On 4/3/2021 at 8:28 AM, flyingjafo said:

How do you lock externally?

Thanks,

Jefferson

I set it in rivatuner which comes with msi afterburner.

I use TrackIR and locking at 30FPS gives me a headache. 

Thanks for the advice everyone - I'm the original poster and based on your responses I actually decided to limit my frames via the Radeon tool to Min 60 Max 60 then set them to V-sync and 60 in game and (surprisingly) it's as smooth as glass AND the GPU stays very cool.

Smooth as glass as long as I don't fly south of the city of Seattle and KRNT and alongside KSEA, that is - the sim acts like I'm trying to run it on a 486 processor and floppy around there with 2 second pauses (I started another thread on that topic).

Steve

I did a flight last night for two hours and i don’t think i noticed one stutter. It looks fixed to me. My 1070 never ran better on this sim which is great since i cannot find anything to upgrade to. 

There are many approaches to capping frames, and they all have their pros and cons. So far I've been mostly limiting frames to 30 using RivaTuner. Coincidentally, today I've been experimenting with MSFS' in-game limiter. Apparently using in-engine limiters are preferable to external limiters (like RTSS and NCP), as there's less input lag, hence a smoother experience overall. This is explained in the video below.

Currently I'm having a ball testing out MSFS in all its glory in 4K and HDR on a massive 77" LG OLED CX TV (the beast is used most of the time to enjoy 4K Dolby Vision content). The experience is jaw-droppingly good. The CX is a bit unique in that it is capable of 4K at 120Hz via HDMI 2.1, and that it also features G-Sync. Of all the options, I find that G-Sync provides the overall best experience in terms of fluidity and smoothness. The second best is probably MSFS' own fps limiter. Third place IMO is a draw between RTSS and NCP.

Running the LG at 100HZ, a frame limit of 20 actually results in 33 fps, which seems to be a sweet spot, in terms of less load on both CPU and GPU, and hence lower temps and less fan noise. I've got 7 x 120mm fans synced to CPU temp and a custom CPU and GPU water loop. In other words, those fans all running at full speed can be readily heard (when I'm not taking off in the 747 with the sound outputted to my stereo). Also, I've never really cared much for fps much higher than 30 in flight sims. The long-term, everlasting hunt is really for a smooth, stutter-free experience.

Sadly, I too also get low fps and stutters approaching large-city airports, despite the $$$$ upgrade to a GTX 3090. After waiting for months, the OC edition ROG Strix suddenly appered in an online store, but the price was simply abhorrent. My bank account still hurts.

Anyway, as MSFS before the upgrade (1080Ti) was pretty much chronically GPU-bottlenecked at 4K, the reverse is now very much a fact. Approaching Orbx' LIRQ near the photogrammetry city of Florence, my previously excellent de-lidded, pre-binned, hand-picked 8086K at 5,2GHz sweats and moans as the 3090 is chilling at the beach with a martini. In fact, the stutters only occurs on final approach i.e. low altitude, and corresponds with the poor CPU approaching 100% at all six cores.

As most games are GPU-bottlenecked at 4K (no difference with MSFS really), MSFS is a somewhat different beast in that it also seems to beg for a very high-end CPU at higher resolutions. Watching CPU reviews on sites like Gamers Nexus and the like, the general rule is that there's very little difference in performance between different CPUs at 4K. In several games, a 7700K can perform very similar to a 10900K at 1440p and up. The most CPU-demanding situations in MSFS seems to be dense urban and CBD areas, poorly optimised 3rd party airports and, of course, photogrammetry. The latter of which consistently absolutely murders my 8086K (which is no slouch).

I've been tweaking extensively with both in-sim, Win10, Process Lasso and various other settings, but this issue remains the same. Heck, I`ve even disabled all default airports in search for the Holy Grail of smoothness. The question then arises: Should I shell out on a 10900K and OC it to its limits? Now that the price has dropped somewhat following the (largely disappointing) recent Intel 11th gen launch, it is certainly tempting.

Anyway, I used to be flavik77 in here, but I've recently re-emerged as Captain Piett (after being slaughtered by that rebel scum A-wing pilot near the Sanctuary Moon of Endor). If I manage to some day run MSFS smoothly even in photogrammetry locations like London and NY, I might again earn the right to be addressed as Admiral. 

 

 

Edited April 5, 20215 yr by Cpt_Piett

@Cpt_Piett - I have a 10900K and a RX 6800 and have an unbelievably smooth experience for the most part when setting Vsync at 60 FPS in game and limiting frames on the Radeon thing to 60 min and 60 max FPS - even flying around the Los Angeles basin with photogrammetry on is quite smooth.

My nemesis is flying from Seattle southward - then all hell breaks loose and it was like my FS98 behaved when I first got into flight simming and believed very naively that you just put the disk in the drive of any PC and it'd work perfectly.   I've been chasing smoothness for 20+ years now and don't think I'll ever stop. *

*except Aerofly FS2 - I couldn't make that thing stutter once

**My XP11 actually works great these days and with Orbx TE etc. it looks pretty good too but even then I end up getting micro-stutters etc.

56 minutes ago, Republic DC9 said:

I've been chasing smoothness for 20+ years now and don't think I'll ever stop

Likewise. It's a never ending story really, the relentless search for flight simming perfection.

It'd be interesting to re-visit XP11 to see how it fares with upgraded hardware. I spent a great deal of time in that sim, which in fact triggered the 8086K purchase from overclockers.co.uk - a golden chip at the time. After the switch to Vulkan the sim was near-perfect in terms of smoothness. The visuals although left much to be desired, and it's no understatement that it was fairly time-consuming to generate Ortho4XP scenery all over the place to compensate for the underwhelming default scenery. Orbx TE certainly made life much easier. In fact, one of my last flights in XP11 was in Orbx TE Washington, getting great performance in Vulkan, even in the Seattle area. IMO the visuals are comparable to MSFS, save for the atmospheric effects. 

Anyway, I digress. Now, with MSFS I feel that nirvana has come a lot closer, almost within reach. It does'nt come without a price tag however. And even with top of the line hardware, the sim still struggles in certain places - like the Seattle area, which I suspect must be due to some poor optimisation in those areas. 

1 hour ago, Republic DC9 said:

I have a 10900K [...] and have an unbelievably smooth experience

It's certainly tempting to pull the trigger. I've done a fair bit of research and it seems it would be a decent companion to the 3090. You mentioned another thread of yours debating areas which make your 10900K regress to a 486 chip? I might go check that one out. 

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Likewise. It's a never ending story really, the relentless search for flight simming perfection.

It'd be interesting to re-visit XP11 to see how it fares with upgraded hardware. I spent a great deal of time in that sim, which in fact triggered the 8086K purchase from overclockers.co.uk - a golden chip at the time. After the switch to Vulkan the sim was near-perfect in terms of smoothness. The visuals although left much to be desired, and it's no understatement that it was fairly time-consuming to generate Ortho4XP scenery all over the place to compensate for the underwhelming default scenery. Orbx TE certainly made life much easier. In fact, one of my last flights in XP11 was in Orbx TE Washington, getting great performance in Vulkan, even in the Seattle area. IMO the visuals are comparable to MSFS, save for the atmospheric effects. 

Anyway, I digress. Now, with MSFS I feel that nirvana has come a lot closer, almost within reach. It does'nt come without a price tag however. And even with top of the line hardware, the sim still struggles in certain places - like the Seattle area, which I suspect must be due to some poor optimisation in those areas. 

It's certainly tempting to pull the trigger. I've done a fair bit of research and it seems it would be a decent companion to the 3090. You mentioned another thread of yours debating areas which make your 10900K regress to a 486 chip? I might go check that one out. 

It is only the area south of Seattle (so far) that makes my 10900K act like a 486.

But I decreased the terrain slider to 100 based on advice on that thread, re-enabled a 30 GB cache, re-installed Drzweicki Seattle and all seems well-ish...smooth save for a few stutters even with that goshawk jet....better, I think.

Full disclosure I am an Orbx beta tester but a flight sim fan first and foremost and I have been enjoying XP11 + TE again greatly...so smooth, looks good, get to re-use my many XP11 investments like a heavenly Carenado Turbocommander 690 Santa Barbara to GPB500 clubware KBUR smooth as silk with the new X-vision skies and Traffic Global traffic.

Off to complete another Seattle test flight in MSFS!

Feel free to PM to compare notes!

Steve

As humiliating as this might sound, I have what is referred to as a very "low-end" system that does not have the muscle to even handle 30FPS.

Through much testing and optimizing I HAVE managed to eke out a very solid, stutter-free 25FPS.  

If any of you also have an older, low-end system, and are interested, I posted my settings on the Microsoft Flight Simulator Forum:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/low-specs-experience/386860/18?u=tallestparsley2

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It's certainly tempting to pull the trigger. I've done a fair bit of research and it seems it would be a decent companion to the 3090.

Considering that you have to change the MB, it would be much better to go for a Ryzen 5800X / 5900X. 

2 hours ago, chfisa said:

As humiliating as this might sound, I have what is referred to as a very "low-end" system that does not have the muscle to even handle 30FPS.

Through much testing and optimizing I HAVE managed to eke out a very solid, stutter-free 25FPS.  

If any of you also have an older, low-end system, and are interested, I posted my settings on the Microsoft Flight Simulator Forum:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/low-specs-experience/386860/18?u=tallestparsley2

A valid point. Flying into demanding areas I sometimes lock fps to below 30 - better to have steady fps in these situations than having frames run freely all over the place - that certainly creates stutters. 

Reducing the LOD values seems to be one of the most powerful ways of gaining performance. The sim will still look good. 

I also have HAG-On, Game Mode-On set. Also - I deactivated both xbox game bar and GeForce experience overlay. Of particular importance is to deactivate any background recording features like nvidia's Shadowplay. 

Edited April 6, 20215 yr by Cpt_Piett

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

Considering that you have to change the MB, it would be much better to go for a Ryzen 5800X / 5900X. 

Absolutely. In fact, it seems a better option overall with the much lower TDP / heat production and similar or sometimes increased performance. The 5800X in particular seems to be a decent all-rounder. 

The Intel chips seems to be somewhat easier to get a hand on nowadays, for a slightly lower price. I've not used AMD since a PC build I did over 10 years ago - but this is certainly not a bad time to pledge allegiance to camp red.