MSFS : all graphics settings compared

[Ixoye 1,618]

The difference between his optimal settings and ultra is actually not very big, you really don't get much for your money when you upgrade the sim to handle Ultra, I don't think it was worth it myself to be honest.

Edited September 22 by Ixoye

[Lord Farringdon 439]

I think these sort of comparisons are great. They're not an attempt to show how any given system (high end or low end) performs on these settings but simply an attempt to make sense of the settings and what they change. To that end I commend the effort.  We hear so much of users just placing everything on ultra and hoping for the best. Yet,  some judicious use of specific settings may give extra FPS without losing any visual effects of significance. Except for those whose systems are at the top end, they give everyone across the entire systems specifications spectrum, an opportunity to decide what they are prepared to 'sacrifice' in the hunt for improved FPS. Take Terrain LOD for example. The comparison shows 10 to 100 is significant but 100 to 200 much less so. The cumulative effect of adjusting some of these individual settings with some degree of understanding about what they affect, may give more performance constrained users an opportunity to offset saved FPS to other areas for example AI or Wx, thus enhancing their experience. Thanks @GSalden for bringing this video to our attention.

Cheers

 

Terry

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Piotr007 152]

TLOD is main fps eater. On my rig I see little effect by OLOD. TLOD kicks in the sim goes bam like a brick.

However, speaking of OLOD. Is TLOD compulsory for higher OLOD and by what margin??? If whatsoever.. 

I will test that! What about TLOD 100 and OLOD 200? Is that like trying to have more coffee in a small cup???

[ConstVoid 100]

21 hours ago, AnkH said:

Geez, Gerard is NOT the creator of the video, the creator of the video has a i5 8400 with a GTX 1060...

Indeed, but a natural mistake. All too often YouTube videos of scenery announcements, product reviews etc. are posted here with absolutely no indication of who the original content creator was.

[Noel 4,185]

5 hours ago, Ixoye said:

The difference between his optimal settings and ultra is actually not very big, you really don't get much for your money when you upgrade the sim to handle Ultra, I don't think it was worth it myself to be honest.

Zero relevance for me with my now 3+y/o hardware which runs all planes everywhere on all Ultra with nary a stutter, delivering ultra smooth animation always, including upon arrival into complex airports.  The sim runs better than ever.  The key is in my sig, and I am very glad i didn't go out and buy the latest as it's flat out not necessary and adds virtually zero to the experience.  This will be less the case for those running 4K presumably,. though my GPU is all but asleep so it may be totally fine at 4K.  I have no interest in 4K myself--that too is resolved with viewing distance.

[Gunnarsson 1]

Thank you posting the video @GSalden. It's very informative and helps comparing the visuals with the FPS impact.