54 minutes ago, YMMB said:

to accommodate 3rd party devs as much as we flight simmers do of the MSFS devs.

I don't think there are many games out there that depend so heavily on 3rd party devs/addons as flightsimulators do.

I'm a less is more kind of guy so I won"t be trashing my system any time soon. 

sp

This was an interesting thread before it went off track with pages of references to Star Wars.  Whilst I do like Star Wars and the references were sometimes amusing, please could we get back on track with "which settings and addons seriously screw up your performance".

Sorry if I'm being a party pooper 😀

3 hours ago, YMMB said:

Just out of curiosity is it upto Asobo to make MSFS run as best as possible on a stock setup only and then up to 3rd party developers to achieve their own best results?

  Or is it up to Asobo to build the best possible base sim and include every feature needed by 3rd party devs to achieve the "holy grail" in simming parlance?

I don't play any other game or sim so I've lost touch which other games and whether there is an expectation for the developer to accommodate 3rd party devs as much as we flight simmers do of the MSFS devs.

It depends on where you define what is the responsibility of 3rd party developers and what is the responsibility of the MSFS team. For example, when MSFS was released, there wasn't that much focus on the default avionics, and perhaps more sophisticated avionics would be taken care by 3rd party developers.  Well, the community didn't agree and the community asked for better default avionics.

Fortunately, Jorg listened and hired Working Title.  Now MSFS has the best G1000 (NXi version of course), G3000, G5000, and G3X add-ons. These are so good, that you can't even buy a better payware add-on than these, because none exist that are better.  MSFS also has a stellar GNS 430 and GNS 530 and for payware, you can buy RealityXP's GNS 430 and GNS 530 which is really good, but there is some functionality that the Working Title GNS 430 and GNS 530 can do, which  RealityXP's GNS 430 and GNS 530 can't do (so I am not certain which is better).

The best part about MSFS having the best default GA avionics is that 3rd party developers don't have to waste time developing their own.  Having said that, there are still 3rd parties that are making avionics for MSFS (PMS50 and TDS), so the Working Title team hasn't covered everything yet.  So at least for default avionics, I am glad that the MSFS team hired Working Title to enhance the default avionics for the base sim.

Edited March 9, 20242 yr by abrams_tank

6 hours ago, Steve Dra said:

I recently lost my real job of 15 years, so in between beta testing the 777 and looking for a new job, I came here to see if I could boost my like count...the real goal of any forum junkie. 🙂   Its a good distraction, as is flying the 777, but right now she's in cruise, I handed the yoke to my relief crew and just about to hit the crew rest bunk.  I gotta' be sharp when I land her in XXXX after a 14 hour flight.  (how's that for getting back on the subject of flightsimming?, hehe).

Friendly bantering about all things si-fi and movie trivia is an ultimate distraction, and as you can see....

 

 

I recently went through a job transition myself and I will say that it's.....dynamic.

Captain America is my absolute favorite. The guy can roll his ankle and die but still kicks the most butt.

I'm truly sorry for abandoning my own thread - had to get into a cockpit! 😄 

https://imgur.com/yir9IIe

https://imgur.com/0Cu8Zmf

Make sure to click the links and connect your 2000$ gold-coated audio cables for the most immersive audio experience! 🙂

 

Edited March 9, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

Are scenery designers still doing things like LOD hacks to make small objects visible from greater distances? As I understand it, it was a pretty common practice to set invisible boundaries for objects to make them bigger than they actually are, so they are rendered at further distances. I get that it's a pretty dumb limitation of MSFS if you can't see a windsock in the air, but I have to assume hacks like these add up, making a very pretty scenery that ends up tanking sim performance. None of Asobo's "bespoke" airports have the kind of performance hits as some of the 3rd party addons out there... I get that they're less complex, but I also wonder if it's because they're following the SDK to a T and not sacrificing performance for graphics.

(p.s. I know nothing about scenery development, so maybe devs have thoroughly tested what has a performance impact and what doesn't, but there are plenty of times that 3rd party scenery is updated after the fact for better performance)

People get what they ask for. They don't ask for airports with great frame rates, they ask for hyper-realistic airports that contain everything in detail and they want it filled with real time traffic. But there is no free lunch. It all has to be rendered frame by frame. How many times have you read someone stating that a payware airport looks really great, but the frames rates are bad as if the developer did something wrong? It makes perfect sense that the frame rates drop significantly. Why wouldn't they? Some other developer will release an airport that gets pretty good frame rates and it will get roasted for lacking this and that detail. Of course it does.

But when all is said and done I'm still getting 40/60 FPS, very few stutters, and nice looking graphics on my ancient AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 4.2 and Nvidia 3060 with 300GB of Mods (always installed) whilst running Navigraph, SimBrief, Windy, FSLTL, ProATC/SR, FSR, MSFS MapEnhancment, MSFS AutoFPS, Flight Sim First Officer and Stream Deck. I run it at 2k and I'm very happy with the results.

1 hour ago, SierraHotel said:

I'm still getting 40/60 FPS, very few stutters

you must be doing something wrong. sorry, I can't help.

15 minutes ago, turbomax said:

you must be doing something wrong. sorry, I can't help.

Obviously, I just can't figure it out.

Earlier in thread I was complaining that the last update to the beta hurt performance. It was user error. Performance is actually higher in SU15 beta, not lower, than the old SU14. In other words, my whining was misleading, LOL.

2 minutes ago, Fielder said:

Earlier in thread I was complaining that the last update to the beta hurt performance. It was user error. Performance is actually higher in SU15 beta, not lower, than the old SU14. In other words, my whining was misleading, LOL.

That's good to hear! I haven't done any "scientific" performance comparisons between different beta builds. I do have great performance in the newest build though. 

Been reflecting a bit more on my opening post. It's quite dramatic how hard AI traffic can hit. Performance was not that bad until I threw 100% AIG into the mix. 

Just did a 1hr flight from Sydney (FlyTampa) with AIG 50%, and it was great (smooth) at very high settings. 

I saw a report from one user that the number of AI traffic flights in the beta, has increased, which is reducing his performance. That was over on the official msfsforum beta 15 subforum. He used some sort of colorful language, I forget the exact words. He seemed to be saying it had become some sort of a circus of swarming planes or something like that. Maybe he was exaggerating.

I haven't spent any time on the official forums since I was mod-berated for mentioning AutoFPS. Before I left I did see some discussion on AI traffic hitting harder in the beta. 

Just started using AIGTC again the other day. Didn't use it for a year as their injector was too unstable. The updated version is great though - nice, slick UI and a simple 0-100% slider for traffic density. I find FSLTL settings can be a bit confusing.