23 minutes ago, w6kd said:

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. 

What the additional FPS allows for though is even more enhanced graphics.  For example, if the ceiling of P3D on your computer is roughly 30 FPS, LM doesn't have room to make the graphics better, because any attempt to make the graphics better will lower the FPS.  The fact that MSFS can go above 30 FPS means Asobo has extra "leg room" to boost the graphics further, and still give MSFS players a 30 FPS experience.

 

Quote

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.

Well, I agree with you there, that P3D will mostly become a simulator for the commercial market but it will lose its grip on the consumer market.  Of course, LM never intended for P3D to be a consumer product in the first place.  But this does affect 3rd parties in P3D that sell to the consumer market.  This is a result of MSFS implementing features that appeal more to consumers over time (ie. because of better FPS, better graphics, etc, that the consumer market demands).

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

Just now, liamp51 said:

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. 

Sorry, but perhaps with the exception of the DC-6, none of those are "high-fidelity" add-ons.  And "Will release soon" translates to "does not currently exist."

I want/need weather injection that is capable of creating a controlled weather environment, where you can set 1/2 mile visibility and it is just that in the sim--so when flying an approach you're breaking out (or not breaking out) at minimums.  There are no options that can do that at present.  In fact you still can't set vis at all in the sim, accurate or otherwise.

VATSIM is too hit-and-miss in its coverage.  P2ATC is a possibility.  I haven't tried it in MSFS yet, but the last time I did look at it, it was pretty significantly limited by speech recognition issues. 

I don't know what Foreflight would do for me, given it gets a feed for actual r/w weather, and MSFS rarely reflects actual r/w conditions in the sim.  I can't tell you how many times I've looked out the window and seen clear skies, and then started the sim to find it raining or vice-versa.

Yup, 30 fps is subjective, but given that the entire movie industry uses 24 fps as its standard, I think most folks would be more than comfortable at 30.  This is a sim, not a first-person shooter.

 

15 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

What the additional FPS allows for though is even more enhanced graphics.  For example, if the ceiling of P3D on your computer is roughly 30 FPS, LM doesn't have room to make the graphics better, because any attempt to make the graphics better will lower the FPS.  The fact that MSFS can go above 30 FPS means Asobo has extra "leg room" to boost the graphics further, and still give MSFS players a 30 FPS experience.

No, frame rate doesn't necessarily correlate with image quality.  30fps isn't a ceiling at all, it's a sweet spot that enhances smoothness by keeping the frame production synced with the display's hardware refresh rate with limited variations (variations == stutter) and sufficient CPU/GPU processing headroom available to absorb load spikes without disrupting that steady video frame production.  The next step up on the hardware sync rate ladder is 60 fps, which is still a bridge too far with the best currently-available hardware, especially at high screen resolutions like 4K.

I run P3D and MSFS at 30 fps on both my systems, but the CPU and GPU are not running maxxed-out--there is still a lot of room left to enhance the graphics, for example by better using available VRAM to cache scenery elements.

I'll give you that MSFS does its graphics more efficiently, and there most likely is a better future for MSFS in the visual facet of simulation.  OTOH, MSFS as the better visual environment has been a given for some time...clearly you can do things through streaming mass quantities of data that you can't with a database of landclass-type scenery.  That comparative edge ends there, however, and does not translate to other aspects of the sim, like flight dynamics, weather, stability (both program stability and developmental stability so add-ons don't need to be at the end of the whip in a never-ending series of update cycles) etc.  Those things still need some attention.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

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.

It's irrrelvant anyway because the scenery is laughble by comparison to what we now have running exceedingly well in MSFS.   Say what you will but yes, GARBAGE FPS is what happens when I enable Orbs SCA or NCA, then fly the PMDG birds in to KSFO-HD, or KSAN-HD.   GARBAGE FPS = unable to maintain rock solid 30fps vsync'd to 30Hz.  This same behavior spans 3 systems I've build and used, and even now w/ 3080Ti it's only marginally better--but I understand that is P3D 4.5x.   So those Orbx sceneries are disabled.   So to cope with the GARBAGE FPS I only use P3D now in the wee hours when lighting is dim and the only scenery that matters is the 3rd party airports flying in and out of.  It's quite nice then.   Nothing is configured wrong Bob, and that is why MSFS runs as well as it does.

P3D and MSFS are now virtually completely incomparable, and the chasm will only widen unless LM decides to take P3D to the next level.  And you don't even have to bring in the cost factor to try to make P3D worth the time of day.

10 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I'll give you that MSFS does its graphics more efficiently

Ya think?  OMG Bob, how generous to acknowledge!

10 minutes ago, w6kd said:

That comparative edge ends there, however, and does not translate to other aspects of the sim, like flight dynamics, weather, stability (both program stability and developmental stability so add-ons don't need to be at the end of the whip in a never-ending series of update cycles) etc.  Those things still need some attention.

That comparative edge is narrowing fast Bob, ultra fast.  Flight dynamics is arguable, weather is as well in most ways not to mention lighting, ambient occlusion, and many really useful/cool features in MSFS you won't find in P3D.  No one has ever said the now 1.09 y/o MSFS is as complete as 10y P3D so no news there.  And we won't discuss the relative cost either.  I gave multi billion $$ defense contractor $600 for 3 iterations of P3D.  But then again I'm an honest i_diot apparently.  I am beyond happy to never send them another cent.

If you haven't already spool up the 787-10 w/ the HD mod when it is updated to WU6.  It's really remarkably good for a....DEFAULT plane, unlike the absolute GARBAGE you get for $600 in the other sim.   Can't wait to see the NG in MSFS--I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it will perform exceedingly well now in MSFS.   And we also have GSX coming at some point, and the existing animations are a reasonble sub until that time comes.   Narrowing very fast Bob...

World update 6 is a scenery update with a few tweaks to the game engine, SU5 was a massive rewrite of the legacy code (and there’s still some to do),  so you cannot compare the two.

regarding FPS, there is absolutely nothing wrong in chasing frames now this early in the development. The more headroom gained here the better, when you take into account how the game will evolve over time… better weather engine, water effect changes, particle effects etc etc.

The more frames the better - to a point, but keep those frame times stable👌

11 minutes ago, w6kd said:

No, frame rate doesn't necessarily correlate with image quality.  30fps isn't a ceiling at all, it's a sweet spot that enhances smoothness by keeping the frame production synced with the display's hardware refresh rate with limited variations (variations == stutter) and sufficient CPU/GPU processing headroom available to absorb load spikes without disrupting that steady video frame production.  The next step up on the hardware sync rate ladder is 60 fps, which is still a bridge too far with the best currently-available hardware, especially at high screen resolutions like 4K.

I run P3D and MSFS at 30 fps on both my systems, but the CPU and GPU are not running maxxed-out--there is still a lot of room left to enhance the graphics, for example by better using available VRAM to cache scenery elements.

That's not what I meant.  Let me explain again.  You said that 30 FPS makes for a smooth enough flight simulator experience for you, correct?  My point is, if LM tries to enhance the graphics with P3D, without redoing the core architecture of its code, the graphics can improve but your FPS will drop to say, 20 FPS with the better P3D graphics.  Will you be happy at 20 FPS?  Probably not.

What Asobo has done with MSFS is increase the FPS beyond 30 FPS, which gives Asobo "leg room" to enhance the graphics further. Conversely, P3D cannot enhance the graphics further without the FPS dropping to below 30 FPS.  But if it drops below 30 FPS, you won't be a happy simmer on P3D.  This is the conundrum of P3D if LM does not want to redo the core architecture of its code.  In software development, we say that P3D has accrued a large amount of "technical debt."

MSFS, because it is using new architecture, doesn't have the same "technical debt" that P3D has accrued.  Thus, P3D is stuck in quicksand, unless LM decides to redo the core architecture of its code, which will cost a lot of money.  LM may decide it's just not worth it to redo the core architecture of its code, just to yield better graphics, because better graphics may have little value to its core customers which is the commercial market.

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

That's not what I meant.  Let me explain again.  You said that 30 FPS makes for a smooth enough flight simulator experience for you, correct?  My point is, if LM tries to enhance the graphics with P3D, without redoing the core architecture of its code, the graphics can improve but your FPS will drop to say, 20 FPS with the better P3D graphics.  Will you be happy at 20 FPS?  Probably not.

No, I reject that premise.  If the graphics are enhanced, my GPU and/or CPU utilization have unused capacity to do more work while still maintaining 30fps.  That's what I mean by "headroom"--the processors are not running all-out, and thus are capable of doing more (higher usage) without sacrificing smooth frame production at the desired frame rate (30 fps).

19 minutes ago, w6kd said:

No, I reject that premise.  If the graphics are enhanced, my GPU and/or CPU utilization have unused capacity to do more work while still maintaining 30fps.  That's what I mean by "headroom"--the processors are not running all-out, and thus are capable of doing more (higher usage) without sacrificing smooth frame production at the desired frame rate (30 fps).

Yes, that's why I was wondering if 30 FPS was the ceiling for your system, or whether your system could allow more than 30 FPS, for P3D.

But let's say there is such a system out there (not your system) where the average FPS is about 30 FPS in P3D at the best settings possible.  On that same system, MSFS yields an average of 45 FPS with the best settings possible.  My point still stands, that for this system, MSFS has more "leg room" for improved graphics, until the the FPS drops to 30 FPS.  However, on this same system, P3D does not have any leg room at all for improved graphics because it's already running at 30 FPS on this system for P3D, and any improvement in the graphics will drop the FPS below 30 FPS, which will not be a good experience for the owner of this system.

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

26 minutes ago, hanhamreds said:

regarding FPS, there is absolutely nothing wrong in chasing frames now this early in the development. The more headroom gained here the better, when you take into account how the game will evolve over time… better weather engine, water effect changes, particle effects etc etc.

Yup, this is exactly the point I was trying to make to w6kd, that MSFS has much more headroom for future enhancements, especially for better graphics, because Asobo has managed to boost everyone's FPS by so much in SU5.

6 hours 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'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.

“Never spit in the well you drunk from….”

On my 6 yo server P3D 4.5 was running very well without stutters and now v5 also without any stutters. And I use PR scenery + custom AG + POIs + detailed scenery / airports. And with very high settings.

See my vids …

MSFS is running at higher FPS on my systems but …. that is without a weather program like AS and without many AI Live traffic…

MSFS is running very well on my systems and hopefully it will stay this way.

But to call another flightsim Garbage ….🤔

I find this update fabulous. I have minor adjustments in setting the peripherals but other than that flying is an absolute delight. Thanks for this update and I wish others are enjoying the latest MSFFS as well.

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by Rolfspan
spelling

50 minutes ago, hanhamreds said:

The more frames the better - to a point, but keep those frame times stable👌

And, lest we forget, those FPS are very important for VR.

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

And, lest we forget, those FPS are very important for VR.

Sure is, the old engine was never ready for VR. Unfortunately Asobo got bullied into implementing it by the vocal few, and they in turn got their fingers burnt - ha!

Let me know what frames you now get in VR before I waste my money 😂

 

5 hours ago, w6kd said:

Fact is, it isn't really necessary to run above 30 fps to have a nice fluid simulation. 

Talking purely from my own experience, this is definitely not the case for TrackIR users.  The panning rate we have exceeds what you'd ever get with mouse / hatswitch viewing by more than tenfold.  30 FPS with TrackIR is not a good experience, for me at least - this is the case in MSFS, XP11, P3D and FSX.

40 FPS, and you're rocking. Yes those 10 FPS make a huge difference with TrackIR.  Night and day.