Just completed my first flight with the new update. I got an MSI pc a bought a few years back with a 1070 GPU and a i7-8700K CPU @ 3.70GHz processor 32MB ram. Flew C172 from KVNY to KCNO at dusk, global settings set to Ultra, Weather Live, Traffic Live. Got a smooth flight, beautiful scenery and night lighting at 3500ft cruise. Very happy! I would not have expected to be able run this sim at max settings with this rig and have a chance at a smooth flight, certainly not over Los Angeles with partly cloudy skies and live traffic. 
 

"I have to say I appreciate the more directional nature of the runway lights and especially the reduced visibility of the lead-in strobe lights which are no longer visible from incredibly unrealistic distances and angles."

 

---

Is this true? I haven't had time to fly and and didn't see this in the update notes.

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

Also, ATIS is definitely more accurate with their reports

I’m still kinda bummed. SU6 has been great for me. Especially that I can now allow my computer to handle more stuff to throw at it. But I took a flight today that was supposed to be LIFR conditions. Descended down to VFR conditions. Might’ve been a one-off. Haven’t gotten to do another test. Either way, it’s a small issue. I’m a happy camper with this update. 

47 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

That's not at all what I said and no one is conflating MSFS with notepad. My point is no piece of software "knows" the system is being overclocked.

 

That sounds like "tanker logic!"

-Sent with love from an ex-63E Abrams repairer.

 

 

Overclocking makes the processing possibly unstable, and  that will affect the running of a complex program. 

4 minutes ago, mikegrr said:

no longer visible from incredibly unrealistic distances and angles."

Hmmm. I flew over a field today at FL430 and the lights were hilariously visible, even at that altitude. 

As with anything with this sim, it has its quarks that I know will be worked out and I just kind of chuckle. 

57 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

That's not at all what I said and no one is conflating MSFS with notepad. My point is no piece of software "knows" the system is being overclocked.

 

That sounds like "tanker logic!"

-Sent with love from an ex-63E Abrams repairer.

 

 

And my original quote of "MSFS does not mix well with overclocked hardware" is good information, which I demonstrated to you in the case of Notepad vs MSFS.  MSFS does not mix well with overclocked hardware, whereas Notepad may not have the same problems with overclocked hardware.  

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Takeoffs and landing in the logbook are still not right. I just flew 1 1/2 hours in the DC6 and the log shows I took off but never landed...

I always get that if I am not using ATC while landing. For me that has always been the case (I have WAAY more t/o’s than landings). 

3 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I have just tried that Jim and it does not reveal that bottom task bar. I went to controls and set keyboard "H" to help menu and that does not work either. I also in graphics options set full screen from windowed mode and tried the alt enter in that config and that does not work either.

I am completely mystified by this and it is INCREDIBLY annoying as you may imagine.

Regards

Tony

 

Horse of Heaven: It happens to me all the time, too.

At the top right of the windows mode are   --     ⎕ ⎕     X

I find if I click twice on the center icon, the squares, then the bottom MSFS menu bar appears again. This also shifts the Riva Tuner (RSS) fps icons right and downward a couple inches, to where it is more easily seen.

One would think that clicking the double square twice would just bring you back to where you were when you started, but it fixes the issue you have (at least on my MSFS here).

 

 

After upgrading my cpu(6700k to 10700k) mobo and ram, i am getting worse performance with su6, when panning always stuttering, generally lower fps than su5... It is showing always main thread limited. Video card is 1080ti. Both lod set to 200, resolution is 2k. Any idea? 

9 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I agree, I bet there is nothing on most people's PCs that puts as much stress on their system as a game like MSFS. 

FWIW, a few months ago, I tried overclocking my CPU and GPU.  I used a number of the standard "torture tests" (including Prime95, Furmark, the "Heaven" benchmark, etc.) until I achieved a stable overclock with all of these.  Started up MSFS...C-R-A-S-H.

I'm not saying there is nothing else that "puts as much stress on their system" as MSFS -- but I am saying that it appears to stress the hardware in at least some different ways as the standard recommended tests, and thus may cause failure in systems that, under all other circumstances, would appear to be completely stable.

17 minutes ago, JDWalley said:

FWIW, a few months ago, I tried overclocking my CPU and GPU.  I used a number of the standard "torture tests" (including Prime95, Furmark, the "Heaven" benchmark, etc.) until I achieved a stable overclock with all of these.  Started up MSFS...C-R-A-S-H.

I'm not saying there is nothing else that "puts as much stress on their system" as MSFS -- but I am saying that it appears to stress the hardware in at least some different ways as the standard recommended tests, and thus may cause failure in systems that, under all other circumstances, would appear to be completely stable.

Yup, I agree with this statement.  

24 minutes ago, JDWalley said:

FWIW, a few months ago, I tried overclocking my CPU and GPU.  I used a number of the standard "torture tests" (including Prime95, Furmark, the "Heaven" benchmark, etc.) until I achieved a stable overclock with all of these.  Started up MSFS...C-R-A-S-H.

I'm not saying there is nothing else that "puts as much stress on their system" as MSFS -- but I am saying that it appears to stress the hardware in at least some different ways as the standard recommended tests, and thus may cause failure in systems that, under all other circumstances, would appear to be completely stable.

It certainly find the week spot in your pc

I've got my 8700 oc'ed to 4.8 and it runs fine EXCEPT if I enable ULTRA volumetric clouds OR push the scaling out past 1.05; either of those two will cause a hard cash to desktop and sometimes cause my pc to just do a hard shut down

Still not sure which component is the week link but I suspect it's my power supply or a bad capacitor on my MB

Unfortunately I can't afford to swap parts out with new ones to try and isolate the issue so it's just High volumetric clouds for me now.

 

I've seen a number of people complaining about reduced performance with this update, while others are reporting no change.  Let me add this as another "data point."

What I have used in configuring the sim for my older system (i7-6700K/16 GB RAM/GTX 980) has always been a procedure recommended by the YouTube creator "Squirrel," which is to spawn with the A320 at EGLL gate 535, and use DevMode's frame counter to check for a consistent 30 FPS or better both inside and outside of the aircraft, under varying weather and time conditions, adjusting your graphics mode accordingly.

When MSFS first came out, I tried this test, and found I could get a steady 30 FPS in Medium mode.  Anything higher, and it would drop into the mid-20s or lower.

With SU5, I re-ran the test, and found that I could now raise the mode to High-End, and keep the same 30 FPS.  Ultra, however, still dropped the sim into the low 20s.  Anyway, I was happy with this improvement.

Hearing that SU6, while it might better use modern, high-end CPUs and GPUs (as if any of those are available for less than an arm and a leg nowadays!), results in a performance hit for those without, did not leave me very happy, particularly since my 980 only had 4GB VRAM.  So, I tried the test again, and was dismayed to find that setting in High-End mode was back down to 22-25 FPS.  I figured the improvement from SU5 was too good to last, and so reverted to Medium mode.  This time, however, the FPS only improved to around 27, still below the 30+ I had been able to get with the first release of the sim.  Now, I'm really not thrilled.  I continue experimenting with different times of day and different weather conditions, not because I'm expecting any to improve, but out of a perverse interest in seeing just how bad the new version will turn out to be in the worst possible conditions.  I probably keep this up for five minutes or more, when...all of a sudden, without my having done anything, the FPS counter suddenly jumps from 27 to a little over 40, and stays in that range.  I have no idea what caused it.  I try changing the conditions, PoV, etc, back and forth, and it stays at 40 or above no matter what.  I then reset the mode to High-End, and the FPS settles down to a consistent 33, equal or better than what I was getting in SU5.  I also try Ultra mode, and only get a drop to 27 FPS.  Although I want to set my options so I can be sure of getting at least 30, I suspect I could probably handle Ultra mode without any problem in GA aircraft from smaller airports.

At any rate, as I said before, this is simply another data point.  I have no idea why the apparent performance hit suddenly resolved itself after a period of time, but, if you're basing your experience of lower FPS on a reading from an immediate first flight, you might want to check it again after flying around for awhile.

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by JDWalley

10 hours ago, Wise87 said:

I read some of your postings and wanted to ask, as a long time IT user why are you using third party apps to keep your drivers updated. Nothing beats going to the manufactures web site and obtaining the latest drivers they certify. As a user of flight simulator since 1989 you know hardware makes all the difference in how your sim performs. Looking at your system specs a few post down I see your video card barley meets min requirements. Whats going to happen when MSFS2020 updates to DX12. Hope you figure it out. 

On a side note, FS1 came out in 1982 and FS4 was in 1989. 

Thanks for your observations - to answer your first point - age.  I no longer have the patience or mental agility to go searching for the necessary drivers, and neither do I any longer have up to date knowledge that I had during the 80s and 90s - sadly.  I therefore rely on the auto driver updater, which does a better job than I could do.

As for the second point - that my graphics card barely meets minimum standards.  Any financial donations are welcome:-)  I live in the North of England and can barely afford my heating - my 25 year old car is on its last legs - and at £1.54 per litre for E5 petrol, driving it is just about possible once in  a while.

 

Finally - yes you are correct about FS1 - back in 1982 I only had a ZX Spectrum.  Wasn't there an earlier version still 1n 1979 on Apple?

13 hours ago, Maxis said:

Because

1.. If you know exactly what drivers should be updated and where to get it you don't need another layer of software to do it for you. You go to the verified  source get it .. evaluate and install as required. 

2. Not all drivers are supposed to be updated as soon as its released for various performance and compatibility reasons (Prime example .. GPU drivers)

3. If drivers are all updated in one fell swoop its going to be a bit difficult to troubleshoot something that is now broke and not working if some "driver updating program" performed said updates in batch.

4. Data Privacy and Security concerns.. This software is completely open source and free or is it "free"?

5. How much of your resources is this thing taking up that could be used elsewhere .. especially if it is a startup app? (Ram/bandwidth)

 

Just off the top of my head a few concerns.. 

Thank you:

 

Point 1.  I don't any  longer since I am too old these days to keep up with the pace.

Points 2 and 3- good points

Point 4 - not sure what you mean here

Point 5 - hardly anything really.  I quite most programs that don't need to be running before running simulations.