12 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

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?

Maybe.  Do you know if photogrammetry OFF reduces the bandwidth requirement?  People have stated even w/ photogrammetry off they're still getting these FPS tanks.  I got these FPS tanks in a few select areas after MSFS was initially released and still did on rare occasions prior to the last update, and as they were paired w/ ample GPU and CPU headroom when they struck I assumed it had something to do w/ internet bandwidth or MSFS servers becoming overloaded since clearly my PC had lots of headroom.

20 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

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. 

No, the behavior you describe is normal. This bug gives an additional stutter even in offline mode.

Regarding resolution: I have a quite capable system and of course tried 1080p and 1440p instead of 4k. A 50% fps loss clearly is more recognizable in 4k (like 40 going to 20) but it is there even in the lowest resolution with low settings.

And of course 1080p on a 32'' screen is much less crisp than 4k. I am old, I want to be able to read the numbers on the glass cockpit screens without much zooming. 1440p is good, but 4k very obviously is more crisp. 

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by crimplene

30 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

could it simply be slow texture loading because of internet bottlenecking causing these frame dips? T 

That maybe the case in some occurrences as is filling up the community   folder with "sub-optimized" freeware sceneries or having PG when your hardware cannot cope with it.

But there is also something out there which cannot be explained by a streaming bottleneck. There are spots where two users in two different countries do experience stutters or a FPS dip at two different times.

About resolution. I run a  GTX 1080 on a 2560*1440 display and I have not suffered in my flights  from stutters or dips but once (landing on a jungle strip !). Except of course when I go and check for somebody requesting assistance. I generally fly lighter aircraft in rural or lightly urbanized  areas. I know my computer limits. It comes with age 😃.

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by Dominique_K

53 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.

.............

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

Well this reminds me of some discussions about Hi-Fi systems.

Some will say: why spend your money on loudspeakers that have a frequency response of 16 Hz - 30 kHz when your ears cannot get there? And then they go on to convince you that there is no difference between a budget amplifier and a premium amplifier, that all CD players sound the same, that a connection cable cannot make a difference, and so on. Often this is only because they are not wiling or able to spend that much but they want to be able to say that they have the best system of all, and those who spend more are idiots.

Others will declare that there IS a difference even if they cannot hear one. Often, this is just because they want to support their own vision and humiliate those without that much money.

I believe that "to each its own" is the best answer. If Joe is happy with a 4K display, so be it. Jim is happy with a 640x480 one instead. It's a big planet, and we all can be happy without having to decide who's smart and who's not.

Andrea

7 minutes ago, crimplene said:

...but 4k very obviously is more crisp. 

I asked this question once before and no one responded so I'll put it up again.  To illustrate the question, tell me how this particular texture would look at 4K v 1080p, provided you are at the optimal viewing distance for each: 

This texture is 800x600.  Copy it and and display it on a 4K screen.  Does it look better at 4K than at 1080p?  

I ask because I don't know what the native resolution is on MSFS nor P3D textures.  If the native resolution of the texture itself is not at least as dense as the display resolution, that 'crispness' is reallly wasted it would seem

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

To illustrate the question, tell me how this particular texture would look at 4K v 1080p, provided you are at the optimal viewing distance for each:

If you are at the optimal viewing distance for each, by definition the pixels will have the same visual size, and the image should, I believe, look identical, on 100% accurate displays.

But we don't tend to use different monitors at different distances.  Depending on how you define "better", it could look "better", though smaller, on a 4k screen than on a 1080p screen of the same size at the same distance.   In this example we're basically using the monitor resolution as a proxy for zoom, with the 1080p having higher zoom, and you know what happens when you zoom in close on an image.

Of course, if you scale the image up 2x so it's the same size on the 4k as it is on the 1080, it will obviously look worse.   But using a smart scaling algorithm can help a lot with that, some of the new ones do amazingly good work.   People playing vintage games in DOSBox will be well aware of that.

 

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

If the native resolution of the texture itself is not at least as dense as the display resolution, that 'crispness' is reallly wasted it would seem

That's not necessarily true.   Texture resolution and display resolution are only loosely correlated in terms of their direct impact on one another.   Think of it this way:   a texture covers an object, or part of an object, in 3D space.   What you see when you look at the object is only a portion of the texture -- what portion you look at depends on how much of the surface of the object it in the image at one time.   You could have a 1024x1024 texture area exposed on an object that only takes up an area a couple hundred pixels square on the screen.   A higher resolution monitor is able to more accurately render whatever the scaled version of the texture is.   Whether or not this gives you a visual benefit is highly dependent upon the situation, but it can.

This is also why 8k textures can be relevant even on a 4k screen.  You rarely put the whole texture on screen at once, and the denser the portion you do put on screen the better.

All this 4K talk makes no sense. When I drop to resolution down to 1440P and even 1080P, I am seeing negligible performance differences. The only advantage I see is lower GPU temps around ~10 degrees.  Has anyone else notice this? You would think fps would increase dramatically dropping the resolution so significantly. 

25 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

All this 4K talk makes no sense. When I drop to resolution down to 1440P and even 1080P, I am seeing negligible performance differences. The only advantage I see is lower GPU temps around ~10 degrees.  Has anyone else notice this? You would think fps would increase dramatically dropping the resolution so significantly. 

You don't see performance differences expecially when you are CPU limited like in the CRJ or A320. With the Spifire or other simple GA planes the Game is always limited by mainthread in 1080p but gets limited by GPU in 1440p (if you have not a strong GPU) and especially in 4k. So I have with the spitfire in rural areas about 40 to 45 fps in 4k and 60 to 70 fps in 1440p. With the CRJ it does not matter fps wise, but of course the instruments are much better to read in 4k.

 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I asked this question once before and no one responded so I'll put it up again.  To illustrate the question, tell me how this particular texture would look at 4K v 1080p, provided you are at the optimal viewing distance for each: 

This texture is 800x600.  Copy it and and display it on a 4K screen.  Does it look better at 4K than at 1080p?  

I ask because I don't know what the native resolution is on MSFS nor P3D textures.  If the native resolution of the texture itself is not at least as dense as the display resolution, that 'crispness' is reallly wasted it would seem

I don't understand the question, really. Why would a 800x600 texture look different in 4k? Of course it doesn't. 🙂 But higher res textures do. All ground textures and textures of trees etc. get higher res when you see them from a distance. Almost all cockpit textures and especially the text in glass displays is highres (glass cockpit textures are not limited to a resolution, as far as I know, it is displayed as text - text in Excel or Word get much more crisp in 4k, too, obvioulsy). The difference is huge.

If I had time now, I would make screenshots of small areas in a steam and glass cockpit and magnify them to the same size. I did that a while ago but didn't keep the files. There is big difference, I would not have believed when I my self only had a 1080p screen.

Ah, I had some time, so: 🙂

Cockpit_4k

Cockpit_1080p

Both pictures will likely look much the same, when they fill a 1080p screen. Zoom in and you will see a difference.
Cut-outs:
Vertical Speed Indicator 4k

Vertical Speed Indicator 1080p

I honestly think that shows the difference quite well. Trees, buildings etc. especially when in an distance and quite small look much better in 4k, at least on a screen large enough.

20 minutes ago, crimplene said:

You don't see performance differences expecially when you are CPU limited like in the CRJ or A320. With the Spifire or other simple GA planes the Game is always limited by mainthread in 1080p but gets limited by GPU in 1440p (if you have not a strong GPU) and especially in 4k. So I have with the spitfire in rural areas about 40 to 45 fps in 4k and 60 to 70 fps in 1440p. With the CRJ it does not matter fps wise, but of course the instruments are much better to read in 4k.

 

I see. However if I'm CPU limited with the CRJ, shouldn't cpu utilization be higher on each thread. As you can see in the pic, cpu across the threads roughly in the 20%-30% range. 

 

23 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I haven't read of one person  that reinstalling windows fixed anything with MSFS 2020. 

Except me

Just now, SolRayz said:

I see. However if I'm CPU limited with the CRJ, shouldn't cpu utilization be higher on each thread. As you can see in the pic, cpu across the threads roughly in the 20%-30% range. 

 

The WASM or JavaScript program code of complex airliners runs mostly on one (or maybe two) CPU core(s). I don't think it is easily possible to spread aircraft system code over several cores. You better watch the core utilization graphs in the Taskmanager Performance Window. I just checked. With the airbus I got cores 5 and 10 maxed. Scenery was sparse, all other cores stayed below 20%. The I loaded the Savage Cub in the same situation and cores 5 and 10 stayed at about 70% while the GPU was at 100% in 4k. So, clearly CPU limited with Airbus and GPU limited with Cub.

5 minutes ago, crimplene said:

The WASM or JavaScript program code of complex airliners runs mostly on one (or maybe two) CPU core(s). I don't think it is easily possible to spread aircraft system code over several cores. You better watch the core utilization graphs in the Taskmanager Performance Window. I just checked. With the airbus I got cores 5 and 10 maxed. Scenery was sparse, all other cores stayed below 20%. The I loaded the Savage Cub in the same situation and cores 5 and 10 stayed at about 70% while the GPU was at 100% in 4k. So, clearly CPU limited with Airbus and GPU limited with Cub.

Hmmm interesting. I loaded the 320Neo with the latest FBW mod at FlyTampa Sydney at interestingly, virtual core 15 is pegged, all others around 20%. I'm not sure what is going on, but I guess this is normal. 

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

Some will say: why spend your money on loudspeakers that have a frequency response of 16 Hz - 30 kHz when your ears cannot get there?

One does not have to "hear" the lowest bass notes. One can "feel" it!

A pipe organ that has a rank of 64' pipes has a C₋₁ frequency of 8 Hz, assuming that the organ has normal current tuning where A4 is 440 Hz. 

My custom built Hauptwerk digital organ's 30" speakers can produce C₋₁ well and is felt more than heard. One's entire body vibrates when that note is played.

However, is acoustic combination (a note and its fifth) counts, the lowest note is C₋₂, which is 4 Hz. which my system sadly cannot play well at all.