19 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

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?

Not for MSFS, again I come back to frame generation. I get 50-60 FPS in such scenarios. Minimum. 

14 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Agree.
 

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)
 

 

There are different kind of turbulence one you think you are referring is called mechanical. We have plenty of turbulence none relative to winds or surface temperature,  but because of atmospheric lapse  rate and unstable air which can be with clear skies and calm wind.

By the way problem with weather depiction or propagation is not necessarily problem with aerodynamics! MSFS suffers with ground physics at the moment.

 Also I must note not all turbulence is forecasted IRL. Even wind station located relatively close, wind aloft report sometimes miss pockets of wind or turbulence. As we fly locally over the years we learn places that predominately smooth and places that often bumpy. I'm not geologists or weatherman but I have noticed during approaches over the farm fields 99% are bumpy even through otherwise smooth air conditions and winds are calm. First airport comes to mind is KCNO. Can't remember a day when I took students there and it was not bumpy on approach.

  

1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

By the way problem with weather depiction or propagation is not necessarily problem with aerodynamics! MSFS suffers with ground physics at the moment.

Also the CFD needs more refinement, especially with smaller aircraft like the video'ed Sting S4 oscillations above.

15 minutes ago, Mace said:

Also the CFD needs more refinement, especially with smaller aircraft like the video'ed Sting S4 oscillations above.

Unfortunately can't comment for LSA I don't fly them. They has very low wind tolerance, none of the IFR certified (my CFI "insurance" to get in and out  home when marine layer hanging over even when student is traing for VFR), finally reliability and part availability big issue for us locally. All LSA we had in flying ops spent more time in maintenance and eventually phased out of training fleet. So outdated 172 and Cherokees able to sustain more beating and still perform  sufficiently to generate cash flow.  But I understand LSA can be cool a cheap way to learn to fly if hangered and nurtured. Long cross country thought will be a slide show LOL I mean even in 172 is terrible LOL

53 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Not for MSFS, again I come back to frame generation. I get 50-60 FPS in such scenarios. Minimum.

But you lose the near-zero FTV (according to one test done by another 4090 user) which makes when not lost makes 33 FPS look as fluid as 50-60 FPS and that including panning, taxing, drone or in cockpit.  I've certainly done this comparison by dumbing down the load and running the sim at 60 FPS w/o near-zero FTV and of course detail-wise it's not going to be a substute for maxed settings, but it does illustrate the degree of fluid and stutter-free animation..  I just flew into KSFO in the B738 w/ zero loss of fluid animation from gate to gate.  My CPU limits T-LOD to 120 in that scenario and all the way up to 400 in other easier scenarios.  Thankfully, it's visually only modestly different the difference between TLOD of 120 and 200.  Didn't say it's not there, it's just not that impressive.  I only mention this for those who have not tested this for themselves. 

I'm doing pretty much the same as I did in P3D now with MSFS. The A310 can do long hauls easy. I'll switch to the 777 when it's out.

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Not for MSFS, again I come back to frame generation. I get 50-60 FPS in such scenarios. Minimum. 

So you are saying your FPS is better in the Fenix at KLAX than in the default Cessna 152 in the middle of nowhere? Because that's what "not for MSFS" would mean as a response to my statment.

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

1 hour ago, JYW said:

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.

I can pick up any post from 2007, replace FS9 with P3D and FSX with MSFS, paste it here and no one will notice the difference 😝

BUT, I can take a lesson I read back then: not trying to match settings between sims, but appearance first, i.e., make MSFS look like P3D, and (if performance allows) then improve the settings a bit more. I should be doing that*

*read spoiler for further details.

Spoiler

Last time I did so was trying to convert from FS9 to FSX. My computer at FSX launch was so bad that even the late Michael Greenblatt (the guy from FS-GS, RIP) declined my request 😂. Since I couldn't manage to match FSX and FS9 visually (while keeping the jetways FSX offered), I stayed in FS9 for 12 more years (and 4 laptops).

 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Luis Hernandez

There are still people who don't want to upgrade from FS9 heh.

It's their choice, if they got the sim they like, then all the power to them.

When I am sitting at a large airport with lots of traffic I expect to see my FPS dip into the 20s. But when I look out my window I don't see any stuttering or planes warping. When in the sky my FPS go back to the 50s. So expectations need to be adjusted when flying airliners vs GA planes, and when in large populated areas.   

25 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

There are still people who don't want to upgrade from FS9 heh.

It's their choice, if they got the sim they like, then all the power to them.

Yep, there are even modellers churning out new aircraft for it as well, there's a highly regarded A350 for FS9 out there. 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

There are different kind of turbulence one you think you are referring is called mechanical.

Not when the wind direction is practically coming off the sea (wind is moving right to left, from the East). What objects, man-made or natural, are creating mechanical turb? Over the sea?

 

14 minutes ago, RobJC said:

When I am sitting at a large airport with lots of traffic I expect to see my FPS dip into the 20s. But when I look out my window I don't see any stuttering or planes warping.

Indeed. I could get 30 FPS in an older sim, but could suffer micro stutters in a forward-facing view.

In MSFS, I can push too hard and have too much on display. When FPS drops to 20 in MSFS, the sim is still smooth (unless I look 90° towards the side). I'm often amazed at the performance I can achieve with so much content showing in the view.

7 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Not when the wind direction is practically coming off the sea (wind is moving right to left, from the East). What objects, man-made or natural, are creating mechanical turb? Over the sea?

 

Indeed. I could get 30 FPS in an older sim, but could suffer micro stutters in a forward-facing view.

In MSFS, I can push too hard and have too much on display. When FPS drops to 20 in MSFS, the sim is still smooth (unless I look 90° towards the side). I'm often amazed at the performance I can achieve with so much content showing in the view.

Even with your 5800X3D, you can overload it?  What TLOD do you typically run?

I'm looking to upgrade to a 7800X3D (keeping my 3080ti for now) but I guess there's no free lunch even with the latest processors...you can still overload them.
 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

But you lose the near-zero FTV (according to one test done by another 4090 user)

I don’t loose any? So, maybe the other person has some things different, but using my 7950X It is perfect. Literally perfect. 

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

So you are saying your FPS is better in the Fenix at KLAX than in the default Cessna 152 in the middle of nowhere? Because that's what "not for MSFS" would mean as a response to my statment.

I’m saying that if I’m in the C172 in the middle of no where I’m pinned at 120 frames, my monitors limit. And if I’m in a heavy jet, such as the Fenix at LAX, I’m at 50-60 fps. And 60 fps is WAY better than 30, especially TrackIR users. And people can argue until they are blue in the face, but 60 fps is way better than 30. It’s the sensation of flight, the fluidity. 
What I’m saying is that this sim is not just for GA, if you have the system and make use of new technology, it is certainly able to produce outstanding results under any load. 
 

If you have the system, this isn’t like the FS9,FSX, P3D days. Stuck at 20-30 frames at big airports running AI with cpu intensive planes. In my opinion, we eventually had a breakthrough with frame generation. It’s absolutely game changing, literally! 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by Ianrivaldosmith