1 hour ago, psolk said:

Some of us just don't want anything to do with Beta's, aircraft that work with one beta build but not another, progression, regression, we just want a stable, know exactly what you are going to get every flight sim with all of our add-ons whereas some people are still waiting on the last things like ChasePlane for example to move over. 

 

This 👍

cheers 😉

This sim v sim arguing has to be the most tiresome bit of flight sim. I just don't get it. Use what you like, it's not like installing one sim somehow disables all the others. 

I find it very annoying when people start to bash a sim and nit pick bugs in it just to fit their narrative of their own sim being the best. Every sim has bugs. No sim is perfect. Some do some things better than others (combat, scenery, clouds, pick your thing). 

The fact remains that over time, more and more people and devs will migrate to whatever is the most current and best (for that time) sim. We are seeing this in 2020 v 2024, we saw this in P3D vs 2020, we even saw this in XP 11 v 12 (12 was pretty brutally bad at launch as well. Like 2024, it has improved massively over the past year or so). 

So fly whatever makes you happy, just don't come around being rude to others because of what they prefer. And also understand that while you personally may prefer a particular sim, you may not be in the majority of simmers (P3D simmers anyone? I have nothing against P3D, I'm sure many people still love it, but it's not where the market is headed), and therefore developers will also move on. 

7 hours ago, MassiveSim32 said:

Just curious, believe me.  I'm keen to understand what 2024 doesn't have that makes it "not ready" for your IFR standards?

Jase

 

1- Smoothness (total absence of stutters) MSFS2020 in terms of performance/smoothness has reached the state of the art. When you experience total smoothness at 100 fps synced to 100MHz of a 4k monitor, even during landing with complex liners (A320 Fenix) at busy airports like EGLL with full air traffic, you realize that MSFS2020 is amazing and so realistic.You still can't get it in MSFS 2024

You might ask : do you really need 100 fps? Believe me, when you experience flying at 100fps @100mhz, you never want to go back to 60fps @60mhz.  
The best fluidity is noticeable in turns, in turbulence (I use RealTurb), in panning, and also in the movement of air traffic both in flight and on the ground.

2- LOD management and rendering: MSFS2024 is so poor in LOD management that the scenery loads only a few miles away from you and the textures remain blurry, whereas MSFS2020 still handles LODs better and the textures are sharper at the same LOD settings.

 

10 hours ago, Shrek1970 said:

where did you pull those percentage figures from?

Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) Price history · SteamDB

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 Price history · SteamDB

Edited November 2, 2025Nov 2 by LIML2020

As an almost exclusive VR flyer, I greatly prefer 2024 in VR. Fewer hassles. Better able to control popups, like the EFB, and instruments with the mouse in 2024 (latest two Betas). 

2 hours ago, LIML2020 said:

 

1- Smoothness (total absence of stutters) MSFS2020 in terms of performance/smoothness has reached the state of the art. When you experience total smoothness at 100 fps synced to 100MHz of a 4k monitor, even during landing with complex liners (A320 Fenix) at busy airports like EGLL with full air traffic, you realize that MSFS2020 is amazing and so realistic.You still can't get it in MSFS 2024

You might ask : do you really need 100 fps? Believe me, when you experience flying at 100fps @100mhz, you never want to go back to 60fps @60mhz.  
The best fluidity is noticeable in turns, in turbulence (I use RealTurb), in panning, and also in the movement of air traffic both in flight and on the ground.

2- LOD management and rendering: MSFS2024 is so poor in LOD management that the scenery loads only a few miles away from you and the textures remain blurry, whereas MSFS2020 still handles LODs better and the textures are sharper at the same LOD settings.

 

Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) Price history · SteamDB

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 Price history · SteamDB

Fair.  I guess everyone's system is different.  I get 100+ FPS (4K Ultrawide), smooth as silk in 2024 with SI, traffic injection, complex airliners (FENIX/Ini A350) and payware "large" airports on a 780-0X3D and 4070tiSuper.  I'm on a 1GB connection so perhaps data might be the key.

It's a shame that not everyone can get these results but one day the secret sauce might reveal itself.  SU4 looks like it could be it.

Cheers mate.

Jase

MSFS2024 SU4 is more fluid and gets me more FPS than MSFS2020. 

Yeah, 2020 is still good. That's why I've kept it. Though the most recent Su4 beta is more fluid than anything else I've encountered. 

3 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Yeah, 2020 is still good. That's why I've kept it. Though the most recent Su4 beta is more fluid than anything else I've encountered. 

But fluid is not everything, at least for me, and it is not the Milestone for jumping over to MSFS2024 IMO..

MSFS2020 is fluid also but a lot other things are more stable and constant in 2020 and I think some day I go over to 2024 but this time is not yet..

cheers 😉

12 hours ago, LIML2020 said:

1- Smoothness (total absence of stutters) MSFS2020 in terms of performance/smoothness has reached the state of the art. When you experience total smoothness at 100 fps synced to 100MHz of a 4k monitor, even during landing with complex liners (A320 Fenix) at busy airports like EGLL with full air traffic, you realize that MSFS2020 is amazing and so realistic.

9 hours ago, MassiveSim32 said:

Fair.  I guess everyone's system is different.  I get 100+ FPS (4K Ultrawide), smooth as silk in 2024 with SI, traffic injection, complex airliners (FENIX/Ini A350) and payware "large" airports on a 780-0X3D and 4070tiSuper. 

How I love those useless comparisons without saying any word on the used settings. If I turn TLOD down to 50 and everything else to medium, I have even MORE than 100FPS. And now? I prefer the maximal settings and yes, FPS go down to 72 then, and now? If I would use TLOD 400 or higher, FPS would even dip down to 50 something. And now? 

Please, if you make claims about the so great performance of your sim, add at least all relevant settings. Otherwise it is useless.

PS: if you turn off the option "displacement mapping" in MSFS2024, something MSFS2020 not even offers at the first place, you are quickly back to MSFS2020 performance levels, even if keeping all other settings the same. 

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

How I love those useless comparisons without saying any word on the used settings. If I turn TLOD down to 50 and everything else to medium, I have even MORE than 100FPS. And now? I prefer the maximal settings and yes, FPS go down to 72 then, and now? If I would use TLOD 400 or higher, FPS would even dip down to 50 something. And now? 

Please, if you make claims about the so great performance of your sim, add at least all relevant settings. Otherwise it is useless.

PS: if you turn off the option "displacement mapping" in MSFS2024, something MSFS2020 not even offers at the first place, you are quickly back to MSFS2020 performance levels, even if keeping all other settings the same. 

I will be more precise.  
Stable 100fps is achieved with Multi Frame Generation* in order to lock them to the monitor's 100 MHz frequency and achieve the maximum smoothness that my system can provide in the extreme situation of landing at EGLL Inibuild (scene - cargo, cars, clutters, statics disabled) with Fenix A320.
- Resolution: 4587x1920 (ultrawide 21:9) using the 1.78 DSR factor in the NVIDIA control panel (original resolution 3440x1440).  
- Live traffic: FSLTL traffic injector at 70% with AIG models (they are lighter than FSLTL's).  
- Internal settings: ULTRA  

- Anti aliasing: DLAA

- Frame Generation : ON
- Cockpit shadows: 5120 in usercfg.opt  
- TLOD: 150 on the ground and 600 above 600 feet (using AutoFps mod) -OLOD: 150 on ground and 20 over 2000ft
This is possible with 9800x3d @5.5 stable, RTX 5080 @3200MHz, 64GB RAM 6000 CL30, Windows 10
Latest DLSS version 310.4 works very well with NVIDIA drivers 581.42.  

*Multi Frame Generation: like many, I also considered Multi Frame Generation as a way to get fake FPS, but I understood its usefulness by experimenting with it. I believe that having 150/200 fps with multi-frame generation (3x or 4x) is useful for capping FPS at the high refresh rates of today's monitors and not for achieving extremely high raw FPS to use without capping, which would result in lag.

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by LIML2020

Wonderful, thanks. Do you use 3x or 4x MFG? Because if it is 4x, your base FPS for getting 100FPS via MFG are only at 25FPS. or 33FPS when using 3x MFG. Which in turn is a way more reasonable FPS number considering the listed settings. Because I have my FPS limited to 36 to achieve 72FPS with simple frame generation (2x). 

That is exactly what I meant: if someone just reads 100FPS at EGLL without the info you added now, he might think something is wrong with his build reaching only hardly 30FPS in such a scenario 😉 

7 hours ago, pmplayer said:

But fluid is not everything, at least for me, and it is not the Milestone for jumping over to MSFS2024 IMO..

MSFS2020 is fluid also but a lot other things are more stable and constant in 2020 and I think some day I go over to 2024 but this time is not yet..

cheers 😉

Well, it may not be everything especially when some planes are not "official" in 2024 (or native, is the term?) so very true.

Curious: what is stopping you from using 2024? So far, 100% of my scenery works (addon linker) and nearly all of my planes work sans PMDG 737 series. The DC-6 is flawless if you put it in the 2024 community folder. GSX works, AtmosCore works (new beta), Fs2crew RAAS, FSrealistic, activesky (new beta but the previous works) and beyond atc works as well. 

For me: performance is better along with the same-if-not-better visuals vs performance (better performance with increased visuals). Couple that with payware planes (default planes are useless to me unless test flying) and I'm golden. 

18 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Well, it may not be everything especially when some planes are not "official" in 2024 (or native, is the term?) so very true.

Curious: what is stopping you from using 2024? So far, 100% of my scenery works (addon linker) and nearly all of my planes work sans PMDG 737 series. The DC-6 is flawless if you put it in the 2024 community folder. GSX works, AtmosCore works (new beta), Fs2crew RAAS, FSrealistic, activesky (new beta but the previous works) and beyond atc works as well. 

For me: performance is better along with the same-if-not-better visuals vs performance (better performance with increased visuals). Couple that with payware planes (default planes are useless to me unless test flying) and I'm golden. 

Fine for you ! 👍

Maybe my thinking is a bit other than yours.. 🤔

cheers 😉

11 hours ago, AnkH said:

Wonderful, thanks. Do you use 3x or 4x MFG? Because if it is 4x, your base FPS for getting 100FPS via MFG are only at 25FPS. or 33FPS when using 3x MFG. Which in turn is a way more reasonable FPS number considering the listed settings. Because I have my FPS limited to 36 to achieve 72FPS with simple frame generation (2x). 

That is exactly what I meant: if someone just reads 100FPS at EGLL without the info you added now, he might think something is wrong with his build reaching only hardly 30FPS in such a scenario 😉 

I'm still testing both 3x and 4x multi frame generation. 4x has been working perfectly lately, thanks in part to the latest NVIDIA drivers that have improved multi frame generation management. With my settings, a raw 33fps as a baseline for reaching 100fps with 3x MFG is at the limit. It can happen that during peak traffic hours, with dense clouds and reduced visibility in the example scenario mentioned, I get to raw 30fps, and in this case, stuttering and lag begin. In various tests, I've noticed that my system will never drop to 25fps , so a baseline of 25fps to reach 100fps with 4x MFG is the ideal solution.

30fps as a base is 2x frame generation to reach 60fps locked to the monitor refresh 60Hz is perfection in terms of fluidity (intended as the absence of stuttering and not as the scrolling of the images). When you experiment with higher frequencies like 100Hz you feel like you're really flying (sometimes your head spins) and your eye never wants to go back to 60Hz. Even better would be 120fps at 120Hz, but my system with my ultra settings doesn't allow it.

I know, I can be obsessive, but I try to exploit every single fps to get the best graphics and fluidity for a very satisfying flight simulation experience with MSFS2020.

 

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by LIML2020

10 minutes ago, LIML2020 said:

In various tests, I've noticed that my system will never reach raw 25fps, so a baseline of 25fps to reach 100fps with 4x MFG is the ideal solution.

This statement confuses me unless you mean your FPS will never DROP to 25 raw FPS not never reach 25fps... 

Would you mind just clarifying that please? 

Thank you