7 minutes ago, JYW said:

Terrain LOD:  170

Object LOD:   170

Res:  1920x1080

Render Scaling:  130

... I should add that I could get drive higher settings than these and still comfortably get 30-35 FPS, but with TrackIR I find there really is a noticeably smoothness uplift, when you get above 40 FPS. 

With the above settings, I'm normally somewhere between 45 - 65 FPS, depending on scenery and aircraft complexity/intensiveness.

That's amazing. I have an old i7-3770k with a GTX 1080 card that I plan on installing MSFS on. You've given me some hope!

Just now, captain420 said:

That's amazing. I have an old i7-3770k with a GTX 1080 card that I plan on installing MSFS on. You've given me some hope!

Hopefully like me, you'll be surprised at how good it can get with a modest set up!  Again, if I wasn't using TrackIR, I'd probably be fine with everything on High and a few settings on Ultra.  I just prioritize smoothness and fluidity quite firmly over visual effects - mostly because of TrackIR.

Yes, Ultra is the way to go. 

The funny thing about this, is that after SU5 a bunch of us started complaining about the visuals popping in and out of view, as well as stuttering when looking around. 

The response was mixed, many agreed that was happening. Others became very ill tempered, almost like a kneejerk reaction to criticism of the simulator. They started accusing others of lying. Let's say I'm thankful for the Ignore User functionality.

In those threads, those of us who recognized the issue started agreeing on a solution - which was we need a slider for how much scenery we would preload. Either in degrees of a circle, or by how much data. 

And with WU6, Asobo delivered the Pre-Cached option. Voila, it works really well. Performance and smoothness increased by a lot. And I'm really grateful for it. Thank you Asobo. 
 

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by Republic3D

On 9/9/2021 at 3:27 PM, JYW said:

So..... better performance in Ultra than in Low for this setting.

My guess is that, as long as your system can handle it, you are better off without the pre-caching.. ie Ultra.

The caching process itself is additional work.. so it may well add CPU cycles, while saving RAM and VRAM..

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

My guess is that, as long as your system can handle it, you are better off without the pre-caching.. ie Ultra.

The caching process itself is additional work.. so it may well add CPU cycles, while saving RAM and VRAM..

Exactly.

As long as your system has enough headroom, Ultra is always going to be better. 
After SU5, RAM and VRAM usage seemed to be following the strict diet of a certain video game console. 
Now, after WU6 I'm seeing more RAM and VRAM usage again, but not as much as pre SU5. The core performance updates introduced in SU5 are still there. 
And now the sim is smoother than ever. I'm very happy with the performance.

Ultra is always the way to go

26 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

My guess is that, as long as your system can handle it, you are better off without the pre-caching.. ie Ultra.

The caching process itself is additional work.. so it may well add CPU cycles, while saving RAM and VRAM..

isn't it the opposite? Ultra means pre-cache everything at highest details so when you pan around, no addition LOD textures/polygons need to be streamed or loaded from disk to memory

Basically for Low, you have internet to disk IO + disk to RAM IO + RAM to VRAM to CPU to GPU IO, each of them add latency (e.g. 1ms + 0.2ms + 0.01ms = 1.21ms) and on Ultra, you only worry about RAM space and the last IO (e.g. 0.01ms).

3 hours ago, MegaRiceBall said:

isn't it the opposite? Ultra means pre-cache everything at highest details so when you pan around, no addition LOD textures/polygons need to be streamed or loaded from disk to memory

Depends on what you call "pre-caching"..  Prior to SU5 nobody mentioned precaching, and yet, the system behaved like the current Ultra setting.  Why not just call it "loading"

"Ultra means load everything at highest details so when you pan around, no addition LOD textures/polygons need to be streamed or loaded from disk to memory"

21 hours ago, cianpars said:

I guess it might be helpful for those struggling with low end systems though.

What makes you think folks with "low end systems" are "struggling". Lol. I left the setting on medium. Works fine. I see no impact on frame rate. I might experiment with a higher setting.

"Struggling". Nah, not really. 

On 9/10/2021 at 2:00 AM, liamp51 said:

Also my experience! I love it!

Me to, tried first at medium and it wasen't that good so set it to ultra and that seems to be the one and only..

cheers 😉

Setting Screen PreCache to Medium is definitely not the same as in SU5 as Asobo claims, the performance is significantly worse.