Not to push too many buttons but it seems that MSFS is it its glory when flying VFR or GA aircraft.

My observation is that MSFS struggles when using large airports with realistic AI traffic. and or large indepth skyliners.  This situation was also prevalent with FSX / P3D versions which is a reason I chose never to fly into airports like KSFO or fly the heavies.

Then like now I stick to high perfomace GA planes in and out of small to medium size airports.

Doing this I feel I can avoid substandard perfomance , CTDs and enjoy smooth flying.

I'm interested on what others think about this and is it simply a matter of obtaining an uber PC to acheive the required results?

Note that my equpment has always mid to high end.

sp

 

 

 

 

 

You can push any version of flightsim to its limits when adding complex airplanes, airports, weather, and traffic.

It is up to you to balance performance and complexity... as you have found.

Yup... GA into smaller airports is certainly less taxing than Heavies into big airports.. no real surprise.  🙂

Personally, I am impressed with how well MSFS runs on my 6 year old system..

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Bert Pieke

6 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

You can push any version of flightsim to its limits when adding complex airplanes, airports, weather, and traffic.

It is up to you to balance performance and complexity...

GA into smaller airports is certainly less taxing than Heavies into big airports.. no real surprise.  🙂

To the point.  Folks need to have some expectations.  Not faulting  MSFS but just to say it excels when doing GA.

sp

Just like in any other sim (FSX,P3D, XP11. Big jets + other add on calls for balancing PC resources lowering graphics and reducing traffic and so on.

I went different way and bought new PC with enough memory, graphics and cpu power no CTD and no other problems with fully loaded sim, big jet small jets doesn't matter 🙂

As someone who has recently decided to make the jump from P3D fulltime, I've taken the approach that you should look to build the sim around your PC, not the other way around (unless you have the uber PC). Granted I have obtained PC parts that I likely never would have entertained purchasing had I not been a flight simmer, all that means is that I have a decent setup that can play most if not all modern games with ease. 

As far as MSFS goes, I was initally concerned that my GPU was hitting the mid-to-high 70 degrees celsius. So to combat that I did my due dilligence, and read up on how I can get those temps down to where I am personally happy with it. Limiting FPS to 30, LOD to 100 depending on the scenario, a few other little twists and turns here and there and I now run at a comfortable 40 to 50 degrees, and once summer is finished here in Australia, ambient temps will go down, so my settings should be able to go up somewhat. 

When the PMDG 777 is released, I will be doing the ultra long hauls as I used to in P3D, because that's what I love most, and the beauty of this hobby is that you can do pretty much whatever you want to make yourself happy. 

17 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Personally, I am impressed with how well MSFS runs on my 6 year old system..

I'm going to "one up" you, Bert. I'm flying MSFS on an 8 year old system. And my performance is excellent too. I can fly the PMDG 737 into any large airport and get good, smooth frame rates. The "secret" of course is that I carefully test and re-test the effects of each graphics option upon sim performance after each major sim update.

As I have pointed out before, practically all of the complaints on this forum about performance are from users who own very high-end systems and who won't settle for any graphics settings below ultra-mega-hyper-comic-super-fusion-turbo-nuclear-blackhole-overcrank.  

What does MSFS need to improve for the airliner crowd?  I would like to go this route if it seemed practical?.

What are the roadblocks for someone with a lowend PC?

Is it just a matter of system resources?

sp

 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Sky_Pilot071

4 minutes ago, David Mills said:

...practically all of the complaints on this forum about performance are from users who own very high-end systems and who won't settle for any graphics settings below ultra-mega-hyper-comic-super-fusion-turbo-nuclear-blackhole-overcrank.  

Absolutely and positively nailed it.

I've found it's much better and probably easier to start from the bottom (low to mid settings) and work your way up (high to ultra settings). 

9 minutes ago, verbal said:

and the beauty of this hobby is that you can do pretty much whatever you want to make yourself happy. 

Agree with this very much....and I'm still constantly amazed by what this sim can do with my twelve year old cpu....

 

11 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

What does MSFS need to improve for the airliner crowd?  I would like to go this route if it seemed practical?.

What are the roadblocks for someone with a lowend PC?

Is it just a matter of system resources?

sp

 

Tough to say at the moment, as I said I will be trying an ultra long haul with the 777, probably BNE - LAX or something of similar length, looking forward to it as a test of the sim as well as my PC. 

1 hour ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Not to push too many buttons but it seems that MSFS is it its glory when flying VFR or GA aircraft.

My observation is that MSFS struggles when using large airports with realistic AI traffic. and or large indepth skyliners.  This situation was also prevalent with FSX / P3D versions which is a reason I chose never to fly into airports like KSFO or fly the heavies.

Then like now I stick to high perfomace GA planes in and out of small to medium size airports.

Doing this I feel I can avoid substandard perfomance , CTDs and enjoy smooth flying.

I'm interested on what others think about this and is it simply a matter of obtaining an uber PC to acheive the required results?

Note that my equpment has always mid to high end.

sp

I completely disagree with your assessment. I fly the complex airliners into and out of large airports with AIG traffic and fairly high settings practically every day and MSFS completely blows away FSX & P3D (never seen XPlane run in person) from a performance perspective. I've been having some of the best flight simming of my lifetime in MSFS, and I have been around since Bruce Artwick's days. I recently landed in 100% fog cover down to 200[' AGL in the PMDG 7373 in the snow at Flytampa's KBOS with AIG traffic and GSX running. Performance was great all the way to the gate. That is a new experience for me courtesy of MSFS.

 My rig is no slouch, but certainly isn't considered top of the line these days. My system is simply properly tuned and optimized for how I use it.

2 minutes ago, verbal said:

Tough to say at the moment, as I said I will be trying an ultra long haul with the 777, probably BNE - LAX or something of similar length, looking forward to it as a test of the sim as well as my PC. 

MSFS rocks on many fronts.

so

3 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

I completely disagree with your assessment. I fly the complex airliners into and out of large airports with AIG traffic and fairly high settings practically every day and MSFS completely blows away FSX & P3D (never seen XPlane run in person) from a performance perspective. I've been having some of the best flight simming of my lifetime in MSFS, and I have been around since Bruce Artwick's days. I recently landed in 100% fog cover down to 200[' AGL in the PMDG 7373 in the snow at Flytampa's KBOS with AIG traffic and GSX running. Performance was great all the way to the gate. That is a new experience for me courtesy of MSFS.

 My rig is no slouch, but certainly isn't considered top of the line these days. My system is simply properly tuned and optimized for how I use it.

OK to disagree.

sp

To change the discussion - will MSFS become a long haulers sim or is it already?

sp

47 minutes ago, verbal said:

As far as MSFS goes, I was initally concerned that my GPU was hitting the mid-to-high 70 degrees celsius. So to combat that I did my due dilligence, and read up on how I can get those temps down to where I am personally happy with it. Limiting FPS to 30, LOD to 100 depending on the scenario, a few other little twists and turns here and there and I now run at a comfortable 40 to 50 degrees, and once summer is finished here in Australia, ambient temps will go down, so my settings should be able to go up somewhat. 

What a ridiculous approach. Everybody knows that getting the temperature as close to 100 as possible is the way to go, especially during winter.

Peter

Canada

P.S.: Oh, you live in Autralia 😉

 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by qqwertzde