6 hours ago, enright said:

Since we have the same display, I figured I'd check this out, but I can't find an option to set the display to 30hz - I only have 50hz and 60hz as options. Are you actually setting the display refresh rate to 30hz or capping FPS with vsync to 30fps (which is exactly 50% of 60hz, so I could see why that would be smooth).

Critical is to NOT cap FPS thru any other mechanism, including RTSS scanline x/2, or Nv Control Panel.  Simply use NCP to set your screen to 30hz under Display Resolution, then in MSFS, turn Vsync ON, and set frame rate at 60, not 30!  To be honest in MSFS I have not set monitor to 60Hz, and frame limit in-sim to 30, so worth a try thanks.  I don't suffer from any untoward effects from 30hz as some c/o, but if I can get the identical smooth perf w/ 60hz, that would not be a bad thing.  In the past I've done 60Hz vsync where I could easilly maintain 60fps, and the outcome was not better than 30fps at all, which I feel was probably because I was a little bit too close to not being able to maintain 60fps even if ultra briefly, which translated to stutters that I don't have at 30hz.

Holy Sheet!  Thanks for pointing out the obvious!  This was not possible, in P3D where I started this practice, to set the in-sim frame cap and NOT have it adversely affect performance.  But I'm seeing absolutely no loss of benefit by setting the monitor at 60hz, and in-sim at 30 frames in MSFS.  It's too early to tell, but I do not see an dverse impact on GPU/CPU utilization which was always the benefit of vsync to 30hz.   Thanks again!  I'm not seeing any perf pluses on it either, but it opens up other displays that can't do 30hz.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by Noel

5 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Nope

So you think the reduction in memory footprint is uncorrelated with the fact that the XBox has only 16 GB? From this, it would follow that the PC version was downgraded for no reason. Hard to believe, considering that it happened exactly in the same day when the XBox version was launched.

A.

4 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

So you think the reduction in memory footprint is uncorrelated with the fact that the XBox has only 16 GB? From this, it would follow that the PC version was downgraded for no reason. Hard to believe, considering that it happened exactly in the same day when the XBox version was launched.

A.

What I've found on this that normally total memory use as reported by RTSS OSD, is very much always around 15Gb.  BUT, if you create a really high demand scenario, eg LOD at 400 or more at a complex airport, I do see upwards of 21Gb in use, but it typically takes that to do it.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by Noel

30 minutes ago, hanhamreds said:

During the dev Q&A at the Seattle media reveal from 2019 Robert Jerauld (Director of production) was adamant MSFS is not being made for the Xbox, it’s for PC and PC simmers

 

”not Johnny and the Xbox controller” I believe he said.

And we surely trust him.

At this time, I see an XBox game. So someone should tell Robert Jerauld (Director of production) that facts count more than words, but luckily the solution is at hand: bring things back to how they were before the SU5 downgrade.

The answer to the thread main question is simple: if they branch two different versions, one for PC's and the other for 'boxes, it's a PC game also ported to 'boxes (as advertised).

If they don't, it's an XBox game that also runs on PCs.

A.

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

What I've found on this that normally total memory use as reported by RTSS OSD, is very much always around 15Gb.  BUT, if you create a really high demand scenario, eg LOD at 400 or more at a complex airport, I do see upwards of 21Gb in use, but it typically takes that to do it.

Exactly. And if we consider that the maximum LOD is hard coded in the 'boxes, I have nothing to add, your Honor.

Little concern of mine: won't this also mean that there is a limit in the complexity of photogrammetry, dictated by the fact that the same scenery must also fit in the limited memory of the 'boxes? Hopefully not, and those with a deeper knowledge of how scenery download works will probably reassure me.

A.

46 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

So you think the reduction in memory footprint is uncorrelated with the fact that the XBox has only 16 GB? From this, it would follow that the PC version was downgraded for no reason. Hard to believe, considering that it happened exactly in the same day when the XBox version was launched.

A.

The performance was also for PC simmers who were asking for better performance. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

I see an XBox game.

It's still a simulator, they didn't dumb down any of the simulation features.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by Tuskin38

2 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The performance was also for PC simmers who were asking for better performance.

It's still a simulator, they didn't dumb down any of the simulation features.

But seriously, this is really too much. We can believe anything, but there is a limit. So they downgraded the graphics, introduced bugs and ctd's FOR EVERYONE, because some PC users hadn' t realized they could lower resolution and rendering %, reduce a few settings, and the software would run on anything reasonable? So they didn't ruin the visuals and stability for Johnny XBox, they did it for Jimmy GTX750? Sorry, good attempt but no, not gonna buy it.

They dumbed down the only thing that made it a simulator to me: visuals. Systems, flightmodel, autopilot,. weather, are all questionable. But the visuals were great.

Now, to me, it's back to an XBox game status.

A.

28 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Now, to me, it's back to an XBox game status.

I am not sure what you actually want to achieve with your numerous variations on the theme that Asobo/MS nerfed MSFS to make it fit for the Xbox. We certainly agree to disagree here. 

I enjoy the added performance I see (my fps went from 29 to 37 under the exact same settings at rwy 28R at KSFO), and I don't find display quality noticeably downgraded. I even more enjoy the performance upgrade as I often fly under VR where every fps counts and I was now able to step-up my AA settings which impoved image quality quite essentially.

What I find really disturbing is that contributions of this type usually just achieve nothing, except, perhaps drawing a few users on the fence away from MSFS. If someone is really interested in improving the sim, there are sure better ways of voicing issues: Reporting to Zendesk, or writing on the official forum which at least is followed by community managers with access to MS/Asobo.

And, according to my experience, it's always more helpful to formulate criticism in a constructive, target-oriented and positive way. This is often going to open more doors than just complaining.

Kind regards, Michael

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Holy Sheet!  Thanks for pointing out the obvious!  This was not possible, in P3D where I started this practice, to set the in-sim frame cap and NOT have it adversely affect performance.  But I'm seeing absolutely no loss of benefit by setting the monitor at 60hz, and in-sim at 30 frames in MSFS.  It's too early to tell, but I do not see an dverse impact on GPU/CPU utilization which was always the benefit of vsync to 30hz.   Thanks again!  I'm not seeing any perf pluses on it either, but it opens up other displays that can't do 30hz.

I'm glad this works for you Noel - the other bit of good news is that any multiple of your FPS cap should work equally well - so a 120hz refresh rate should also be smooth if your FPS cap is 30 - and has the benefit of being buttery smooth for apps that can actually do 120fps consistently. Obviously not an option with our current monitors, but something to consider if/when you upgrade.

One more thing to consider would be G-Sync (or AMD's version of the same tech, called FreeSync) - which dynamically adjusts the screen refresh rate to exactly match the FPS of whatever application you're using - to give you that 1:1 smoothness you get with 30hz, but at ANY FPS rate. The 2019+ C-Series LG OLED screens actually support this - but 48" is just a bit too big for my desk :).

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by enright

3 hours ago, environmental_ice said:

The default airplanes will be the same but thats it.  You really think you will be flying the A220 when it gets released? How about the A320 CEO version being developed? Plenty of payware airports too that wont be available on the XBOX. Its no where near apples to apples. 

WRONG. All marketplace plane are available right now on the xbox. Same goes for airports. It is VERY near to be apples to apples actually. We have had many xbox customers reaching out to us reporting good things and issues, and these are EXACTLY  the same feedbacks we get from PC guys. Except the xbox screenshots look better somehow.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by leprechaunlive

22 minutes ago, pmb said:

I am not sure what you actually want to achieve with your numerous variations on the theme that Asobo/MS nerfed MSFS to make it fit for the Xbox. We certainly agree to disagree here. 

I enjoy the added performance I see (my fps went from 29 to 37 under the exact same settings at rwy 28R at KSFO), and I don't find display quality noticeably downgraded. I even more enjoy the performance upgrade as I often fly under VR where every fps counts and I was now able to step-up my AA settings which impoved image quality quite essentially.

What I find really disturbing is that contributions of this type usually just achieve nothing, except, perhaps drawing a few users on the fence away from MSFS. If someone is really interested in improving the sim, there are sure better ways of voicing issues: Reporting to Zendesk, or writing on the official forum which at least is followed by community managers with access to MS/Asobo.

And, according to my experience, it's always more helpful to formulate criticism in a constructive, target-oriented and positive way. This is often going to open more doors than just complaining.

Kind regards, Michael

I am afraid you didn't read my contributions in full, or maybe I didn't explain what I wanted to say clearly enough.

This game (or sim, whatever we want to call it) can be wonderful and can grow with our hardware capabilities for the next nine years as promised. In this case, I am in for the ride and will invest time and money in it.

But if what we have seen with SU5 (and are still seeing now with the buffering limit) means that we will have just one version of the product, adapted to the limits of the XBox, then I am not interested. 

I would find this a borderline commercial practice, because it is not what we were promised last year. For this reason, I still believe that they will make two different branches and the product will evolve with our PCs.

In this Forum I have read that 

- the downgrade and the general instability introduced by SU5 were not real, and I was either a) crazy or b) a Laminar Research agent

- we should have known since last year that this was an XBox product and shouldn't have invested in hardware

- now the product is visually great, on par with SU4

- SU5 was also done for PC users (in this case they would have added some sliders, not downgraded the visuals for everyone)

Since none of the above is true, I think that we should be asking for the promised sliders, instead of finding ways to condone M$ commercial practice.

Do we agree on the fact that SU5 was a big mess for PC users (and still is when you think that it crashes to desktop even with a fresh install, empty CF and no overclock)? That they pushed SU5 knowing that? That they presented it as a wonderful FPS breakthrough? I am sorry: now M$ needs to earn back my trust with solid facts, by giving us a product that is stable and that can be scaled both downwards and upwards. The user will decide for his/her setting sweet spot.

What is wrong with this? Isn't this constructive criticism? Meaning criticism with the proposition of a viable solution?

BTW: Do you think that this forum, the most important about FS at this time, is not being actively monitored by M$?

A.

44 minutes ago, pmb said:

....and I don't find display quality noticeably downgraded.

Kind regards, Michael

Michael to me there is too much haze in the atmosphere, hampering visability.  But I'm flying right over the fires in Northern California, so maybe that's part of it I'm not sure.  But it was same same in Hawaii.  But otherwise LOD, mine's at 250 which is all it can manage w/ all Ultra settings + LOD modest increase, seems very good for detail long distance.  Of course the peripheral view is blurred from looking at it tangential to the flight path.  But I think I'm willing to give up on that because it's not hard to simply ignore it.  When you want to look 45 degrees left you just look 45 degrees left and voila you are looking at it straight on.  And as I say it's not hard to dev the practice of simply not looking for it.  Anyway, I'm saying it is robbing peter to pay paul but it might well be worth it.  It may give them more headroom for enhanced clouds and weather which was mentioned here is to get an impressive upgrade though I saw no details.

58 minutes ago, pmb said:

I am not sure what you actually want to achieve with your numerous variations on the theme that Asobo/MS nerfed MSFS to make it fit for the Xbox. We certainly agree to disagree here. 

I feel like I'm watching Sesame Street.  

bs

2 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Do we agree on the fact that SU5 was a big mess for PC users (and still is when you think that it crashes to desktop even with a fresh install, empty CF and no overclock)? That they pushed SU5 knowing that? That they presented it as a wonderful FPS breakthrough? I am sorry: now M$ needs to earn back my trust with solid facts, by giving us a product that is stable and that can be scaled both downwards and upwards. The user will decide for his/her setting sweet spot.

What is wrong with this? Isn't this constructive criticism? Meaning criticism with the proposition of a viable solution?

BTW: Do you think that this forum, the most important about FS at this time, is not being actively monitored by M$?

A.

Definitely a significant mess I agree.  Even so it's actually largely been completely flyable for me with a few CTD and confusion over setting sliders.  My chief complaints are cloud degradation, not using VRAM more fully, some possible color/lighting changes, though it can still look quite good for certain.  Thanksfully they lowered the frequency of the white spinner in the lower right part of the display but unfortunately they still introduce a brief but there micro-stutter.  And of course I can't forget what I paid for MSFS either.  I need my current hardware even w/ the performance increase, and those are real and very substantial, perhaps mostly for the mid to mid-high range PC, akin to Xbox.  My guess is MS/A will give control back to end users over exploiting their hardware because they have nothing to lose really.  They won't lose enough Xbox users to consider that much in a business decision.  Their reputation is enhanced when end PC users are seeing their hardware optimally used and they are happy.   The project is huge still esp w/ a DX-12 port and major weather enhancement on the horizon.  So I think we just have to be patient you know the old saying "Rome wasn't built in a day".   IOW low expectations for now they appear to be very engaged in developing it and I so no reason why they can't branch support both platforms.  In fact Xbox runs on a special Windows 10 mode, so they just code it to recognize which platform is running it, and simple add a wider range of controls via sliders for PC users.  Or even simpler, include the same controls in both.  Users, thru trial and error, will dial in settings their system can manage, which is of course what we've been doing for decades anyway.  I hope they do, I don't know what would be in it for them to not support both platforms but broaden the maximum image quality to match something above the current hardware capability so there is some future proofing.  it would not surprise me if MS/A are predicting how quickly to bring on features simply by building on the current architecure, as hardware improves.  10y project and all.  Almost 9y left.  Surely as date improves there will be need for greater resources to exploit this.  

Or more briefly:  this is MSFS August, 2021 Edition

MS might wan't to know what old farts think so they can avoid doing that in the future.  

Cheers

bs

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by bean_sprout