I stopped at P3Dv3 and don't have MSFS.  Taming the wild west in RDR2.

I still purchase addons for P3DV5xx and P3DV6x when available. I don`t plan on buying a 4090 for MSFS which now seams to the preferred GPU.

The 4090 super will be released in the next few months listed MSRP ARM+LEG at the moment some will buy at any cost.

Nvidia teases RTX 40 Super series launch at CES — here's all of the leaked specs | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by G-RFRY

I should add that I will buy the TFDI MD11 once it is released.  Really looking forward to that one and appreciate TFDI keeping their promise to release the plane for P3d.

I've been hopping the Hawaiian islands in their 717, and while it is showing its age, it is still one of my favorite planes.

Just now, okupton said:

I should add that I will buy the TFDI MD11 once it is released.  Really looking forward to that one and appreciate TFDI keeping their promise to release the plane for P3d.

I've been hopping the Hawaiian islands in their 717, and while it is showing its age, it is still one of my favorite planes.

TFDi states the MD11 will be released for V6 as well.

2 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

I don`t plan on buying a 4090 for MSFS which now seams to the preferred GPU.

The 4090 super will be released in the next few months listed MSRP ARM+LEG at the moment some will buy at any cost.

A 4090 GPU is overkill for P3D.  I have a 4070 and it barely breaks a sweat in any scenario so far.

Yes, some will buy the 4090 Super no matter the cost because it makes them feel good to have the most powerful video card.

Dave

The 4090 is overkill for MSFS aswell unless you insist on running @ 4K resolution on a planet sized monitor, and will not accept anything less than 100fps.

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

A 4090 GPU is overkill for P3D.  I have a 4070 and it barely breaks a sweat in any scenario so far.

Yes, some will buy the 4090 Super no matter the cost because it makes them feel good to have the most powerful video card.

Dave

Not if you play with the .cfg to increase terrain texture resolution, LOD, etc. I'm pretty sure you can force P3D to use up all your VRAM. 

5 hours ago, dave2013 said:

A 4090 GPU is overkill for P3D.  I have a 4070 and it barely breaks a sweat in any scenario so far.

As an owner of a 4090 running v5,3HF2 in 4K I disagree. As @chapstick has alluded to increasing the distance textures are drawn by editing the cfg makes a big difference to the quality of the view. Do you run with EA enabled?

I regularly see 50% or more of the GPU utilised with EA enabled. That’s the big difference. You don’t list the resolution in your sig. That makes a big difference and 4K / 4090 is a great combination.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The 4090 is overkill for MSFS aswell unless you insist on running @ 4K resolution on a planet sized monitor, and will not accept anything less than 100fps.

The monitor size is irrelevant. A 24” 4K monitor has as many pixels as a 77” TV. And very few people need 100fps for flight simulation. 😉

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Do you run with EA enabled?

I regularly see 50% or more of the GPU utilised with EA enabled. That’s the big difference. You don’t list the resolution in your sig. That makes a big difference and 4K / 4090 is a great combination.

I use EA and REX clouds at 2048x2048 resolution.  My graphics settings are also on the high side - cloud, vehicle, and building shadows, medium shadow quality, 8X MSAA, 16X Anisotropic, high reflections, dynamic lights, ultra scenery complexity, high autogen,

I have a 27" 2K monitor.

4K is overkill unless you use a very large monitor, like 36+" or so.  You're eyes can't tell the difference between 2K and 4K unless the screen is very large or you are very, very close to the screen.

To each his/her own.

Dave

5 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I have a 27" 2K monitor.

4K is overkill unless you use a very large monitor, like 36+" or so.  You're eyes can't tell the difference between 2K and 4K unless the screen is very large or you are very, very close to the screen.

That’s a very small monitor but fine for 2560*1440.

4K is not overkill in my opinion. My 32” BenQ displays the finest detail of the Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25 analogue gauges. Even at my age but with both eyes having cataracts removed my eyesight is better than it’s been for years.

All my cloud settings in ASCA are at maximum. It shows. As you say, each to their own.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The monitor size is irrelevant. A 24” 4K monitor has as many pixels as a 77” TV. And very few people need 100fps for flight simulation. 😉

You are right regarding the amount of pixels of course, but on a very big screen, the pixels will be bigger, which means the problems related to pixels (aliasing, shimmering...) will be more noticable.

See it this way: if you have a very small size 4K screen, you will most likely not be able to see the individual very tiny pixels, then you will most likely NOT notice any kind of aliasing, which means you will not require any antialiasing, which leads to greater performance.

If instead you get a very huge screen that is also 4K, you'll notice the pixels and any eventual aliasing issue, forcing you to activate antialiasing, which requires quite a lot of GPU power (and memory) at 4K resolutions.

A 4090 shines when you need very high resolutions. 4K might not be a big issue. However, VR is another story.

For recent versions of P3D, I wouldn't be able to tell. Up to v4, P3D was mainly limited by the CPU. I guess v5 and v6 are more limited by the GPU instead, due to the new graphic technologies in use ? (volumetric clouds and such...)

For MSFS, if you don't use a 4K screen, you definitely don't need a 4090. In fact, my GTX 1070ti is giving me very nice performance @1080p. It's not so good in VR, though...

@Daube, small displays = sharpness, large ones = immersion. The ideal size to satisfy both requirements is open to debate.

I agree with all your points about anti-aliasing. It’s down to personal preference for each user.

And you’re quite tight about VR requiring far higher fps for realism. Fortunately I don’t need or want VR.

i still think v5 is CPU-limited. I have to reduce the number of Ai at Simwings Heathrow to 160 even with my kit. The GPU on the other hand seems to be comfortable with everything I throw at it. Bliss! 😁

Back to topic, please--which is demand for P3D scenery and acft, not video cards.

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

A 4090 GPU is overkill for P3D.  I have a 4070 and it barely breaks a sweat in any scenario so far.

I would disagree on that.

It's quite easy to tune to maximise GPU use and I can easily use all 12 GB of VRam as well as reach 100% GPU use for my 3080Ti.

P3D in it's default config is really very much a tune for the lowest common denominator.

Here is a pic showing the 3080Ti @ 100% GPU use and memory use also climbing, in this instance VRam use didn't hit the max but I have on other occasions.

A simple rule is the more powerful the GPU, the more that can be thrown at it.

Cheers