September 14, 20232 yr Options will help a lot. You will still get the irrational "my PC is awesome and plays everything at 200FPS except your game/addon/product" people (who refuse on principle to drop settings on anything below absolute maximum on the sliders), but giving normal more reasonable people the ability to tailor/tweak their install to suit their particular setup and preferences will alleviate a lot of the complaints.
September 15, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said: Options will help a lot. You will still get the irrational "my PC is awesome and plays everything at 200FPS except your game/addon/product" people (who refuse on principle to drop settings on anything below absolute maximum on the sliders), but giving normal more reasonable people the ability to tailor/tweak their install to suit their particular setup and preferences will alleviate a lot of the complaints. Yes, that's it! But the complaints (I would rather call them observations) are valid are they not? If there is an approximate or average benchmark for performance in the sim (difficult to quantify I know) then any scenery or aircraft addons that cause a drop below this aren't ideal. Like I say, it is difficult to quantify, but most of us can tell when we have loaded a performance sapping add-on. Since the beginning of flight-simming, a lot of people have been striving for performance enough to give enough fluidity that allows for an enjoyable flight sim experience, as we all know it is a bit of an immersion killer if you have low frame rates and stuttering, and it can also effect the control / feedback loop. 30 FPS at a decent resolution and graphics setting was, and probably still is the target for most, especially these days. With everyone else striving to keep this benchmark, developers who know they will probably drop below this threshold should either try to optimise, or at least give a settings option, as you say, or else it flies in the face of what everyone else is trying to achieve. We don't always need seals or birds or lots of static aircraft, but we do need fluidity in the sim, and it is only my opinion, but that should be preserved at all cost rather than having lots of pretty scenery. But, it is possible to have good scenery and good performance in this sim, as we have all seen. I have lots of addons like this, including Wellington Airport in NZ, which seems fine and looks pretty good. So, we know developers can make things look good enough in MSFS without causing these issues, so any outliers need to look at their products to try to fall in line. I have had very few products that cause performance issues in MSFS. I deleted Aerosoft Antartica that showed similar issues (a lot worse actually), and Chicago City Landmarks (Drzewiecki Design) was also appallingly bad, but they optimised it about the same time Meigs was put back in by MS / Asobo, and it is now absolutely fine (so it can be done!). Just my thoughts, and reasonable hopefully! Edited September 15, 20232 yr by bobcat999 Rob (but call me Bob or Rob, I don't mind). I like to trick airline passengers into thinking I have my own swimming pool in my back yard by painting a large blue rectangle on my patio. Intel 14900K in a Z790 motherboard with water cooling, RTX 4080, 32 GB 6000 CL30 DDR5 RAM, W11 and MSFS on Samsung 980 Pro NVME SSD's. Core Isolation Off, Game Mode Off.
September 15, 20232 yr it's Asobo's fault! it's AMD's fault! 🤣 AMD 7800X3D, Windows 11, Gigabyte X670 AORUS Elite AX Motherboard, 64GB DDR5 G.SKILL Trident Z5 NEO RGB (AMD Expo), RTX 4090, Samsung 980 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD 2 TB PCIe 4.0, Samsung 980 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD 1 TB PCIe 4.0, 4K resolution 50" TV @60Hz, VR: Pimax Crystal Light + HP Reverb G2 @ 90 Hz, Honeycomb Bravo Throttle Quadrant, be quiet 1000W PSU, Noctua NH-U12S chromax.black air cooler. 60-130 fps. no CPU overclocking. very nice.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.