2 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

Interior or exterior view?

All in cockpit view, day time, the default view, Zoom 50.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by Nyxx

6 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

If I turn up Render scale below I only lose 2 FPS. I Went from 54 to 52 it shows 58 becasue I had to hit apply and resume. I turned Render scale to its max 200 8K and in the JF PA I had 28-35 FPS

 

Generally speaking there isn’t much difference between 1440p and 4K when using the 3080/3090 - both are badly held back by CPU bottleneck as we know.

 

 

OK, I Down Loaded the A320 FBW Version 0.5.4 and the easyjet livery.

So...what do you think the FPS will be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Airport EGNX Runway 28 not an addon airport not in the middle of no where. But a good average airport to test.

Live weather was 6/8 cloud cover.

Setting Ultra, 1440p

MSFS 172 (None Glass)      FPS 58

JF PA-28                              FPS 54

FBW A320                            FPS 50 <<<<<   

CJ4wt                                   FPS 50

MSFS A320 Neo                  FPS 49

Carenado M20                     FPS 48

AS CRJ                                FPS 36

Or as a percentage from the 172

JF PA-28                              - 5%

CJ4wt                                   - 13%

MSFS A320 Neo                  - 14%

Carenado M20                     - 15%

AS CRJ                                - 38%

---------------------------------------------------------

So the FBW is amazing. Greyed out as I am beta testing. Clouds were not so much but thats would not make any diffrence.

I ran the test 2 time to make sure this was right. I was surprised.

 

 

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Woudn't have expected that, to be honest. Especially since for quite some time people were even turning the screens on the right in the cockpit to gain some more fps with it.

4 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

So the FBW is amazing.

I can confirm your figures - or rather the relative difference. I ran a quick and dirty test of just the C172 and the FBW Dev version, EGNX Rwy28, 4k.

C172:     52 fps
A320:     47 fps

18 minutes ago, SierraDelta said:

I can confirm your figures - or rather the relative difference. I ran a quick and dirty test of just the C172 and the FBW Dev version, EGNX Rwy28, 4k.

C172:     52 fps
A320:     47 fps

Thank you Soren, for the confirmation and your time.

So are we saying that the Aerosoft CRJ is just a complex aircraft that requires a lot of processor cycles and it should be expected, or do we think it should be better and needs to be optimised?

Although it seems the mod to turn off the co-pilot screens gains a few FPS back for people, is that due to a GPU of a CPU saving?

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by bobcat999

Thanks for the information, I run the sim at 3440x1440 with 10900k and 2080Ti, and I get about the same performance as you, so for me it's a waste of money to buy a 3080, good to know.

2 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

Thanks for the information, I run the sim at 3440x1440 with 10900k and 2080Ti, and I get about the same performance as you, so for me it's a waste of money to buy a 3080, good to know.

The 2080Ti and the 3080 at 1440p are around the same, its when you goto 4k it realy makes a big diffrence.

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Nyxx

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

OK, I Down Loaded the A320 FBW Version 0.5.4 and the easyjet livery.

So...what do you think the FPS will be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Airport EGNX Runway 28 not an addon airport not in the middle of no where. But a good average airport to test.

Live weather was 6/8 cloud cover.

Setting Ultra, 1440p

MSFS 172 (None Glass)      FPS 58

JF PA-28                              FPS 54

FBW A320                            FPS 50 <<<<<   

CJ4wt                                   FPS 50

MSFS A320 Neo                  FPS 49

 

WOW, the FBW faster than the default A320? I will try it now. UPDATE: for me it's 46 fps with the default A320 Neo and 39 fps with FBW's... 

If can make an observation, I think you should test these aircraft with settings that put the sim in "limited by main thread" conditions with the C172 already. That's because if at some point you are limited by GPU, this can flatten the results and make two aircraft having different performance, actually give the same framerate.

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by MrFuzzy

Interesting, but without giving any hardware specs... or did I miss those?

2 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

The 2080Ti and the 3080 at 1440p are around the same, its when you goto 4k it realy makes a big diffrence.

Do you use Cockpit Refresh Rate at High? I use Medium with Airliners and High with GA, that one is a fps killer, I prefer High settings and I can't stand anything lower than Medium.

@Nyxx would it possible if you can post the screenshots for the in-sim FPS counter window? The one that shows Main Thread, GPU, Cohrent, RdrThread, RAM bing used by MSFS and the VRAM being used by MSFS. You can get it from after enabling the dev mode under one drop down menu. These are important info that can help us to know which factor limiting the FPS at each case.

 

I realy dont want to do all the test again. Sorry, All I can say is the airport I use, when I run unlimited FPS I am CPU limited. To bring in the GPU I have to render scale up. 120 has no effect and thats the setting for the tests, When I cap FPS the CPU is then not caped out and I balance that with Render scale, but its a bit hard with MSFS performance atm.

1 hour ago, Ixoye said:

Do you use Cockpit Refresh Rate at High? I use Medium with Airliners and High with GA, that one is a fps killer, I prefer High settings and I can't stand anything lower than Medium.

I use Med or low as the refreash rate in an real airbus are low, proberly not a Neo but I am use to it. So All the tests were dont on MED. Airbus was done on low.