1 hour ago, Roy Warren said:

How do I put my signature at the bottom on my post?

Should be in your profile section somewhere, Profile --> Account Settings --> signature

3 hours ago, Daube said:

Performance should be compared taking this into consideration.

With much lower settings in MSFS2024 (meaning the world looks like word not allowed) I still get worse performance than in MSFS2020. MSFS2020 looked and performed a lot better. Using the Medium preset with only Glass cockpit refresh rate at High.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, 32 GB RAM, 3060 Ti and G-Sync monitor at 2560x1440.

 

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by mistolip

I am on i7-10700k, rtx 3070, 1440p (2k). Flying 2024

2020 and 2024 approach the hardware very differently.

In 2020 I was on the almost highest detail, fps capped at 50, TAA, no FG, and the bottleneck was the CPU's most loaded thread.

In 2024 I fly in High or sometimes even Ultra. I have never noticed CPU limitation anymore (multi thread spread). But the GPU is the limit now always on 99%. With TAA and ultra i dropped to 25 fps in normal cities, countryside and C152 (no PG). So I had to switch to DLSS Quality, no FG, and I am on 35 to 45 fps, occasionally on 50 fps.

But notice 2024 has AUTOMATIC reduction of detail if you drop below certain fps. That's why some people report high performance, not knowing the sim reduces ground texture resolution...(!)

Bottom line, as mentioned here before, 2024 is heavier on my hardware, but I see more detail everywhere which I enjoy for now...

In time hw update is a must, funnily enough the PC can stay, only GPU with FG is needed.

In case you don't know, you can already have FG with Lossless Scaling (sold on Steam) or the free FSR3 mod: https://www.nexusmods.com/site/mods/738

23 minutes ago, David_CSA said:

But notice 2024 has AUTOMATIC reduction of detail if you drop below certain fps. That's why some people report high performance, not knowing the sim reduces ground texture resolution...(!)

So they do implement AutoFPS ?

I finally installed for the first time.  I'm running a 3 year old 3070, which ran 2020 on high (a step below ultra) just fine.

I was a little surprised to see it bump me down to medium.  FPS was in the 40-60 range.  Based on what I heard, this was a little shocking.  This was in the 172 just over Buffalo (default scenery, nothing really going on here).  This is a 100% vanilla sim.  40-60 wasn't terrible, but it was choppier than I would have liked.  I only had a short time.  

I imagine throwing in a few addons would put me at pretty poor performance.  Granted, I'm not sure if 2024 medium is still higher than high on 2020 (it did still look good).  

I was planning on upgrading soon anyway, but I was a little disappointed in fps.  

This was me playing around for 20 minutes and not any real testing or tweaking.  Granted, I didn't really have any of those tweaks or mods in 2020 either.  

1 hour ago, David_CSA said:

.......But notice 2024 has AUTOMATIC reduction of detail if you drop below certain fps. That's why some people report high performance, not knowing the sim reduces ground texture resolution...(!)

That is totally unacceptable to me if correct. Consistent level of detail is what I look for, not consistent framerate.

43 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

I finally installed for the first time.  I'm running a 3 year old 3070, which ran 2020 on high (a step below ultra) just fine.

I was a little surprised to see it bump me down to medium.  FPS was in the 40-60 range.  Based on what I heard, this was a little shocking.  This was in the 172 just over Buffalo (default scenery, nothing really going on here).  This is a 100% vanilla sim.  40-60 wasn't terrible, but it was choppier than I would have liked.  I only had a short time.  

I imagine throwing in a few addons would put me at pretty poor performance.  Granted, I'm not sure if 2024 medium is still higher than high on 2020 (it did still look good).  

I was planning on upgrading soon anyway, but I was a little disappointed in fps.  

This was me playing around for 20 minutes and not any real testing or tweaking.  Granted, I didn't really have any of those tweaks or mods in 2020 either.  

Free flight or in a mission/career?  

I have read there is a significant performance hit in Free Flight that sounds like what you are describing that is not there if you fly in career mode or a mission...  

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

In case you don't know, you can already have FG with Lossless Scaling (sold on Steam) or the free FSR3 mod: https://www.nexusmods.com/site/mods/738

Thank you very much for the reminder. I actually have the new card already, only did not find time to put it in (and wanted to see the performance with good old 3070). But thank you again, really appreciate it.

38 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That is totally unacceptable to me if correct. Consistent level of detail is what I look for, not consistent framerate.

It's an option. You can activate it or not. It's called "Dynamic settings" or something like that, and if you activate it, you can set a target frame rate, but you can't edit the settings anymore. If you disable it, the target framerate setting goes greyed out, and you can edit the graphical settings.

37 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That is totally unacceptable to me if correct. Consistent level of detail is what I look for, not consistent framerate.

Yes, it is in graphics settings as a tick box. If in Dev mode, you can see the parameter applied. It's named something like Detail reduction. If equal to 1, then no reduction applied. If it goes dynamically above 1, your details go down.

10 minutes ago, psolk said:

Free flight or in a mission/career?  

I have read there is a significant performance hit in Free Flight that sounds like what you are describing that is not there if you fly in career mode or a mission...  

Interesting, this was free flight.  I'll have to try a mission or two and see if it is any different.  

57 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

I finally installed for the first time.  I'm running a 3 year old 3070, which ran 2020 on high (a step below ultra) just fine.

I was a little surprised to see it bump me down to medium.  FPS was in the 40-60 range.  Based on what I heard, this was a little shocking.  This was in the 172 just over Buffalo (default scenery, nothing really going on here).  This is a 100% vanilla sim.  40-60 wasn't terrible, but it was choppier....

Exactly my experience with 3070. Could it be due to the fact that it has only 8 GB VRAM?

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by David_CSA

5 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

Interesting, this was free flight.  I'll have to try a mission or two and see if it is any different.  

Also interested to hear if you get better performance in a mission or career...    They were also seeing the 99% GPU and single digit FPS in Free Flight but 100FPS and normal GPU usage in a mission.

As with everything, I am not claiming this to be the case, but I did watch it happen in their video so sharing in case others are seeing it too.  

@David_CSA were you also in free flight?   Could you perhaps try a mission or career mode to see if there is a performance difference?  

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by psolk

1 minute ago, psolk said:

Also interested to hear if you get better performance in a mission or career...    They were also seeing the 99% GPU and single digit FPS in Free Flight but 100FPS and normal GPU usage in a mission.

As with everything, I am not claiming this to be the case, but I did watch it happen in their video so sharing in case others are seeing it too.  

Yeah, and honestly I was planning on an upgrade anyway, but I wasn't expecting performance quite this bad. I'll play around with it, but I was going to upgrade regardless.  Getting 3 solid years out of my current system is a good run.