Fenix A320 Block 2 - FPS

[RJC68 824]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think the Fenix is never going to achieve really good performance

I disagree, I can consistently hit 80fps in this version and the previous one. That is @4K with Ultra settings & FG, shadows at 6144 and plenty of FSLTL traffic. I was at EGLL this morning with a ton of live traffic and I only lost 10fps until I was in the air, that was not the Fenix that was just the extra load due to the scenery and traffic. After that flight I left Gibraltar with a solid 80fps on the ground and it hasn't budged. I can get 97fps consistently as well but locking at 80fps is just as smooth and gives my GPU more headroom.

No performance issues whatsoever with either versions for me 

Edited March 5 by RJC68

[El Diablito 401]

17 minutes ago, RJC68 said:

I disagree, I can consistently hit 80fps in this version and the previous one. That is @4K with Ultra settings & FG, shadows at 6144 and plenty of FSLTL traffic.

Can I hazard a guess at the card you're using......??

[RJC68 824]

Just now, El Diablito said:

Can I hazard a guess at the card you're using......??

It is in my sig, no smoke or mirrors, it is a 4090 paired with a i7-12700K 

[cyyzrwy24 129]

1 hour ago, RJC68 said:

I think the Fenix is never going to achieve really good performance

We are asking for more complex things....we are not happy with this or that scenery and they make it 'heavier and heavier" on any system. So this is the result. However, as long as smoothness is achieved and in majority of the cases is I think that's important. Yesterday 2 flights and over 50FPS but there are days with 38-40 but smooth, no eye tearing. That's what I am looking for besides overall stability considering that I am heavy on settings. Not even sure why when I am flying above FL350 lol, but I guess like to see these lights when I land....

[RJC68 824]

52 minutes ago, cyyzrwy24 said:

We are asking for more complex things....we are not happy with this or that scenery and they make it 'heavier and heavier" on any system. So this is the result. However, as long as smoothness is achieved and in majority of the cases is I think that's important. Yesterday 2 flights and over 50FPS but there are days with 38-40 but smooth, no eye tearing. That's what I am looking for besides overall stability considering that I am heavy on settings. Not even sure why when I am flying above FL350 lol, but I guess like to see these lights when I land....

Just for reference I never made the quote you referenced, it was someone else. I was politely disagreeing with the statement because I have zero performance issues with the Block 2 version of the Fenix or the prior version. I have flown in her all day today all over Europe and apart from this morning sitting at the gate at London Heathrow with a ton of FSLTL traffic where the fps dropped to 70 every other time I have had a solid 80 fps, Even now I am at FL350 above the Alps in very heavy cloud, with a render scale at 110 yes my GPU is showing 99% usage but I still have solid smooth performance. I actually find the Fenix way better optimized than some of the default way less detailed stock aircraft.

[jason74 146]

Lots of people are obsessed with really high FPS , the human eye does not notice over 30 FPS . If you have been simming for a long time and and active on the forums you will remember it use to get discussed many times 

[chapstick 2,769]

12 minutes ago, jason74 said:

Lots of people are obsessed with really high FPS , the human eye does not notice over 30 FPS . If you have been simming for a long time and and active on the forums you will remember it use to get discussed many times 

I can't believe there are people who still believe this after all these years 😂

Edited March 6 by chapstick

[flyinion 280]

1 hour ago, chapstick said:

I can't believe there are people who still believe this after all these years 😂

Same, it's instantly noticeable when my LG drops below 46fps and pops out of Gsync/Freesync range.  Rarely happens except maybe the end of a flight in a dense area like KLAX or EGLL now though.  Also, two pages here and I think only one person mentioned their resolution.  You can not have a conversation about FPS without mentioning what resolution you're running at.

[Luis Hernandez 616]

1 hour ago, chapstick said:

I can't believe there are people who still believe this after all these years 😂

Agree 😂

1 hour ago, jason74 said:

Lots of people are obsessed with really high FPS , the human eye does not notice over 30 FPS . If you have been simming for a long time and and active on the forums you will remember it use to get discussed many times 

The problem is not getting over 30 FPS. The problem is that, in some scenarios, with B1 I could easily get over 30 FPS. Now, with B2, I can't.

[Cpt_Piett 4,937]

I'm getting average fps around 74 (smooth) coming into mkvy's Gatwick w/ AI traffic so I don't think performance in V2 is a problem with the right settings. 

30 minutes ago, flyinion said:

Also, two pages here and I think only one person mentioned their resolution.  You can not have a conversation about FPS without mentioning what resolution you're running at.

5461x2880. Not bragging, only saying it's possible. Of course it's highly hardware-dependent, but even with RTX30-series using the FG-mod paired with a decent CPU, much can be achieved. G-Sync certainly helps in terms of smoothness. I'm lucky to have a 4090, which is maxed out at these settings. Still, even with a decent CPU, I'm main thread limited all the time. 

Edited March 6 by Cpt_Piett

[jason74 146]

1 hour ago, chapstick said:

I can't believe there are people who still believe this after all these years 😂

you must have super eyes? or has the human eye evolved?

Edited March 6 by jason74

[Bnash00 85]

5 hours ago, jason74 said:

you must have super eyes? or has the human eye evolved?

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS. 

[pete_auau 1,177]

don't  bother  with fps, as  long  as  i get  from A to B, and  to say your not going  to fly  a  aircraft  because  of it

[techman 174]

7 hours ago, jason74 said:

Lots of people are obsessed with really high FPS , the human eye does not notice over 30 FPS . If you have been simming for a long time and and active on the forums you will remember it use to get discussed many times 

Stop that immediately. There is clearly a difference between 30 fps and 120 fps in MSFS and if someone doesnt notice that he should clearly visit the eye doctor asap. 

[fluffyflops 1,883]

Which airports are testing it in. You can have the world's best system but using a unoptimised gash airport and you'll  still have issues no matter what the ms2020 gate keepers on here say