When will there be a PC to run MSFS?

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, TrafficPilot said:

That's my settings and it runs nice and smooth at the moment. Just waiting for the next update to kill the sim again 😉

Hahaha. We know they'll bust something if they run true to form, however, they can get some things really right too, such as their new ultralight add-on.

If you run their new Top Rudder 103 Solo ultralight at 1080p, because it is so simple in terms of avionics and such, you can really crank up the graphics and fly at low level with that thing (as my youtube review of it which is currently merrily uploading and will be viewable in a couple of hours readily shows).

Personally, I'd rather have a smooth sim at 1080p than be getting into all that chasing FPS nonsense. I had that for years with FSX the moment it got a sniff of a scenery add-on and a half-decent set of clouds, so I've no wish to repeat it by being obsessed with running things at resolutions which for the most part only serve to slow things down and make pretty screenshots.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

The alternative (which some games actually take) is hold back on releasing features and nerf the quality sliders so the game runs fine even on a 5 year old mum and dad generic PC. 

The idea being if you offer too many high quality options and features to choose from, there are people out there that will turn them all on at once and then spam the forums with rants about how the game is unplayable.

( The opposite approach was taken by the game Control where they specifically said do not turn on all the Ray Tracing features at 4K at the same time, choose the ones you want to prioritise.) 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Cpt_Piett 4,544]

17 hours ago, KL Oo said:

According to the link you provided for my 55inch 4K capable TV I should be sitting 2.5 metres away......there’s a good way to loose any sense of immersion.

I’m trying to be immersed in flying the aircraft and get a feel of being in the cockpit.....I’m not sitting on the couch watching day time TV.......

Good point. When watching movies on my 77" i sit about 3m away in the couch. When simming I sit much closer. It's all about immersion. And being able to clearly read all cockpit instruments.

[TrafficPilot 121]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Personally, I'd rather have a smooth sim at 1080p than be getting into all that chasing FPS nonsense.

FPS watching was the main reason I gave up using P3D. It became such an obsession that I spent more time tweaking than flying.

I never monitor the FPS in this new game. I just leave graphics on "High" unless I need to adjust then for heavy/light areas.

Much less stressful!

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

Note that we are now starting to see games that actually REQUIRE a Ray Trace capable graphics card to run at all ...

 

In terms of MSFS new Ray Traced cockpits with global illumination and reflections, especially at dusk or dawn with clouds and rain,  are going to make a massive difference once we eventually get them, and Ray Traced particle effects for dust and smoke and so forth will be a huge step up (not that we have any particle effects at all at present).

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Scottoest 1,561]

14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The increase of pixels from FullHD to UHD is 50%. So you’re saying you could see a 33% increase but not a 50% increase? And this sounds theoretical since you don’t have a UHD monito

UHD (aka 4K) is 400% of the pixels of 1080p, not 50%

[Scottoest 1,561]

To answer the OP's question - there's already computers that can run MSFS just fine.  I don't consider running a game to be the same thing as "running it at absolute maximum everything well above 30fps"

And unless your monitor is bigger than 50" somehow, anything above 1440p is probably processing overkill anyway for little visual gain.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

2 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

To answer the OP's question - there's already computers that can run MSFS just fine.  I don't consider running a game to be the same thing as "running it at absolute maximum everything well above 30fps"

And unless your monitor is bigger than 50" somehow, anything above 1440p is probably processing overkill anyway for little visual gain.

yeah, the requirement to run first person shooter FPS at maxed out visual quality at 4K is a bit disingenuous.  In first person shooters casual players tend to wind the graphics up and competitive players turn down any graphics not needed for good game play to maximise FPS.

In terms of  "running it at absolute maximum everything well above 30fps"  the game may never get there because as hardware improves and the core game gets more optimised there will be more and more features added to cancel out those improvements.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Yah, approx 2 million for 1080p vs 8.3 million for UHD 4k.

This whole thing with PPI assumes your eyes are fully resolving the pixels to start with from a near-perfect source image with no further ability to zoom without noticeable degradation. This is why using any simple representation of pixels in FOV (or the discombobulated interpretation of PPI) is not a good representation of the improvement for the ability of your eyes to resolve the pixel detail. Also, historically speaking (if not discussing source res), then PPI is meant to be taken as a fixed resolution when talking about a monitor as measured at the surface of the device. The PPI in here is being altered by viewing distance, but if you are altering viewing distance on image resolution, you generally need to specify additional information.

For instance, you would say an HFOV increase of 2x at 15pixels per foot at an original sensor resolution of 42 line pairs per millimeter output to a 4k device. Otherwise, you're essentially trying to re-calculate visual acuity by the pixel depth on the fly by just changing the # of pixels. Though you could do it the hacked PPI way for like a home theater room and it might work out in a rough calculation at very close distances, this doesn't work out for the sim really. The edge resolution of the image also varies depending on barrel distortion, and sometimes you have to factor lens equations into the resolution when changing the FOV to get an accurate resolution at a given distance.

Edit
Also, one last note is all these simple HFOV equations are just ballpark estimates of resulting resolution degradation or at what point you can continue zooming without seeing artifacts that do not look like the real image should in real life. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[JaseMelbo 386]

I run a Ryzen 5 3600 with 16GB Ram, RTX3060Ti Card on a Samsung Series 8 4K 65Inch Curved Screen.  In all situations on High Settings I get 30 FPS solid with the CRJ, in 4K.  This simulator is simply stunning and love the smooth frame rate and scenery quality.

Nice work Microsoft - Brilliant.

[JaseMelbo 386]

3 hours ago, TrafficPilot said:

FPS watching was the main reason I gave up using P3D. It became such an obsession that I spent more time tweaking than flying.

I never monitor the FPS in this new game. I just leave graphics on "High" unless I need to adjust then for heavy/light areas.

Much less stressful!

100% what you said.  Once I got set up I turned off developer mode and anything that shows FPS on screen.  I just get in and fly.  Love it.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

1 minute ago, jaseman007 said:

I run a Ryzen 5 3600 with 16GB Ram, RTX3060Ti Card on a Samsung Series 8 4K 65Inch Curved Screen.  In all situations on High Settings I get 30 FPS solid with the CRJ, in 4K.  This simulator is simply stunning and love the smooth frame rate and scenery quality.

Nice work Microsoft - Brilliant.

I was on a Ryzen 5 3600 went to a 5800x, did it make a difference, well ---- not much. I only have an RTX 2060 though. I never look at FPS either, only if I'm having an issue I might peak while developing an airport or something.

 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

32 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I was on a Ryzen 5 3600 went to a 5800x, did it make a difference, well ---- not much. I only have an RTX 2060 though. I never look at FPS either, only if I'm having an issue I might peak while developing an airport or something.

 

I had an i5 8400 and RTX 2060 with 16GB RAM and it was fine at 1440p on mainly Ultra.

I have since upgraded to a 3070/9900K and 32Gb of RAM but that is because I am looking at getting a Reverb G2 (or whatever VR headset replaces it).

For normal non-VR simming the i5 and RTX 2060 were fine.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

I think people are too performance hungry. I could upgrade, but I feel the 5800x (mainly bought for rendering) and the 2060 suits me fine at 1080p. As noted, my projector isn't sharp enough to benefit from its own 4k ability, so I just feed it a 1080p signal for better performance. I will probably upgrade to a 3060 or 3070 when they get back in the market, but given I don't fly in large cities all that often, nor do I use VR, it wouldn't make a ton of difference.

I do like flying around some cities like Charlotte or similar now and then, but they don't perform all that bad, I avoid NY.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

12 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

 I will probably upgrade to a 3060 or 3070 when they get back in the market, but given I don't fly in large cities all that often, nor do I use VR, it wouldn't make a ton of difference.

Going RTX 2060 to RTX 3070 took my average frames from around 35 FPS or so up to maybe 45- 50 FPS on the same game settings on my 1440p monitor.

Quite a bit faster on paper, but to be honest 35 FPS versus 45 FPS is neither here nor there when flying, both looked fine in game.

Where it WOULD matter more is if it improved the stutters and lows but there was no effect on the odd stutter and no improvement in the lowest FPS count,  however both of those for me were CPU related so i was not expecting any changes there.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick