2 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Funny I'm the reverse, I find the default Dynamic settings gives me better FPS than AutoFPS

I was gonna say that I’ve had good results with the default dynamic settings. 

It could be that I use a very low minimum FPS of 45 (and I usually see far, far higher), large Rolling Cache, locally installed aircraft, airports, and other scenery. 

I have most settings set to a combo of High and Ultra, with a few Eye Candy’s set to Medium/Low.

Good results with a minimum of stutters in dense locales  🤙

 

Edited April 22Apr 22 by UrgentSiesta

21 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I was gonna say that I’ve had good results with the default dynamic settings. 

It could be that I use a very low minimum FPS of 45 (and I usually see far, far higher), large Rolling Cache, locally installed aircraft, airports, and other scenery. 

I have most settings set to a combo of High and Ultra, with a few Eye Candy’s set to Medium/Low.

Good results with a minimum of stutters in dense locales  🤙

 

Correct, I use 45 also with 2x insim DLSS FG.  Works well with 200 LOD on a 5060ti.

dd

3 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Not sure why folks are having blurry textures with the Dynamic Setting on.  For me it actually fixes blurry textures.  Go figure.

dd

Many people are using the Dynamic Setting feature improperly. You're supposed to set the value to your minimum acceptable frame rate, NOT your desired target frame rate. If you use the Dynamic Setting feature properly, most of the time the sim will run with performance higher than the value you entered for Dynamic Setting. This feature (which is designed to automatically reduce the visual quality temporarily for improved performance in graphically-demanding situations and then return graphical quality to normal when performance is above the threshold) will be automatically turned off most of the time and will only activate itself when the sim detects your performance is lower than the value you have set. If you set the Dynamic Setting value too high, it will reduce the sim's graphical quality even in situations when it's not necessary to maintain a frame rate above your minimum acceptable level.

In my case, I set the Dynamic Setting value to 30 fps as I consider that the absolute bare minimum acceptable level of performance. Most of the time I'm getting 60+ fps, so this means Dynamic Setting will always be off unless my sim performance drops below 30 fps. This only very rarely happens but can sometimes occur when I'm flying near a high density photogrammetry city to/from a bespoke airport with lots of nearby traffic (for example KLGA or EGLC). 

Thanks,

SeedyL, MSFS Community Manager

 

17 minutes ago, SeedyL said:

Many people are using the Dynamic Setting feature improperly. You're supposed to set the value to your minimum acceptable frame rate, NOT your desired target frame rate. If you use the Dynamic Setting feature properly, most of the time the sim will run with performance higher than the value you entered for Dynamic Setting. This feature (which is designed to automatically reduce the visual quality temporarily for improved performance in graphically-demanding situations and then return graphical quality to normal when performance is above the threshold) will be automatically turned off most of the time and will only activate itself when the sim detects your performance is lower than the value you have set. If you set the Dynamic Setting value too high, it will reduce the sim's graphical quality even in situations when it's not necessary to maintain a frame rate above your minimum acceptable level.

In my case, I set the Dynamic Setting value to 30 fps as I consider that the absolute bare minimum acceptable level of performance. Most of the time I'm getting 60+ fps, so this means Dynamic Setting will always be off unless my sim performance drops below 30 fps. This only very rarely happens but can sometimes occur when I'm flying near a high density photogrammetry city to/from a bespoke airport with lots of nearby traffic (for example KLGA or EGLC). 

Thanks,

SeedyL, MSFS Community Manager

 

Yep - I think that “minimum acceptable rather than desired” is the knee knocker for many folks. 🤙

I pretty much never fly over Manhattan, but tested this out the other day as it’s a tough place to maintain performance in every sim I’ve ever used. It also bypasses my Rolling Cache, etc. 

Still was able to maintain good performance with just a few micro-stutters (which are inevitable there, IMHO). 🤙

Question for you: is there info on how the adjustments are prioritized by the Dynamic settings?

Edited April 22Apr 22 by UrgentSiesta

1 hour ago, SeedyL said:

Many people are using the Dynamic Setting feature improperly. You're supposed to set the value to your minimum acceptable frame rate, NOT your desired target frame rate. If you use the Dynamic Setting feature properly, most of the time the sim will run with performance higher than the value you entered for Dynamic Setting. This feature (which is designed to automatically reduce the visual quality temporarily for improved performance in graphically-demanding situations and then return graphical quality to normal when performance is above the threshold) will be automatically turned off most of the time and will only activate itself when the sim detects your performance is lower than the value you have set. If you set the Dynamic Setting value too high, it will reduce the sim's graphical quality even in situations when it's not necessary to maintain a frame rate above your minimum acceptable level.

In my case, I set the Dynamic Setting value to 30 fps as I consider that the absolute bare minimum acceptable level of performance. Most of the time I'm getting 60+ fps, so this means Dynamic Setting will always be off unless my sim performance drops below 30 fps. This only very rarely happens but can sometimes occur when I'm flying near a high density photogrammetry city to/from a bespoke airport with lots of nearby traffic (for example KLGA or EGLC). 

Thanks,

SeedyL, MSFS Community Manager
 

A large percentage of "Generation FS" don't seem to be able to cope with framerates less than 60fps, so that kind of "minimum acceptable framerate" is generally going to be a shock to the system. On the other hand, I prefer to use the term "minimum acceptable level of detail", which is why I have the Dynamic Setting switched off.

To further explain - my monitor rate is 180 so the maximum fps setting is 45 which gives me a lock at 90 (1/2 monitor rate) with 2x DLSS FPS.  That's why I use 45 for my minimum Dynamic FPS.

With this setup LOD 200 is always crisp and free of stutters even at say a large addon airport like KSFO.  Without Dynamic on I can barely land there

Also LOD of 400 or 600 is pointless for me because I can't tell the difference.  These high settings also cause blurry, high altitude ground textures.  😎

dd

 

Edited April 22Apr 22 by Sky_Pilot071

12 hours ago, Rocky_53 said:

Well, I did the dirty deed at the weekend and Installed Win 11 and MSFS 2024. So for the past three days 

I've installed 2024 two times previously, when it was first released and after the sim update 3, and had many of the same issues you describe. The worst issues for me was that "cartoon" look and the occasional blurries that I never get in 2020. Thankfully I never uninstalled 2020 because I am very happy with it at this point. The visuals and performance are great on my mid-high end system. In fact I'm still purchasing addons for it because I decided I wouldn't install 2024 again until at least 2027. What I like most about 2020 is no tweaks are needed!

Edited April 22Apr 22 by desbean

17 minutes ago, desbean said:

I've installed 2024 two times previously, when it was first released and after the sim update 3, and had many of the same issues you describe. The worst issues for me was that "cartoon" look and the occasional blurries that I never get in 2020. Thankfully I never uninstalled 2020 because I am very happy with it at this point. The visuals and performance are great on my mid-high end system. In fact I'm still purchasing addons for it because I decided I wouldn't install 2024 again until at least 2027. What I like most about 2020 is no tweaks are needed!

You're living in La la land. 2020 needed just as many tweaks and changes as 2024. I don't see any cartoonish looks in 2024. If anything, 2020 graphics are less superior to 2024. When 2024 first release, I got of blurries, but now haven't experienced ant blurries since SU3. All my fling I get sharp crisp textures at all altitudes. Maybe just because you can't set up your rig correctly, don't blame 2024.

I guess a I'm a simpleton.  When I installed 2024, I just let it control the settings to whatever it thought was best for my system.  Works fine and I have no issues.  Dumb luck or dumb down.  Who knows--it just works.

2 hours ago, Bigmack said:

You're living in La la land. 2020 needed just as many tweaks and changes as 2024. I don't see any cartoonish looks in 2024. If anything, 2020 graphics are less superior to 2024. When 2024 first release, I got of blurries, but now haven't experienced ant blurries since SU3. All my fling I get sharp crisp textures at all altitudes. Maybe just because you can't set up your rig correctly, don't blame 2024.

Agree.  I think everyone forgot how many years it took 2020 to be amazing (and the addons we all thought we wouldn't need - like sky colors and saturation in 2020 - all wrong).  I will admit though, in the tech alpha, the clouds were the best.  Sadly they had to prioritize performance though and cut the voxels way down for RTM.

Does anyone remember the default "glass" cockpits before WorkingTitle came along eeeeeek!?!?

I don't really know why we even have these threads.  There's a similar one in the XP subforum...  Some guy left 2024 to XP12.  Congratulations lol!  I've had great flights with FSX, P3D, XP11, MSFS 2020, XP12, MSFS 2024, DCS et al!  I've also had flights with super annoying bugs and game breaking issues in ALL of those.  Welcome to consumer flight simulation - no sim is perfect at everything.

13 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

I will admit though, in the tech alpha, the clouds were the best.  Sadly they had to prioritize performance though and cut the voxels way down for RTM.

The tech alpha was awesome.

Pitch black skies at night with no glowing red mountains. 

 

Imagine saying 2024 looks cartoonish compared to 2020, when 2020 has 2D sprites for trees......

-delete misread-

Edited April 23Apr 23 by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, desbean said:

I've installed 2024 two times previously, when it was first released and after the sim update 3, and had many of the same issues you describe. The worst issues for me was that "cartoon" look and the occasional blurries that I never get in 2020. Thankfully I never uninstalled 2020 because I am very happy with it at this point. The visuals and performance are great on my mid-high end system. In fact I'm still purchasing addons for it because I decided I wouldn't install 2024 again until at least 2027. What I like most about 2020 is no tweaks are needed!

What are these "tweaks" that are needed in MSFS 2024?

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

What are these "tweaks" that are needed in MSFS 2024?

Not cranking the settings to something your system can't handle 😄 I would wager the issues people are having are related to what SeedyL posted above... people are using Dynamic Settings since it's turned on out of the box, but they set the framerate target to 60fps because they don't understand how it works, and then the clouds look "cartoonish" because they aren't fully rendered because their system can't sustain 60fps under many circumstances.

I'm also guessing folks turn on frame gen with these 40 and 50 series cards, but I'll wager the target framerate does not take frame generation into account, so that 90FPS people see is actually 45, and if the target is set to 60... well, that is why things look like a melted mess.

Maybe more people should use the Nvidia app and have it control their settings... I've found the app suggests settings on the conservative side for my 3090, but even those conservative settings should look better than what some folks are describing.