.

Edited February 22, 20224 yr by turbomax

Guys, we're guys (well most of us...there are a few lady-simmers).  We've never needed and excuse to upgrade our toys, but when we're given one, we take it if we can.  True that MSFS can run on moderate machines, but the major point is that most guys would have been upgrading their "rigs" regardless of any software excuses we can get away with....because we're guys!  Those that can upgrade, WILL upgrade, those who can't, wish they could. 🙂 

1. Upgrading from your $100 set of clubs you got at a pawnshop to a $3000 set will not get you good enough to go on the PGA tour.
2. Upgrading that 75hp outboard to a 250 "so you can get to the best fishing holes faster" will NOT make you a better fisherman.
3. Dropping a supercharger into your ridiculously fast car will NOT magically increase the speed limit nationwide to accommodate the fact that you can now go 0-60 in 3 secs and reach a top speed of 170.
4. Buying that $3000 Leupold VX-6 scope will not make you a better hunter (or shot), but some "guys" can convince their wives it will, and they'll have free venison burgers from now to eternity (I'm not a hunter but know some who make this rationalization)
5.  Wearing $300 bowling shoes vs the ones off the rack at your local ally will NOT make you a better bowler.

Computer upgrading is just another guy thing...we're gonna' do it if we can. 😂 

This is a whimsical parody based on the stigma of why guys do what they do...please don't turn it into a debate or a detailed psychoanalytical discussion about human traits, if you must comment, please reply with a comical anecdote based on some of my examples, I know we ALL have a few. 🙂   

Edited February 22, 20224 yr by Steve Dra
grammar

50 minutes ago, turbomax said:

I would say yes, and it is not only the max. FPS but frame time (provides regular constant time between frames thus reduces stutter) especially considering those other 2 simulators still don't come close graphics quality wise. and there is a reason: those others don't make such intensive use of modern GPU programming, (examples: ocean waves, new Computed Fluid Dynamics in SU8 etc)  i.e. MSFS could never run that smooth had Asobo not employed that modern graphics programming technique, offloading code from the CPU to the GPU. 99% GPU load even on a RTX 3090 is a clear indicator for that.

That's very interesting. Of course, comparing the FPS of vanilla P3D and vanilla XP to vanilla MSFS is not a fair comparison, because vanilla P3D and vanilla XP look like dog sh*t.  You need to spend money to add add-ons, and also ortho, to make P3D and XP look somewhat digestible. But when you add those add-ons to make P3D and XP look better, the FPS goes down the drain.

So the only fair comparison between P3D and XP to MSFS, is when you add all the add-ons for P3D and XP that enhance it graphically (I'm not talking about add-ons that have nothing to do with enhancing the graphics of P3D and XP).  So that's interesting when these graphical add-ons are added to P3D and XP, the FPS is still not as good as MSFS.

Thanks for the response.

1 hour ago, Scimiter said:

So because I assembled a high end rig that cost me a considerable amount of money that makes me a fool?

No, for sure not….I'm the OP and just wanted to point out two things that fascinated me with this latest clean install on an old "potato" of a cheap over the counter PC souped up with a GTX 1070 8GB

1) Asobo has optimized the performance of this sim so much since launch and in the past year that I really didn't need to upgrade my PC - I'm getting virtually the same performance with my old one (though as I mentioned I DO use the fancier PC for pinball simulation and it does a much better job at that than the old PC - but had I known this I would have saved the $2000+ $$$)

2) As a "lessons learned" this sim as it evolved didn't require the great PC I thought it did - a year ago I felt sure that the stutters and other issues were the result of my potato PC and not the sim code, but now whatever they've done with the code on a fresh install results in marvelous performance on the same potato, so kudos to Asobo.

I guess if nothing else if people are reluctant about buying MSFS and giving it a try because they feel their PC isn't up to par I'd say consider going for it because at least in my one case the same old PC that struggled mightily with XP11 and P3D runs MSFS with striking fluidity and amazing visuals.

1 hour ago, 6297J said:

 Pretty screen shots don't really provide evidence of anything though.

In your opinion, then, what is the purpose of the screenshot forum?

(Man, this is getting embarrassing).

3 minutes ago, Republic DC9 said:

 the same old PC that struggled mightily with XP11 and P3D runs MSFS with striking fluidity and amazing visuals.

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Steve Dra said:

Guys, we're guys (well most of us...there are a few lady-simmers).  We've never needed and excuse to upgrade our toys, but when we're given one, we take it if we can.  True that MSFS can run on moderate machines, but the major point is that most guys would have been upgrading their "rigs" regardless of any software excuses we can get away with....because we're guys!  Those that can upgrade, WILL upgrade, those who can't, wish they could. 🙂 

1. Upgrading from your $100 set of clubs you got at a pawnshop to a $3000 set will not get you good enough to go on the PGA tour.
2. Upgrading that 75hp outboard to a 250 "so you can get to the best fishing holes faster" will NOT make you a better fisherman.
3. Dropping a supercharger into your ridiculously fast car will NOT magically increase the speed limit nationwide to accommodate the fact that you can now go 0-60 in 3 secs and reach a top speed of 170.
4. Buying that $3000 Leupold VX-6 scope will not make you a better hunter (or shot), but some "guys" can convince their wives it will, and they'll have free venison burgers from now to eternity (I'm not a hunter but know some who make this rationalization)
5.  Wearing $300 bowling shoes vs the ones off the rack at your local ally will NOT make you a better bowler.

Computer upgrading is just another guy thing...we're gonna' do it if we can. 😂 

This is a whimsical parody based on the stigma of why guys do what they do...please don't turn it into a debate or a detailed psychoanalytical discussion about human traits, if you must comment, please reply with a comical anecdote based on some of my examples, I know we ALL have a few. 🙂   

Wait and see with all those complex aircraft in place if performance is still the same, if history repeats performance was always great without those aircraft to begin with...

17 minutes ago, Republic DC9 said:

I guess if nothing else if people are reluctant about buying MSFS and giving it a try because they feel their PC isn't up to par I'd say consider going for it because at least in my one case the same old PC that struggled mightily with XP11 and P3D runs MSFS with striking fluidity and amazing visuals.

That's interesting.  Are you using a lot of add-ons in P3D and XP 11 to enhance it graphically? And I assume you are running P3D 5.3?

So far, everybody in this thread is saying MSFS runs better than P3D 5.3 and XP 11, when you use the add-ons to enhance the graphics of P3D 5.3 and XP 11, plus any ortho required for P3D 5.3 and XP 11.

I ran MSFS at 720p and the performance is astounding 😁.

Yep, my old machine is still doing alright with MSFS. I can't have all the sliders up to max but most are on high. In most cases the difference between high and ultra is very difficult to see with my tired old eyes anyway. So long as I get 30 FPS I'm happy

The story may be different into the future though. As the addons get more complex and some of the features start to work properly (if and when they get fixed) I suspect the demand on my machine will get higher.

PC specs in signature.

38 minutes ago, GaryK said:

Yep, my old machine is still doing alright with MSFS. I can't have all the sliders up to max but most are on high. In most cases the difference between high and ultra is very difficult to see with my tired old eyes anyway. So long as I get 30 FPS I'm happy

The story may be different into the future though. As the addons get more complex and some of the features start to work properly (if and when they get fixed) I suspect the demand on my machine will get higher.

PC specs in signature.

As long as it runs on a $500 game console when finished MS will be happy. 

I can only confirm what a lot of people have already said.

I've got an i7-3820 CPU and a GTX780Ti (some parts are turning 10 years old this year!) and I gave MSFS a try just to see how bad it will perform on my PC and to get an estimate of how expensive a PC upgrade will be.
Turned out MSFS runs surprisingly well on my system when flying on VATSIM using the FBW A320 AND still looks times better on medium settings than P3D did.

 

Upgrading my PC in order to run MSFS on very high settings doesn't seem to be a rational decision as I've never had the feeling that something on medium settings looks worse than P3D on high/ultra.

15 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

But when you add those add-ons to make P3D and XP look better, the FPS goes down the drain.

I bailed on upgrades to P3D after v4.x since MSFS was right around the corner.  I purchased the full array of Orbx Regional sceneries for it, a raft of airports, weather and texture addons, etc.  Unfortunately when PMDG 737 NGXu  and 777 were up and running I ended up disabling Orbx So Cal and Nor Cal as the performance impact was severe.  In the end I flew from dusk til dawn only, where I could reduce autogen to SPARSE and LOD to MODERATE and enjoy liquid smooth stutter-free animation.  That's really what it took when flying into anything like KSFO.  When I contrast this w/ the 787X HD in MSFS, flying out of absolutely anywhere be it Paris, New York wherever w/ incredibly rock-solid smooth flight always, I marvel.  I hope XP-12 is truly impressive and I will definitely install the trial version.  It has a very high bar to beat however to draw me out of how effective MSFS in generating perpetually amazing flight simming experiences, and that is despite its current deficiencies.  I see it only getting better over the next couple of years.

15 hours ago, Konterhalbe said:

Upgrading my PC in order to run MSFS on very high settings doesn't seem to be a rational decision

PC-purchases and upgrades are rarely rational decisions but are driven by irrational wants , PC-manufacturers' ad campaigns and youtubers.

More importantly, great games are great games, no matter at what resolution you play. Nobody really remembers Half Life, or Deus Ex for the "great graphics", which in the latter case were abysmal, even by standards 20 years ago.

Also, there are plenty of games that look abysmal, play like a wet dog, and are still great (Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl, for example).