4 hours ago, Kaboki said:

Its strange people complain about performance, I could never run other sims as good as MSFS. Was one of the things that really impressed me, all those detail with not much cost on performance..

Well, I guess if you cant run it, stick with your preffered sim of choice, nothing wrong with that.. 

I agree. My 6 years old system (before I bought the one now in the signature) did still remarkably well with ~30 fps with pretty high settings and even some AI traffic (in GA planes admittedly).

This was until I was so presumptuous to enter VR. From this point on fps tanked into the 20s and below and fun was gone.

Honestly, the other sims didn't well with VR on the old system either. With one exception: AeroflyFS2/4.

Kind regards, Michael

1 hour ago, CFIJose said:

MSFS is a modern, complex, flight simulator that seems to be getting better with every new WU.

I would rather say, the simulator gets better with every SU and the game gets better with every WU. 🙂

16 hours ago, verbal said:

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. 

What do you do during ultralong hauls?

Humanity, people will always find something to complaint about, but...I suppose complaints (constructive) is what keeps our beloved hobby evolving.

In regards to topic: I find MS2020 superb for GA or Commercial flying (PMDG 737), I enjoy both with great performance and enough eye-candy to keep me quite happy.

17 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

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.

Doesn’t struggle with a. Decent cpu and 4090 with frame generation. On the contrary. 

The GPU side of things is manageable and honestly great.   

The CPU side of things seems to be the wild card.  Most people are happy if you find a comfortable 30 FPS spot, but the argument a lot of high end people are making is that 30 FPS is kind of meh in 2022 and the swings when not locking at 30 FPS can be intense. It's almost always an addon airport, TLOD, and AI issue.  TLOD of 200 to 300 can be 60 FPS for 90% of your simming experience.  Then you fly into the wrong iniScene airport and you are slide showing 18 FPS as you try to make small movements on landing.

Final approach and taxi into a large airport with AI are so hit or miss if you don't tune those settings, but generally you can manage 30 FPS on any system.  It's just so tempting when you fly into a smaller city like Des Moines, IA with the CRJ and your TLOD is 125 and the city pops into existence 10 NM while your humming around at 60 FPS to think, that was lame.  You crank that TLOD to 250 and fill the gates with AI.  It's beautiful and you always want it to be like that.  Then you approach LaGuardia with same settings in the Fenix and the house of cards collapses.

 

17 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

is it simply a matter of obtaining an uber PC to acheive the required results?

What do YOU believe qualifies as "an uber PC"?

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/628655-ultimate-smoothness-at-modest-frame-rates/?do=findComment&comment=4899096

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Noel

I think that so far MSFS is neither GA, nor tube liners sim.

For GA - strange aerodynamics with either lack or exaggerated prop simulation aspects.

For tube liners - ATC is still in the bush, icing is not there, ground physics is not there, weather is not refined...

 

They are hard working team and finally they will iron out all major issues, but for that we have to wait maybe +2years - my estimation

28 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

What do you do during ultralong hauls?

Depends what time of the day I do the flight. Sometimes it's overnight therefore I'll sleep, if it's during the day then it'll likely be usual daily activities. 

9 minutes ago, Beardyman said:

 

For GA - strange aerodynamics with either lack or exaggerated prop simulation aspects.

 

Such as?

Sometimes I fly something more taxing and get frustrated when my system dares to go below 40 FPS. Then I get perspective and remember that, MSFS with all settings on LOW, (as long as online scenery is enabled) looks better than FSX and P3D* did with all settings maxed out 😁 ... with more FPS.

It's remarkably well optimized when you consider the visuals.  I can fly airliners like the PMDG 737, CRJ, BAe 146 and FBW A32NX all day, on medium to high settings, with 40-60 FPS, with a 7 year old GTX 1080Ti and an ancient, steam-driven i7 4790k!

The single only addon aircraft I just cannot run, is the Fenix A320.

That's from the capability perspective, but from the preference perspective, I do prefer GA flying in the fantastic scenery, VFR or IFR, according to weather.

*In my opinion.

 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by JYW

13 hours ago, Fielder said:

but I noticed on the annual survey that airliners are what most users are flying. 

Microsoft's data (which is a lot more accurate) says the opposite. The vast majority of users (who probably don't know what navigraph is) use GA aircraft in the sim. My source is Matt from WT lol.

18 hours 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

Uh my frame rates on P3D were significantly worse with airliners on large airports. On MSFS I can land at Inibuild's KLAX with 100% AI traffic, graphics on ultra and the 737 with 25 FPS on my average PC. On P3D it was 20 FPS, same situation (FSDT's KLAX).
And this doesn't even include what quality is actually portrayed within these frames...

Now your argument is basically true for every sim - the more indepth the aircraft, the larger the airport, the more the AI traffic, the worse the FPS. But what actually has that to do with MSFS specifically?

9 minutes ago, Beardyman said:

I think that so far MSFS is neither GA, nor tube liners sim.

For GA - strange aerodynamics with either lack or exaggerated prop simulation aspects.

For tube liners - ATC is still in the bush, icing is not there, ground physics is not there, weather is not refined...

 

They are hard working team and finally they will iron out all major issues, but for that we have to wait maybe +2years - my estimation

I cant comment on accurecy with the FM since im not a pilot, but all I can say is I never had so much fun flying and challenge as flying small GA in this sim. The weather and winds feel alive compared to the sterile enviroment off fsx and p3d.. Never once did I have any kind off challenge in those sims, I was riding on rails.. Good or not, its feels awsome to me:) 

The ATC has never been good in any sim, so didnt really expect much from MSFS to be honest.. But Jorg say they will rewrite it, so maybe it will be better one day..

I used P3D in the past, and with every new version it never really changed, it was like I was buying the same software over and over with just a few improvement each version, but it was just stuck with a feeling of being FSX, like you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig... 

MSFS improves with every SU and WU, at the cost of zero, atleast until the ten year has passed.. I get more in each SU and WU than I ever got buying a new version of prepar3d.

18 minutes ago, Beardyman said:

For GA - strange aerodynamics

Agree.
 

9 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Such as?

See video below.
(Live weather, only a gentle 5 kt breeze at the time. Also, 5°C at 9am in December, so convective turbulence shouldn't have been a thing)