Excellent side by side SU4 to SU5 performance comparison

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

With SU5 I am running LOD 300 (for less pop-ins) and render scale 135 (for better cockpits) and still get better FPS than I did with SU4 at LOD 100 Render 100 .

Overall visual assessment:

•  SDR are almost (but not quite) as good as SU4
• HDR graphics on a HDR monitor are way better than any previous HDR in this game.

 

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

Exactly, both with LOD set to 100.  😉

In SU5, you need to set LOD = 200 for the same visuals.

Try it!

OK but in this case it's not a fair performance comparison.

Let's say that with SU5, in order to have the same graphical fidelity as before, you need to fiddle with Usercfg.opt, which is something that maybe only 10% of the people do... those who read the forums and have sufficient PC proficiency. Because if the new LOD 100 is 200, the new 200 is... 400? Moreover with the pop-in issue that cannot be removed because it's only marginally related to the LOD sliders. And when you get approximately to the same graphical fidelity as SU4 by modifying the config files, most probably you end up with the same performance and stuttering you had before. 

After all, reducing RAM usage by 50-60% and VRAM usage by 30-50% overnight CANNOT be without consequences. 

I know it's an endless argument and it's not worth spending more time and posts on it... just for Asobo: there must be something else to it, because the pop-in and morphing also depend on the specific location: compare London to Tokyo for example. The first is a pop-in and morphing mess at any LOD and settings, the latter a masterpiece of autogen and photogrammetry.

[Ixoye 1,821]

The new LOD 100 is 200, the new 200 is 400, that's how ASOBO has increased performance, in fact it's a scam, I am convinced that we will see terrain and object sliders that goes to 400 with the next Sim update, ie, no difference compared to before except that the numbers are higher.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Ixoye

[ADamiani 470]

5 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

And then we will hear about stuttering......

Not actually: you get to choose what compromise you like, ranging from

"simplified light effects, reduced LOD, limited buffering, scenery popping and morphing, shimmering -> great FPS even on old hardware"

to

"SU4 level or better -> potentially a slideshow on many systems"

and all that's in between.

A choice is always right: if you don't like the FPS and want a smoother experience just dial some sliders left. That's all.

Besides, please notice that some stuttering and pauses are still there: there is a thread somewhere about that, but it relates mainly with the great choice of reducing scenery buffering. 

A.

Edited August 15, 2021 by ADamiani

[neil0311 366]

6 hours ago, Ixoye said:

The new LOD 100 is 200, the new 200 is 400, that's how ASOBO has increased performance, in fact it's a scam

“It’s a scam” 😂😂😂

No…it’s the same as any game and the same as FS for the last 30 years. The higher the visual experience, the higher the hit, and the lower the performance.

Can you actually tell “high end” or LOD 100 from “ultra” or LOD 200? If you know what to look for, sure you can spot things, but I’d suggest that users should be spending less time staring out the window obsessing over scenery LOD and more time flying the aircraft. I have a 2 year old i9 overclocked system with a 2080Ti, and I can barely tell the difference between “High End” or “Ultra” or LOD 100 or 200. Sure, you can see it, but I’d rather have a better flight experience with 45 fps on “high end” than 30 fps on “ultra” any day. 

[neil0311 366]

And I would add that people always want to make perfect the enemy of good.

So many people nitpick over minutia but ignore that MSFS 2020 is still so much better than X-Plane, FSX, or P3D.  Fly any flight on those sims maxed out, and then fly that same flight on MSFS 2020 on “high end” presets, and you still get a better experience and the visuals are still better. 

[odourboy 1,289]

9 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

What about the water and the piers in SU5?

All flat and opaque...

 

Object detail far superior in SU4 with both at Ultra, not to mention clouds. There ain't no free lunch. 

[Bobsk8 12,723]

15 minutes ago, odourboy said:

Object detail far superior in SU4 with both at Ultra, not to mention clouds. There ain't no free lunch. 

I am flying over the UK right now, and it seems that all the scenery colors are washed out, as in the video you posted , in SU5. Look at how the water looks between SU4 and SU5.  I wonder if they will ever fix this?

Edited August 15, 2021 by Bobsk8

[odourboy 1,289]

19 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

It’s a scam” 😂😂😂

No…it’s the same as any game and the same as FS for the last 30 years. The higher the visual experience, the higher the hit, and the lower the performance

I think it is kind of a scam, or at least disingenuous on Asobo's part. While they probably slipped in a few minor fixes and optimizations, the bulk of the so called 'performance improvements' were stolen by rescaling some image quality sliders then locking out users not able or willing to tinker with internal file settings from the sim's former visual glory.

Edited August 15, 2021 by odourboy

[Aristoteles 471]

I took a screenshot yesterday and after editing it slightly (10 secs editing work, just to remove haze, really D) with irfanview I realized how SU4 looked like. It doesn´t look like much, but is very noticeable when images are at full size.

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Aristoteles

[Bobsk8 12,723]

1 minute ago, Aristoteles said:

I took a screenshot yesterday and after editing it slightly (10 secs editing work, just to remove haze, really D) with irfanview I realized how SU4 looked like. 

In addition to the haze in SU5, the gamma, black level, and contrast are not right. 

[Aristoteles 471]

Yes, I think gamma and contrast play a big role.

[neil0311 366]

10 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

the gamma, black level, and contrast are not right. 

I guess this illustrates is the difference in perspective between “hard core computer simmers” and old pilots just looking for a reasonable representation of the flight experience on a computer. 

When I look out of the cockpit window in MSFS, does it look convincing? Yes!  I also don’t fly from outside the plane looking at a wide angle view of scenery. 

And maybe it makes me less than knowledgeable or just another arcade gamer, but I wouldn’t even know how to quantify those things. Gamma???? Don’t even know what that is honestly.

Edited August 15, 2021 by neil0311

[Bobsk8 12,723]

4 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

I guess this illustrates is the difference in perspective between “hard core computer simmers” and old pilots just looking for a reasonable representation of the flight experience on a computer. 

When I look out of the cockpit window in MSFS, does it look convincing? Yes!  I also don’t fly from outside the plane looking at a wide angle view of scenery. 

And maybe it makes me less than knowledgeable or just another arcade gamer, but I wouldn’t even know how to quantify those things. Gamma???? Don’t even know what that is honestly.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm

[neil0311 366]

32 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm

Thanks for the info. Always like to educate myself on things I’m not up on.

Of course for me…and it’s just a personal preference, I used Megascenery and FSGenesis mesh in FS9, FSX, P3D. So I was “happy” with the often bad color, seasonal anomalies, and the less than perfect experience that photo scenery of that generation provided. But the realism above 1,000 ft was an order of magnitude better to me than the fake generic scenery.

I guess it’s all relative to expectations and what you’re used to seeing.