Is Frame Generation Good For MSFS?

[ryanbatc 12,857]

1 hour ago, craigeaglefire said:

very impressive fps results with frame generation on,

does using the frame generation introduce any graphical artifacts/anomalies?

Really only if you don't have a gsysnc compatible monitor.  A few people here said they have 4k tvs but are no gysnc compatible but they did not notice anything.  

When I have a fps that is significantly less than my refresh rate of 144hz I do get some flickers if it's a dark scene like heavy overcast etc.  That typically occurs with lots of intense addons when using TAA.  If I use dlss I rarely see the flickering.

[micstatic 4,319]

I'll be a good test candidate.  I have my 4090.  But haven't had a chance to install it yet.  My screen is a 4K samsung tv that is native 60hz but capable of going down to 24hz.   EDIT: However it is not gsync compatible. 

[lwt1971 7,417]

I'm also considering getting the 4090 soon with a new system but can't seem to nail down a good 4K monitor yet... given that I also do photography I really need a monitor that has good native support or emulation of both wide-gamut and SRGB color spaces, and those monitors all tend to be 60Hz whereas all the good gsync ones don't seem to have these various color modes. Would I still reap the benefits of the 4090 and frame generation with MSFS if I stick to a 60Hz non-gsync monitor? Would I need to enable frames-limiting and/or vsync?
 

[turbomax 3,286]

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Would I still reap the benefits of the 4090 and frame generation with MSFS if I stick to a 60Hz non-gsync monitor?

Yes, I would definitely say so. I am using a 55" TV @ 60 Hz exclusively. nobody needs really more than constant 60 Hz for MSFS, just watch the official MSFS trailers: all 60 fps. TV and movies don't run higher than 60 Hz, and MSFS is (fortunately) no ego shooter, where you might  want more than that.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

18 minutes ago, micstatic said:

capable of going down to 24hz.

Why would you ever?! Whatever floats your boat, but that is just headache inducing. 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

20 minutes ago, turbomax said:

TV and movies don't run higher than 60 Hz, and MSFS is (fortunately) no ego shooter, where you might  want more than that.

And here is why I disagree. Having tested and used both, at 120HZ the feeling of speed is much more apparent than at 60hz. So, yeah whilst TV and movies may be different, MSFS is no TV or movie 🙂 

In-fact if you look this up, there are lots of papers on it. But it is most definitely perceptible up to around 240HZ before you start to get diminishing returns. 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Ianrivaldosmith

[westman 257]

if you have a 60hz tv the max is 60 with new 120hz ones you see diff.

i have a older 60hz tv and 4090 and i dont see any difference , 

i run TAA- FA  tlod 400 and renderscale 150 , frame 59fps in riva tuner, unlocked the framerate is 80-70 never less then 65

i tune the settings with std 2800mhz gpu clock 1312mhz mem at london to get gpu load to 99% then applay my safe oc 

3100mhz gpu1500mhz mem it lower the gpu load to max 92% the boaed power draw is the same around 300-400W

i have a gpu temp of 38-40c and approx 10% faster card then a STD 4090

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by westman

[David Mills 4,773]

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

I'll be a good test candidate.  I have my 4090.  But haven't had a chance to install it yet.  My screen is a 4K samsung tv that is native 60hz but capable of going down to 24hz.   EDIT: However it is not gsync compatible. 

I'm eagerly awaiting your observations. I too use a 4K TV that is native 60hz but not gsync compatible, and I'm almost ready to buy the 4090. Please give us an update when possible about your experience. 

[turbomax 3,286]

38 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

MSFS is no TV or movie

sure? 😀

what is important here and often overlooked:  if you have ultimately absolute constant frame times of 16.6 milliseconds resulting in 60 Hz I don't know if 120 fps would look noticeably smoother. It might do so only as long as it also keeps frame times constantly lower which at 120 fps it might. But you can run at 120 fps and still have more stutters that an 60 fps:

extreme example:  60 Hz lasts 16.6 milliseconds (1.000 milliseconds / 60)

if:

first frame lasts 2 ms

next frame lasts 31.2 ms  and again so forth

for a total of 2 frames in 33.2 milliseconds = equivalent to 60 fps ON AVERAGE.

and yet this would be awfully stuttering. because the first frame is equivalent to 500 fps, the second frame lasting 31.2 ms is equivalent to only 30 fps. in effect you would be alternating between 500 fps (2 ms)  and 30 fps (31.2 ms). I don't know if MSFS could even provide constant fps of only 8.2 ms = 120 Hz considering the other remaining non-graphic related tasks (atc, ai traffic, weather, flight model, scenery decoding etc).

If all MSFS trailers look absolutely fluent at "only" 60 Hz at constant frame times, there is nothing left to be desired for me.

[psolk 3,040]

My 4090 is now on order and I have a 5K G-Sync Compatible ultrawide capable of 120hz at 5k or 144hz at 4k.  With my 3080 I lock it to 5k/60Hz because otherwise I got g-sync flashing.     

Interested to see what the 4090 does compared to the 3080 and if I land at 5k/120hz or remain at 5k/60 with no FPS drops (in theory...) 

[micstatic 4,319]

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

And here is why I disagree. Having tested and used both, at 120HZ the feeling of speed is much more apparent than at 60hz. So, yeah whilst TV and movies may be different, MSFS is no TV or movie 🙂 

In-fact if you look this up, there are lots of papers on it. But it is most definitely perceptible up to around 240HZ before you start to get diminishing returns. 

 

This isn't an FPS game.  Things are a lot different in a flight simulator.  Yes I have also spent a substantial amount of time studying up on this subject.  I'm not saying I run at 24hz.  However I've been able to get it to work happily in the past by using samsung judder reduction technology.  I fly airliners.  So I match my hardware to my mission.  I also do not chase frames.  I chase smoothness.  

[laserit 93]

I'm running a Samsung Odyssey G9 since last year, runs great and looks fantastic with a 4090 or a 3090. I always used to chinse on the monitor, after having this one I won't do that again, what a difference. Otherwise, it's like buying a great amplifier and matching it with crappy speakers.

Edited January 31, 2023 by laserit

[brinx 276]

I just completed a new PC build a few days ago aimed at flight simulation. i9 13900k and 4090. I can finally run my triple monitor set up with great frame rates. The 4090 cost me $1700 USD. So far it is worth it thanks to the frame generation. Right now, the CPU seems to be the bottleneck.

I did 2 other flight simulation builds with top hardware at the time. In 2009 and in 2017. This is the first build where I'm truly happy with performance and I think it comes down to the Frame Generations and 40xx series cards.

[FBW737 511]

6 hours ago, micstatic said:

I'll be a good test candidate.  I have my 4090.  But haven't had a chance to install it yet.  My screen is a 4K samsung tv that is native 60hz but capable of going down to 24hz.   EDIT: However it is not gsync compatible. 

In that case you are a very good candidate to perform a particular comparison. Before you install your 4090 please make an observation of your MSFS experience with your 3090 as seen on your 4K Samsung TV with its built in frame generation active at 30hz (this gives you 60fps on screen) with your experience with your 4090 at the same settings, same scenario with DLSS3 active at 60hz (again giving you 60fps on screen). I haven't made such a comparison but my gut feeling based on my own experience and what I've read is that the former is better. Granted the 4090 is a more powerful card than the 3090 by about the usual margin that next gen cards are but I'm confident that DLSS3 is little more than moving the frame generation hardware from TV end of the HDMI cable to GPU end. Granted there is a bit of tweaking involved but I get a perfectly smooth 60fps on screen with virtually maxed out setting in most scenarios (and if not 48fps at 24hz) without reported blurring from DLSS3 on CDU's etc. I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying a 4090 but know that virtually the same performance leap granted by the 4090's frame generation is available to anyone with a lower generation card if they are using a modern TV with whats called Judder Reduction or something like that in TV settings menu.

If you want some direction in setting it up let me know.

Edited January 31, 2023 by FBW737

[Seth2021 291]

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

I'm also considering getting the 4090 soon with a new system but can't seem to nail down a good 4K monitor yet... given that I also do photography I really need a monitor that has good native support or emulation of both wide-gamut and SRGB color spaces, and those monitors all tend to be 60Hz whereas all the good gsync ones don't seem to have these various color modes. Would I still reap the benefits of the 4090 and frame generation with MSFS if I stick to a 60Hz non-gsync monitor? Would I need to enable frames-limiting and/or vsync?
 

As i am also Photographer & Visual Artist i strongly suggest this monitor:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/alienware-aw3423dw

Best option if you want great results in Photography/Graphic design and MSFS