2 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Contrary to some posters above, I think I am entitled to speak as the owner of a weak computer because I have one. 😄

Pre-SU5, my machine was giving me a reasonably good experience, I said it many times giving credit to Asobo for this, and the tradeoff thing of SU5 is not welcome because I get a negligible boost in performance for a reduction of visual quality, an apparent continuous trend in the development of this sim.

The best is sometimes the worst enemy of the good... 
 

If I'm reading it right, through the considerable white noise on the topic, that won't be the case when they get the thing out as was intended, i.e. what people were reporting the test version of the update was able to manage. Guess we'll see.

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

To me it looks like a classic case of "if too many users on low end machines insist on pushing the sliders all the way up and then complaining about performance - lets limit the available high end options to keep the complainers quiet" .

and/or they needed to lower some visual quality for console specs.

I was actually worried I was going to get only negligible performance gains from this update. Much to my pleasure the gain has pretty much been massive, especially as far as glass cockpits. I have never in my life had a Sim this smooth.

So for people like me, asobo has pretty much done the completely unexpected and almost impossible. Not surprisingly (I don't think) if anyone was to ask me, I would prefer to stand Pat where we are right now, but other people have needs as well so I guess I'll just see where we end up after the hotfix, and going forward.

 

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by HiFlyer

The PC builds that many folks have are capable of pushing this sim to the limit but if the options/sliders aren't available then how can one know what this will do?  Microsoft/Asobo could make a version that is opened up for those who want to tweak lots of things.  And for the xbox, they could make a "controlled" version optionwise if that's what it needs to run at optimal performance. 

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by Isaiah53six

Okay, here's my make lemonade solution... Add combat to MSFS and simply claim that the LOD draw wave you see when looking about is the concussion wave of bombs dropping on the landscape. Easy peesy, lemon squeezy. 🤣

Now can they please put the GAU-8 back on that A-10 Thunderbolt II? It looks naked without it. BRRRRRT!

 

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

Contrary to some posters above, I think I am entitled to speak as the owner of a weak computer because I have one. 

 

I have an even weaker computer and am happy that Microsoft isn't pandering to owners of overpriced hardware. 😀

I feel bad, though, for all the folks who spent their kid's college fund on a PC.

It rarely makes sense to throw expensive hardware at a flightsimulatr, but - shrug - what do I know?

Edit: kind of funny how folks are now getting hung up on the visuals. I thought this was about hardcore simming? I personally don't care whether or not I can see all the details on a cow's udders at 30,000 feet. For me, it's all about having a smooth experience, especially when flying with complex glass.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by Ricardo41

2 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I have an even weaker computer and am happy that Microsoft isn't pandering to owners of overpriced hardware.

The "problem" is, it actually was not necessary to make this a "one or the other" thing, no? They could have implemented the performance improvements and yet keep an "ultra plus" (or whatever you wanna call it) setting for those already having nice performance with SU4. There was no to little reason to "take" this visual fidelity away from everybody, no? Why do those with capable rigs have to look on reduced cloud quality, ugly high-altitude ground textures and popping in of objects when panning around now? That is basically why you can modify your settings on PC, no? That you can adjust them to the hardware you have, no need to have a downgraded everything for everybody making the use of those sliders basically obsolete as now everybody can simply run everything on "ultra". Like this, they could have also consequently eliminate all those graphic settings for the sake of simplicity, nobody will use them anymore...

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Well, barring unknown factors, I believe you or I or anyone actually, is perfectly free to suggest that option to them at any time, at which point they will make a decision, yay or nay, depending on their own needs and plans. For my part, I would "vote" against it.

I still don't understand why you would vote against MORE choices. A slider contemplating levels above the current max in order to tailor the experience to the desired framerate for any PC - from low to high end.

No harm would be done to your 6 core and 2080 Ti, nor to the guy with an i5 and a GTX 1060... you would find a position of the slider on the left to suit your needs.

I start thinking that it's EXACTLY a matter of willy size, sorry: being able to say "I play MSFS at Ultra settings" regardless of how it actually looks. The same reason why there is a market for plastic spoilers and huge exhaust pipes for cheap 100 hp cars.  

If my Ultra runs at 100 fps (with 26 GB of free RAM, 20 GB of free VRAM, 16 CPU threads doing nothing) when I need 50 fps for a smooth experience, I'd rather call it Medium and have the choice to get better graphics through a menu. 

Jeez, it doesn't seem too much to ask and too hard to understand. Rather tell me that it would be complicated to realize and they don't want to do it because they have already sold us (PC users) the game, but don't tell me you would vote against it, please.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by MrFuzzy

7 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

I still don't understand why you would vote against MORE choices. A slider contemplating levels above the current max in order to tailor the experience to the desired framerate for any PC - from low to high end.

First, for the many who apparently don't remember, Asobo already mentioned, approximately three months ago, their ambitions for what they described as "settings beyond ultra".

If they chose to go for that, well then it's their corporate choice, since they're the ones that will have to put in the time and money and do the work to make it happen.

Meanwhile, personally I'm feeling..... growing discomfort (bordering on embarrassment) at the seemingly insatiable entitlement within the community, that appears to only grow every time they acquiesce to the latest in an apparently endless stream of demands.

Their reward for doing so is ingratitude, conspiracy theories, distrust, wild ranting..... Yuck.

So first, I don't want to be part of that.

And second, I'll not be very surprised when/if their patience thins enough that they begin to put their feet down (however delicately the customer service and marketing departments massage it) and start setting some firm boundaries and limitations on what is reasonable in accommodating us.

Meanwhile, as far as willies... (again!) You can go down that trail, but I won't be following.

7 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

If my Ultra runs at 100 fps (with 26 GB of free RAM, 20 GB of free VRAM, 16 CPU threads doing nothing) when I need 50 fps for a smooth experience, I'd rather call it Medium and have the choice to get better graphics through a menu. 

That's fine. (though of course that's kind of a straw man, as it's far from most people's experience)

However, as I said a few posts previously, I really am aware not everyone feels like I do on this.

Further, Asobo already mentioned the concept, so as far as I'm concerned at this point, the whole thing has an air of pointless tail chasing on our part. They will do what they will do. Or not.

Meanwhile, as I said a few posts earlier, I'm just going to wait for the hotfix, and see what happens from there.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by HiFlyer

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

If they chose to go for that, well then it's their corporate choice, since they're the ones that will have to put in the time and money and do the work to make it happen.

 

I would just like to point out that it's our money. The game is not free.

 

16 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

 

I would just like to point out that it's our money. The game is not free.

 

Azure cloud services and on going development is effectively free. That's MS's money.

3 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

growing discomfort (bordering on embarrassment)

It's really really embarrassing to see grown men act like their $60 to $120 to MS entitles them to everything and anything.

It's quite simple in my view.  Those with mediocre systems should just buy an xbox if they need a performane boost. Cheaper than trying to find a half decent graphics card and the rest of us that have latest gen computers can continue to balance between visual quality and performance. Having a dumbed down version to meet minimum system specs is far from ideal for those that can push a system a little harder. 

13 minutes ago, Slides said:

It's really really embarrassing to see grown men act like their $60 to $120 to MS entitles them to everything and anything.

It's the elitist and 'better than them' attitude toward those playing on Xbox that is the most grating. That the fact it's now available on the console somehow makes it less worthy of the sim title and that they have to suffer to accommodate them, when that's not true at all.

The irony is if you go and have a scroll through Twitter and read players tweets under the FlightSimulator hashtag people are loving it.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by Tom Wright

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

It's really really embarrassing to see grown men act like their $60 to $120 to MS entitles them to everything and anything.

I can still remember how desolate this forum was before MSFS20 was announced and then all the naysayers saying 1 or 2 patches and MS would drop it like a hot potato. Are we having growing pains,  absolutley .The GA flight sim community at least has something to look forward to with a major company still developing a sim. That's not to say don't provide constructive critism but it's gotten over the top.