So World Update 6 is what Sim Update 5 should have been?

[abrams_tank 7,395]

With the addition of the pre-cache terrain slider, I think World Update 6 is what Sim Update 5 should have been.  We are over a month late but yeah, we got there.  Finally, we have great FPS, what Seb promised in his Twitch video, and people can now control the amount of culling and pop-ins with the pre-cache terrain slider.  Even better, I believe people are saying if they set the pre-cache terrain slider to ultra, they are still getting better FPS than Sim update 4.  

I suppose one of the downsides to World Update 6 is the bug some people have with night lighting if you don't set render scaling to 100.  I'm sure Asobo will have a fix for that, but it's something I can live with. Overall, everyone seems to like World Update 6. 

I am curious how the other flight simulators can match MSFS in both FPS and graphics.  It's not easy because when you tune the graphics up, usually the FPS gets worse.  MSFS is amazing in that we get very nice graphics, with very good FPS now.

[dogmanbird 269]

For VR, so far WU6 has been great. With clear skies or high cloud, I've now got all the distant clarity that earlier versions of the sim had (haven't yet tried other weather), and after editing the .cfg file to set VR pre caching to quality 3, almost eliminates the head movement stutter and pop-ins. All this with almost no sacrifice to FPS. 👍

[abrams_tank 7,395]

1 hour ago, dogmanbird said:

For VR, so far WU6 has been great. With clear skies or high cloud, I've now got all the distant clarity that earlier versions of the sim had (haven't yet tried other weather), and after editing the .cfg file to set VR pre caching to quality 3, almost eliminates the head movement stutter and pop-ins. All this with almost no sacrifice to FPS. 👍

Yeah, I heard that they forgot to enable the pre-cache terrain slider for VR, but I'm sure they'll do that in SU6 or with a hotfix.  Either way, there is no difference in WU6 for VR users even if Asobo forgot to enable the pre-cache terrain slider.  Since the pre-cache terrain slider is set to medium, it's just the same as SU5 for VR users.  I'm sure VR users will get the pre-cache terrain slider in time.  Although I read there was a workaround for VR users.

[Noel 4,492]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

...I think World Update 6 is what Sim Update 5 should have been. 

I am curious how the other flight simulators can match MSFS in both FPS and graphics.  It's not easy because when you tune the graphics up, usually the FPS gets worse.  MSFS is amazing in that we get very nice graphics, with very good FPS now.

Maybe in PC users' minds, but seriously SU5 was always going to be one and only one thing:  the XBOX release update, w/ PC users suffering from a little collateral damage, and for me really, it was mostly 'little'.  Unfortunately many PC users assumed all updates are about them and should always prioritize their needs despite the ultimate goals of MS/Asobo, so for me I always assumed things would be dicey w/ an update correlated to the Xbox release, so not surprised whatsoever.

I'll answer your curiousity if you will, at least w/ regard to now over 10y old P3D 4.5x:  absolute GARBAGE FPS, atmosphere, lighting, ambient occlusion, scenery detail, accuracy.  I only use P3D now when MSFS gets seriously impaired which has happened for me twice now in 1 years.  Performance is so bad in P3D, even w/ my very decent system, that I had to disable half of the Orbx scenery I bought for $100's, put autogen (buildings) and vegetation sliders back to Normal or lower, and terrain distance back to Normal or High, in order to fly the PMDG planes into any kind of big terminal like KLAS/KLAX/KJFK and have smooth animation.  Then there's the absolute garbage default airports, planes, terrain scenery.  I just took off out of EDDF, now at FL360 descending to FL300, in the remarkably decent 787-10, and it truly is.  The Heavy Division mod needs updated so we're back in the OEM model currently.  Taxiiing around EDDF (absolute work of art, FREE for the updating) I'm seeing 10.3Gb VRAM peak, using the Ultra pre-cache terrain slider.  

MSFS has indeed come of age in terms of core performance now.    I am so stoked to be able to benefit from the expensive 3080 Ti I bought, but once again, not surprised.  The Asobo team deserves ample accolades for what they have brough to the flight sim community already, here just a little over a year out.   A few things need to mature in the SDK, a few simple bugs need fixed, and I'd like to see instant replay and fly-by routines come into the sim, I'd like to see a simple popup like the screen shot below to desplay destination weather and winds aloft enroute (borrowed from ASN in P3D), but beyond that things have reached a level of maturity worth celebrating.

[abrams_tank 7,395]

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Maybe in PC users' minds, but seriously SU5 was always going to be one and only one thing:  the XBOX release update, w/ PC users suffering from a little collateral damage, and for me really, it was mostly 'little'.  Unfortunately many PC users assumed all updates are about them and should always prioritize their needs despite the ultimate goals of MS/Asobo, so for me I always assumed things would be dicey w/ an update correlated to the Xbox release, so not surprised whatsoever.

I mean, I don't really see the issue of SU5 being an X-Box update.  As PC users, we got a huge benefit from the boost in FPS in SU5.  Of course the only downside of that FPS boost in SU5 was there was no slider for the pre-cache terrain. But now that there is a slider for the pre-cache terrain, I think it's water under the bridge and SU5 was a huge net benefit to the PC users.

 

Quote

I'll answer your curiousity if you will, at least w/ regard to now over 10y old P3D 4.5x:  absolute GARBAGE FPS, atmosphere, lighting, ambient occlusion, scenery detail, accuracy.  I only use P3D now when MSFS gets seriously impaired which has happened for me twice now in 1 years.  Performance is so bad in P3D, even w/ my very decent system, that I had to disable half of the Orbx scenery I bought for $100's, put autogen (buildings) and vegetation sliders back to Normal or lower, and terrain distance back to Normal or High, in order to fly the PMDG planes into any kind of big terminal like KLAS/KLAX/KJFK and have smooth animation.  Then there's the absolute garbage default airports, planes, terrain scenery.  I just took off out of EDDF, now at FL360 descending to FL300, in the remarkably decent 787-10, and it truly is.  The Heavy Division mod needs updated so we're back in the OEM model currently.  Taxiiing around EDDF (absolute work of art, FREE for the updating) I'm seeing 10.3Gb VRAM peak, using the Ultra pre-cache terrain slider.  

Ok.  P3D v4.5x is a little old.  A more fair comparison would be P3D v5.2.  But to be fair, the real comparison will be P3D 6.0, if LM comes out with that. 

Somehow though, I can't even see P3D 6.0 matching MSFS in graphics and FPS.  I am also curious for X-Plane 12, if X-Plane 12 will be able to match the FPS of MSFS.  We know that X-Plane 12 will have improved graphics such as better lighting and better vegetation.  But can it match the FPS of MSFS?  That remains to be seen but I think that is a really hard task for LR to achieve.  The problem with P3D and X-Plane are that the engines are so old, it won't be easy to optimize it and get the huge FPS boosts that MSFS is getting, without a major rewrite of huge portions of the P3D or X-Plane code - in software development, we call this "technical debt."  I think P3D and X-Plane have a huge amount of technical debt because the engine and architecture are so old.

The best part is, MSFS still hasn't fully transitioned to DirectX 12 yet. From my understanding of the X-Box version of MSFS, people say it's actually using a DirectX 12 "wrapper."  So when MSFS transitions fully to DirectX 12, there may be even more FPS improvements.  That is mind boggling if we can get even more FPS improvements out of MSFS, given the level of graphics it currently has.

Edited September 8, 2021 by abrams_tank

[Noel 4,492]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

The best part is, MSFS still hasn't fully transitioned to DirectX 12 yet. From my understanding of the X-Box version of MSFS, people say it's actually using a DirectX 12 "wrapper."  So when MSFS transitions fully to DirectX 12, there may be even more FPS improvements.  That is mind boggling if we can get even more FPS improvements out of MSFS, given the level of graphics it currently has.

I'm thankful I have exactly zero desire/need for 'more FPS', having discovered there is absolutely no downside to vsync at 30 frames.  Maybe it's my display, or my vision and how it interprets incoming visual information, but yes there is absolutely nothing visually gained by setting the frame lock at even 60.  For a long time I set my display refresh to 30hz to get this done, but alas in Asobo's infinite wisdom I discovered vsync ON w/ frame limit at 30 works equally well w/ the display at 60hz.  In reality this added nothing other than it's great to know one does not need a 30hz capable display to do this, unlike in P3D.  Not sure what DX-12 will bring but if it's 'more FPS' as many here seem to think is important, for me it will simply be lower GPU utlization to get the same solid 30FPS I enjoy now. 

Enjoy!  I know I am!

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

I think at least we can say were back to even-steven.  The world updates add incredible value to the sim.  I think they're firing on all cylinders with these.

I did have a CTD after the Hegoland landing challenge.  After completing the challenge. when it took me back to the landing challenge menu, then clicking on landing challenges again, the sim CTDd.

The content delivery system on the other hand, still needs to be fixed/overhauled.  For me, this time, it went smooth.  Others experienced the same issues I had before.  I suspect this will get fixed pretty soon.

Now, if the sim updates start doing as good as the world updates, and we start getting the core features fixed up, then we're set.  We really need to start seeing these get fixed soon.

I suspect year 2 for the sim will be the golden year for MSFS.  I think they're starting to get their second wind and things will get even more streamlined.  It's been a bit rocky and frustrating so far, but I'm still 100% confident it will only get better.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Jeff Nielsen

[Bob Scott 7,719]

3 hours ago, Noel said:

I'll answer your curiousity if you will, at least w/ regard to now over 10y old P3D 4.5x:  absolute GARBAGE FPS, atmosphere, lighting, ambient occlusion, scenery detail, accuracy.  I only use P3D now when MSFS gets seriously impaired which has happened for me twice now in 1 years.  Performance is so bad in P3D, even w/ my very decent system, that I had to disable half of the Orbx scenery I bought for $100's, put autogen (buildings) and vegetation sliders back to Normal or lower, and terrain distance back to Normal or High, in order to fly the PMDG planes into any kind of big terminal like KLAS/KLAX/KJFK and have smooth animation.  Then there's the absolute garbage default airports, planes, terrain scenery.

First, P3D v4.0 released in 2017, and v4.5 in 2019, so "...now over 10y old P3D 4.5x..." is, at best completely inaccurate, and at worst garnishes an unflattering portrayal of the sim with falsehood.

As to "GARBAGE FPS"--I have a 9900K system similar to yours configured for portable use, but with a 2-generations older 1080Ti GPU, and it handily and smoothly holds 30fps into a 2560x1440 monitor with sliders right of center running the PMDG and FSLabs acft over lots of Orbx and other heavy scenery.  If you have garbage fps, perhaps you have a garbage configuration.  The sim is capable of much better than you describe with the hardware you're running.

Very few folks serious about simming base their satisfaction on experiences with default planes.  I care about what's presently possible with any platform, not on what comes with the plain-vanilla default platform, because the default acft on all of the platforms leave a lot to be desired.  And by "possible", I mean the entire spectrum of capabilities--complex high-fidelity aircraft models, scenario-selectable weather injection, procedurally correct ATC, AI traffic, remote-capable avionics, ground handling etc.  Without embellishing my point with unfair and/or untrue hyperbole, I think it's fair to note that one-year post-release a lot--most, in fact--of these capabilities are still missing from MSFS.

 

[liamp51 541]

5 minutes ago, w6kd said:

First, P3D v4.0 released in 2017, and v4.5 in 2019, so "...now over 10y old P3D 4.5x..." is, at best completely inaccurate, and at worst garnishes an unflattering portrayal of the sim with falsehood.

As to "GARBAGE FPS"--I have a 9900K system similar to yours configured as a portable system, but with a 2-generations older 1080Ti GPU, and it handily and smoothly holds 30fps into a 2560x1440 monitor with sliders right of center running the PMDG and FSLabs acft over lots of Orbx and other heavy scenery.  If you have garbage fps, perhaps you have a garbage configuration.  The sim is capable of much better than you describe with the hardware you're running.

Very few folks serious about simming base their satisfaction on experiences with default planes.  I care about what's presently possible with any platform, not on what comes with the plain-vanilla default platform, because the default acft on all of the platforms leave a lot to be desired.  And by "possible", I mean the entire spectrum of capabilities--complex high-fidelity aircraft models, scenario-selectable weather injection, procedurally correct ATC, AI traffic, remote-capable avionics, ground handling etc.  Without embellishing my point with unfair and/or untrue hyperbole, I think it's fair to note that one-year post-release a lot--most, in fact--of these capabilities are still missing from MSFS.

 

How man years after FSX/P3D/X-Plane released did we get all these missing features you speak of? 🤔 

[abrams_tank 7,395]

18 minutes ago, w6kd said:

As to "GARBAGE FPS"--I have a 9900K system similar to yours configured as a portable system, but with a 2-generations older 1080Ti GPU, and it handily and smoothly holds 30fps into a 2560x1440 monitor with sliders right of center running the PMDG and FSLabs acft over lots of Orbx and other heavy scenery. .

 

Yeah, but you get above 30 FPS easily in MSFS, with better graphics, if you use your current system.  The problem for P3D is, if LM tries to raise the graphics, the FPS will drop, because of the "technical debt" that P3D has accrued over the years.  

What will separate MSFS from P3D even further is when MSFS fully switches to DirectX 12, which it hasn't yet.  When MSFS fully switches to DirectX 12 (without using a DirectX 12 wrapper), there is more potential for Asobo to increase the FPS further for MSFS.

I have no idea how P3D can catch MSFS in FPS and graphics without an entire overhaul of its architecture, which LM probably won't do because they don't care about the consumer market.  

Edited September 8, 2021 by abrams_tank

[sd_flyer 6,037]

8 minutes ago, w6kd said:

First, P3D v4.0 released in 2017, and v4.5 in 2019, so "...now over 10y old P3D 4.5x..." is, at best completely inaccurate, and at worst garnishes an unflattering portrayal of the sim with falsehood.

As to "GARBAGE FPS"--I have a 9900K system similar to yours configured as a portable system, but with a 2-generations older 1080Ti GPU, and it handily and smoothly holds 30fps into a 2560x1440 monitor with sliders right of center running the PMDG and FSLabs acft over lots of Orbx and other heavy scenery.  If you have garbage fps, perhaps you have a garbage configuration.  The sim is capable of much better than you describe with the hardware you're running.

 

 

I don't think it completely inaccurate , but the reason I  moved from P3D to XP11 because terrible fps/stutters and CTD. In contrast, pre-vulkan yet vanilla XP11 on my high end rig was running smoother 100 time than P3D. Sure I miss Super Bug, A2A, PMDG, Majestic. but XP11 offer many other solid vendors  I wasn't aware off . I can't commend on how thing changed since then, but the matter of fact P3D had those problem and had that reputation before for sure!

[Bob Scott 7,719]

1 minute ago, liamp51 said:

How man years after FSX/P3D/X-Plane released did we get all these missing features you speak of? 🤔 

That really is beside the point.  I am not, and have never argued that some of these capabilities will never come to MSFS.  That said, a comparison of platforms at any point in time has to be based on the state of the environment at that time, not on what we think or hope might or might not come later.  Right now we have much the same situtation that we had a year ago--an MSFS environment that clearly dominates the visual environment, but still doesn't bring many of the other important capabilities I listed, which *are* presently available using the other platforms. 

[Bob Scott 7,719]

27 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Yeah, but you get above 30 FPS easily in MSFS, with better graphics, if you use your current system.  The problem for P3D is, if LM tries to raise the graphics, the FPS will drop, because of the "technical debt" that P3D has accrued over the years.  

What will separate MSFS from P3D even further is when MSFS fully switches to DirectX 12, which it hasn't yet.  When MSFS fully switches to DirectX 12 (without using a DirectX 12 wrapper), there is more potential for Asobo to increase the FPS further for MSFS.

I have no idea how P3D can catch MSFS in FPS and graphics without a entire overhaul of its architecture, which LM probably won't do because they don't care about the consumer market.  

Fact is, it isn't really necessary to run above 30 fps to have a nice fluid simulation.  So I'm not convinced that LM needs to "catch" MSFS in terms of chasing the frame rate bubble.  In terms of graphics, there's also a point of diminishing returns w/r/t artistic fidelity on a training platform.  Sure, it's nice to have, but it's way down the priority ladder when assessing its importance on the basis of training value.

I'm still patiently waiting to see more of the important capabilities I mentioned up-thread come into the MSFS environment...and I can be patient in that regard because we still have other good options available to us that already do bring those capabilities.  I have not made a major move into MSFS because so many of those important aspects of a complete simulated environment *are* still missing.  I think it's entirely fair to push back against comparisons that gloss over those differences, or disingenuously slag the other platforms without taking the bigger picture into consideration.

[liamp51 541]

44 minutes ago, w6kd said:

complex high-fidelity aircraft models, scenario-selectable weather injection, procedurally correct ATC, AI traffic, remote-capable avionics, ground handling etc

1. We already have the PMGD DC-6, AS CRJ, JustFlight stuff and there are many other complex/high-fidelity aircraft due to release soon

2. If you want ancient metar-based weather injection, you can buy REX WeatherForce 

3. Use VATSIM/Pilot2ACT if you want procedurally-correct ATC (this has been the case with every other flight sim ever)

4. We have AI traffic (real-time to boot) 

5. I'm pretty sure you can link your Foreflight to MSFS, among other things

6. There is a fantastic freeware ground handling plugin already available, FS2Crew has their solution and GSX is in the works 

Also your point about 30 FPS is completely subjective. To me 30 FPS looks like garbage, to you it might not. 

[Amon1973 1,421]

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I mean, I don't really see the issue of SU5 being an X-Box update.  As PC users, we got a huge benefit from the boost in FPS in SU5.  Of course the only downside of that FPS boost in SU5 was there was no slider for the pre-cache terrain. But now that there is a slider for the pre-cache terrain, I think it's water under the bridge and SU5 was a huge net benefit to the PC users.

 

Ok.  P3D v4.5x is a little old.  A more fair comparison would be P3D v5.2.  But to be fair, the real comparison will be P3D 6.0, if LM comes out with that. 

Somehow though, I can't even see P3D 6.0 matching MSFS in graphics and FPS.  I am also curious for X-Plane 12, if X-Plane 12 will be able to match the FPS of MSFS.  We know that X-Plane 12 will have improved graphics such as better lighting and better vegetation.  But can it match the FPS of MSFS?  That remains to be seen but I think that is a really hard task for LR to achieve.  The problem with P3D and X-Plane are that the engines are so old, it won't be easy to optimize it and get the huge FPS boosts that MSFS is getting, without a major rewrite of huge portions of the P3D or X-Plane code - in software development, we call this "technical debt."  I think P3D and X-Plane have a huge amount of technical debt because the engine and architecture are so old.

The best part is, MSFS still hasn't fully transitioned to DirectX 12 yet. From my understanding of the X-Box version of MSFS, people say it's actually using a DirectX 12 "wrapper."  So when MSFS transitions fully to DirectX 12, there may be even more FPS improvements.  That is mind boggling if we can get even more FPS improvements out of MSFS, given the level of graphics it currently has.

I just cannot see me getting P3D v6, hell I regret getting P3D v5, but we all learn by our mistakes. Regarding Xplane 12, this might be different depending on what's improved from Xplane 11, but it will need to be a very good upgrade for me to buy it still.