tb SSD. I also still have a 1080p monitor that I am perfectly happy with, and I have all of the problems and issues with the off and on low frame rates and stuttering that is being reported by so many. This problem has been caused by Asobo, and only Asobo is going to be able to fix it. I am finding it hard to believe with each passing day that a problem, or bug, if you will, this debilitating has not been isolated and fixed at this point. It has to be embarrassing, frankly for the team, that it was not picked up by QA and somehow slipped out to the masses. While I have not been too affected by some of the other performance or installation issues suffered by some up to this point with the introduction of each new world or SIM updates, this one has left me stunned by it's effect on the SIM. 

While we can do nothing but wait for a fix, surely they are close to a releasable resolution to this problem. The only thing I don't want to hear is that a fix has been found but we will have to wait for the next SIM update in a month or two to get. That would be unacceptable to everyone, I think.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

VR is a totally different kettle of fish. The more FPS the better cause you are feeding stereo images. 120 HZ or 60 hz for each eye is optimal. 

120hz is a pipedream in MSFS VR....

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by blueshark747

19 hours ago, hanhamreds said:

For Christ sake don’t wipe your system, why would you do that.

the game is a bag of sh1te, that’s all there is to it.

More nonsense. 

3 minutes ago, BaronKen said:

Running MSFS at 1080P is not the answer to the massive problem introduced with SU3, I assure you. For reference, I have an I9-9900k w/32gb ram and a 2080 Super, installed on a 1tb SSD. I also still have a 1080p monitor that I am perfectly happy with, and I have all of the problems and issues with the off and on low frame rates and stuttering that is being reported by so many. This problem has been caused by Asobo, and only Asobo is going to be able to fix it. I am finding it hard to believe with each passing day that a problem, or bug, if you will, this debilitating has not been isolated and fixed at this point. It has to be embarrassing, frankly for the team, that it was not picked up by QA and somehow slipped out to the masses. While I have not been too affected by some of the other performance or installation issues suffered by some up to this point with the introduction of each new world or SIM updates, this one has left me stunned by it's effect on the SIM. 

While we can do nothing but wait for a fix, surely they are close to a releasable resolution to this problem. The only thing I don't want to hear is that a fix has been found but we will have to wait for the next SIM update in a month or two to get. That would be unacceptable to everyone, I think.

My guess is the fix is really complex and may include rolling back some of the last update to where it was prior to the update, which might break other things in the sim. 

1 hour ago, crimplene said:

Thx, I didn't see that.

I posted on the screenshot forum a thread called "Western China" where you see the livery.  

1080p medium settings Vsync 30 fps nuff said till they can restore back proper multithread performance (hopefully). 

2 hours ago, Chock said:

 believe the marketing speak that you must have the new toy at super-mega-resolution and run your sim at the highest resolution you can and off they go, insisting that 1920x1080 isn't good enough for their super-refined eyes.

Indeed, and don't forget about the 144Hz refresh rate that is require else headaches and seizures are in store for you while you....watch paint dry at 4K....

This just in:  at 8K you can actually see the individual VOC molecules evaporate...

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by Noel

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I can't for the life of me understand why someone sitting two feet  away from a monitor needs 4K. Your eye can't even resolve that resolution

Sorry, but this is a bugbear of mine:   you just can't make that assertion without having more numbers.  You're absolutely correct in some circumstances, and no doubt lots of people are pressured into over-buying their video systems.  But it is still entirely possible for a standard desktop gaming system to have visible benefit from a 4k monitor, and it's simple to prove with a little trigonometry.

Since you work with high end video equipment you probably already know this, but for the benefit of other readers, 20/20 vision is defined as the ability to discriminate objects that cover a distance of one arcminute, or 1/60 degree, in your vision.   This means that, for normal vision, the point at which you truly cannot even see the pixels on a monitor any more is when you have 60 of them per degree of your field of view:  that is a true "retina display".

It's pretty easy trig to go from there to figuring out what, based on the size and resolution of any monitor, the minimal viewing distance from it will be to achieve "retina resolution".

I'm not going to do the math, because there are plenty of sites online that will do it for you.  (This is a particularly nice one). But the average monitor viewing distance is somewhere between 2 and 3 feet for most people.

If we assume a bog-standard, 23" 1080p monitor, we can find that the optimum viewing distance for 20/20 vision is 35 inches.  If you sit any closer than that, even with just a 23" monitor, your eyes should be able to pick out individual pixels.   Let's take that same monitor, but turn it into a 4k panel, and see what the optimum viewing distance is:  16 inches.  No one sits that close to their monitor if they have normal vision, so yes, in this case 4k is very much wasted.

But that is just about the most conservative case possible.   Let's take as a counter-example my 32" 4k display.   Plugging those numbers into that calculator, you can determine that the optimum viewing distance for my monitor is just over 22 inches.  Since I sit fairly close to my monitor, about 24" away, this works out nicely for me.   The pixel density of the monitor is just above my visual acuity;  if I move a few inches closer I can see pixels, but where I sit I usually can't.

(It's not an accident that it worked out this way.   I did the math before I purchased it.)

So yes:  you definitely need to be a monitor "power user", so to speak, to be able to benefit from a 4k display, but the human eye absolutely can see the difference in non-abnormal circumstances.

Whether or not it's necessary or useful is another matter entirely, and one that's a lot less objective.

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by kaosfere

19 hours ago, Brandon01110 said:

I've spent $2500 US dollars on a 3090 in hope to get the best experience I can.  You can imagine my disappointment when I saw a dip to 6 FPS around KORD area.  There are many times where it goes to around 15 or so FPS.  SMH

4k ultra settings

Not sure why you're getting dips to 6fps at KORD. For me once the sim stabilizes, it hovers between 25-27fps in cockpit at KORD at 4K Ultra with default traffic settings. I tried droning around the airport and I can't get dips that dramatic. 

 

1 minute ago, SolRayz said:

Not sure why you're getting dips to 6fps at KORD. For me once the sim stabilizes, it hovers between 25-27fps in cockpit at KORD at 4K Ultra with default traffic settings. I tried droning around the airport and I can't get dips that dramatic. 

 

Hundreds of posts by people on this forum and the MS forum  stating that while everyone doesn't have FPS issues, many do. 

15 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

Sorry, but this is a bugbear of mine:   you just can't make that assertion without having more numbers.  You're absolutely correct in some circumstances, and no doubt lots of people are pressured into over-buying their video systems.  But it is still entirely possible for a standard desktop gaming system to have visible benefit from a 4k monitor, and it's simple to prove with a little trigonometry.

Since you work with high end video equipment you probably already know this, but for the benefit of other readers, 20/20 vision is defined as the ability to discriminate objects that cover a distance of one arcminute, or 1/60 degree, in your vision.   This means that, for normal vision, the point at which you truly cannot even see the pixels on a monitor any more is when you have 60 of them per degree of your field of view:  that is a true "retina display".

It's pretty easy trig to go from there to figuring out what, based on the size and resolution of any monitor, the minimal viewing distance from it will be to achieve "retina resolution".

I'm not going to do the math, because there are plenty of sites online that will do it for you.  (This is a particularly nice one). But the average monitor viewing distance is somewhere between 2 and 3 feet for most people.

If we assume a bog-standard, 23" 1080p monitor, we can find that the optimum viewing distance for 20/20 vision is 35 inches.  If you sit any closer than that, even with just a 23" monitor, your eyes should be able to pick out individual pixels.   Let's take that same monitor, but turn it into a 4k panel, and see what the optimum viewing distance is:  16 inches.  No one sits that close to their monitor if they have normal vision, so yes, in this case 4k is very much wasted.

But that is just about the most conservative case possible.   Let's take as a counter-example my 32" 4k display.   Plugging those numbers into that calculator, you can determine that the optimum viewing distance for my monitor is just over 22 inches.  Since I sit fairly close to my monitor, about 24" away, this works out nicely for me.   The visual density of the monitor is just above my visual acuity;  if I move a few inches closer I can see pixels, but where I sit I usually can't.

(It's not an accident that it worked out this way.   I did the math before I purchased it.)

So yes:  you definitely need to be a monitor "power user", so to speak, to be able to benefit from a 4k display, but the human eye absolutely can see the difference in non-abnormal circumstances.

Whether or not it's necessary or useful is another matter entirely, and one that's a lot less objective.

You math is correct. I sit 18 inches from my eye to my 24" ,monitor, 1080 P, and I don't see pixels. That to me , is what matters. 

14 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

Whether or not it's necessary or useful is another matter entirely, and one that's a lot less objective.

That's really the point isn't it, especially when it comes to influencing others' purchasing decisions.  Is it really WORTH the processing cost required?  Some day, when the hardware can ALWAYS deliver ANWHERE in sim in the most complex pay ware airplanes and pay ware airports at least a rock solid 30fps, then it might be worth the cost involved.  But now?  Bad advice, 4K, especially when you can't buy a GPU to do it justice. 

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Hundreds of posts by people on this forum and the MS forum  stating that while everyone doesn't have FPS issues, many do. 

Just throwing this out there, so excuse my ignorance, but could it simply be slow texture loading because of internet bottlenecking causing these frame dips? The reason I say this, is that once I initialize the flight, fps is stuttery and low until the sim stabilizes. Maybe everyones is experiencing different results because bandwidth is not created equal depending on isp, geographic location  and host of other reasons.