After looking at videos it would appear that even the best PCs with RTX 3090 graphics cards still struggle to run the most complex sceneries in Ultra at more than 20-30fps.

With computer chips being in short supply for at least the next 6 months, it would seem that the 3090 is going to be the top end card for the foreseeable future. I cannot see nvidia releasing a new range for some time.

so it’s going to be at least late 2022 or 2023 before there is any opportunity to improve and get better performance for MSFS and have a chance of running it at smooth frame rates.

 

Or is there another way to get around the current hardware limitations?

11 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

Or is there another way to get around the current hardware limitations?

Yup, run it at 1920x1080p. It looks alright at that resolution.

It’s not the 3090 that is struggling, in fact it’s not even the CPU.

it’s down to the game engine and backend infrastructure mostly - not a client issue.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yup, run it at 1920x1080p. It looks alright at that resolution.

I work in commercial very high end video, and have for years, right now we are using 8K monitors at work. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone sitting 2 feet from a monitor needs 4K, other than they like to watch their PC struggle while running MSFS. 

26 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

After looking at videos it would appear that even the best PCs with RTX 3090 graphics cards still struggle to run the most complex sceneries in Ultra at more than 20-30fps.

With computer chips being in short supply for at least the next 6 months, it would seem that the 3090 is going to be the top end card for the foreseeable future. I cannot see nvidia releasing a new range for some time.

so it’s going to be at least late 2022 or 2023 before there is any opportunity to improve and get better performance for MSFS and have a chance of running it at smooth frame rates.

 

Or is there another way to get around the current hardware limitations?

The way I look at it, if the sim runs perfectly at max settings then max settings are too low.  The user should have the ability to dial things up to his or her FPS tolerance level.  Msfs looks pretty awesome and outshines the competition at high settings, let alone ultra.  No one said you have to have every slider pegged to the max to enjoy it.  I’d rather it this way and for their to be more improvement to go when new hardware comes available.

For what it’s worth, I’ve got a i9-9820 and a 3090Ti and things are running very smooth even in VR.  In 2D I run mostly ultra and dial that down to high in vr but I’ve got no issues with the sim as is.  Everyone has different tolerances for frame rates (esp in vr) so this is not a dismissal of the disappointment others may feel - more a pitch that it’s not necessarily a “failure” if the max detail on offer is beyond current hardware capabilities

I’m surprised no one seems to be running this on a triple screen resolution.

I could just about run FS9 in triple screen with a complex aircraft, but once I had AirHauler , detailed airports with lots of AI and real world weather running in the background my PC was struggling.

 

It would be nice to get to a point where it would be possible to run all this and enjoy a smooth, realistic experience rather than spending more time trying to optimise my PC settings to get it to run decently.

33 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I work in commercial very high end video, and have for years, right now we are using 8K monitors at work. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone sitting 2 feet from a monitor needs 4K, other than they like to watch their PC struggle while running MSFS. 

Exactly, it makes basically no difference over 1440p, there is a difference between 4k and 1080p, but even then it's small at most peoples sitting distances (and its only more detectable on PC gaming because of anti-aliasing artifacts more than static sharpness). There might be occasional scaling or anti-aliasing benefits of 4k vs. 1440p due to game engine deficiencies, but it's unlikely really.

Even 4k vs. 1080p isn't detectable in most content at our seating distances, but some people sitting close using big monitors it is. The native sharpness or MTF of the monitor likely makes more of a difference than the res at this point.

 

Edited April 28, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

1 hour ago, hanhamreds said:

It’s not the 3090 that is struggling, in fact it’s not even the CPU.

it’s down to the game engine and backend infrastructure mostly - not a client issue.

 

 

Hello

I use MSFS and I am really enjoying it.  I have a 4K monitor for the sim and a second HD monitor for the support apps.

I fly most of the weekly VFR/IFR events on my virtual airline's private network,

I fly in IVAO and VATSIM where and when I want....  I use mostly TBM9, CJ4, C172, and C152. Sometimes I use CRJ in IFR and G36 in VFR or IFR. I'm just learning the CRJ as we speak.

I don't have all the time it takes to learn that many aircrafts really well, as I want and should.

So I haven't installed the Airbus and MODS yet. I may wait until we get PMDG 737 

I develop and fly MSFS missions, and others in my VA build  and publish complex scenery for airports... We have much more now than we ever had before.... 

Is everything perfect? of course not, and it never has been prefer either. 

Are we having fun? .... of course we are.

Are we getting value for money..... of course.

Yet I understand that others who may have other goals and I humbly respect their position. 

I forgot to mention about my system. I don't have too much. Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz   4.00 GHz 32MB RAM. My Video Card is not that fancy. I use Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 TI.

Regards

AHS712D ALvaro Escorcia KSGR

AirHispania Virtual Airlines

Edited April 28, 20215 yr by wlix261

I rarely respond on avism. Been simming for 26 years. on msfs2020 i fly only ga planes . I am at 4k 3840x2160 on a samsung 65 inch tv all settings on ultra except high on buildings and trees and grass. my system is a intel intel  i9-9900K no overclock and a rtx2080ti with 11gb memory. at kdca washington.  Flying the piper arrow .  I get between 40 and 45 fps. heading out toward frederick md. wiil go up to 53 fps. This sim is fantastic, and i do not understand all the bad comments  on avism. It seems to me the greatest of my 26 yeasrs of simming. 

Runs fine on my 5900x, Rtx 3080 @ 5120 x 1440. All ultra settings locked @ 30 fps solid.

54 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I work in commercial very high end video, and have for years, right now we are using 8K monitors at work. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone sitting 2 feet from a monitor needs 4K, other than they like to watch their PC struggle while running MSFS. 

They don't, however HDR is great when bright enough... Are you running HDR? Have been thinking 1440p HDR would be the sweet spot.

Geez...    it took nearly 4 years for computers to get to the stage of running FSX at full spec. When it was released, top end computers were still struggling to get average FPS and 30 FPS was a dream 🙂  Currently full spec is fairly easily achieveable for top end computers.  I would NOT be surprised to see additional stuff being brought into the sim that actually requires people to downgrade slightly on settings..  but frankly.. I don't see how you can get much better than this at 45 FPS over one of the most complex cities in the game and still not pushing the computer to its limits,  in fact having plenty of reserve for all those wonderful things yet to come..  The only thing in this picture that is not default are the plane and London City Airport which is ORBX.

Or this..  default except the livery also at 45FPS..

 

Graham

Edited April 28, 20215 yr by Moria15

36 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

I’m surprised no one seems to be running this on a triple screen resolution.

I could just about run FS9 in triple screen with a complex aircraft, but once I had AirHauler , detailed airports with lots of AI and real world weather running in the background my PC was struggling.

 

It would be nice to get to a point where it would be possible to run all this and enjoy a smooth, realistic experience rather than spending more time trying to optimise my PC settings to get it to run decently.

Fantastic! This is the solution to the "When will there be a PC to run MSFS?" Use FS9.🤣

Sorry... I could not resist - No offense..... please !

Cheers

AHS712D Alvaro Escorcia KSGR

AirHispania Virtual Airlines

The only areas newer PC's are needed are going to be like some spotty areas in the larger cities, Tokyo - NY - Seattle, etc... It could help there, the game already runs just fine, not sure what all the complaining about. 

Yah, only have an RTX 2060 due to video card shortage and even on my setup it runs absolutely fine. I don't have all settings at ultra and am only running 1080p, but I can run ultra in smaller cities or medium sized airports even on my meager setup.

 

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The only areas newer PC's are needed are going to be like some spotty areas in the larger cities, Tokyo - NY - Seattle, etc... It could help there, the game already runs just fine, not sure what all the complaining about. 

Yah, only have an RTX 2060 due to video card shortage and even on my setup it runs absolutely fine. I don't have all settings at ultra and am only running 1080p, but I can run ultra in smaller cities or medium sized airports even on my meager setup.

 

Of course the product runs OK in the targeted hardware.....