2 hours ago, Funky D said:

The Steam hardware survey is the best indicator of all the different hardware PC gamers are using, not just the power users.

It is but don't forget that's all steam users in the survey, so it can only be used as a guideline not a definitive conclusion. If you did a survey of solely flight sim users the results could be quite different.

4 hours ago, Funky D said:

......Out of your 3 sets of pics, I think only the last is significantly worse in 2024. The first in particular just looks like two photos with different post processing performed. You could probably get very close to the 2020 image by using nvidia filters and sharpening. The 2020 image is sharper, yes, but it is also grainier as a result. To me, the first looks like a picture you'd find on the cover of Flying magazine, while the second is what I'd see when actually looking out the window. But my eyesight isn't the best, even with my glasses 😂

I tend to agree with this. The top two look fine to me in both simulators, but the third one definitely looks dodgy in MSFS 2024. It almost looks like someone has shaded over the ground textures with a crayon to make them look blurry and indistinct. Very strange.

10 hours ago, Funky D said:

Out of your 3 sets of pics, I think only the last is significantly worse in 2024. The first in particular just looks like two photos with different post processing performed. You could probably get very close to the 2020 image by using nvidia filters and sharpening. The 2020 image is sharper, yes, but it is also grainier as a result.

That was my reaction as well. I certainly see different representations, but only the last set seems significantly degraded in '24 as opposed to simply different.

17 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I run 1440p as well... if you're still on the flintstone's res of 1080p some of the clarity differences might be harder to notice... but to me it's night and day less crisp in 2024.

"Flintstone's" eh? Ouch!

I enjoy this hobby, but it's not my only one and, like most, I have to prioritize. I wish I had done an upgrade before RAM and GPU prices went completely stupid but I didn't and quite frankly the value proposition just doesn't play for me at today's prices, and other things take precedence. With care, my "Flintstone's" system actually does remarkably well because I AM willing to live with 1080. My settings are almost universally higher than I would have thought possible with this age of system while still running smoothly with no stutters.

That said, I do think 1440 is the sweet spot today and its what I would target in any new system. And whenever these discussions occur, I'm careful to admit that I'm running 1080 and that I might feel differently if I were running higher res. Might. 🫤

Scott

9 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

Optimizing a game is not downgrading it, you are confusing things. It means making the game run better with the exact same graphics settings. I have a 3060 and 16 GB of RAM, so I do not need them to lower texture quality or degrade the LOD for everyone else. That is what graphics settings are for, so I can do it myself, and 2024 has always run fine for me in terms of performance.

It is downgrading if they remove features and reduce the possible quality in pursuit of said optimization….

While I would agree that performance is better in SU6 I've also noticed my cpu working much harder and hotter than before. Anyone else?

On 8/15/2026 at 9:26 AM, AnkH said:

What I dont get with this annoying PC vs. Console discussion is: many, many devs had the same problem for their game. And in many cases you get an «ultra» option set only for PC. And nobody complains. So why the heck is this not possible for MSFS2024? Why do all us PC users need to suffer from downgrades just that the FPS on consoles can be achieved? Simply give us the additional settings and everybody is fine. But no.

There is no way Microsoft marketing is going to give us a switch between "potato Xbox" and "powerful PC". Their statement that it runs well on Xbox can be defended only by crippling it on PC's.

Sometimes I wonder if Jorg regrets selecting Asobo as the contractor to code the game.

11 hours ago, MarcG said:

It is but don't forget that's all steam users in the survey, so it can only be used as a guideline not a definitive conclusion. If you did a survey of solely flight sim users the results could be quite different.

True, and unfortunately only Asobo/MS has the actual metrics on this. I'm sure they are also looking at folks that load up the sim a few times in GamePass and then abandon it and try to look for reasons/trends for the lack of "retention".

2 hours ago, UAL4life said:

It is downgrading if they remove features and reduce the possible quality in pursuit of said optimization….

Did they actually remove the ability to get better quality in SU6 though, or does increasing the LOD provide similar quality to SU5? There doesn't seem to be a consensus on that yet.

Let's also consider the user who always sets their quality to "ultra" because that is what they set for every other game. Most of us here know that MSFS has always been a different beast. I think it's perfectly fair to nerf the ultra presets, as long as there is a way to get beyond those settings. Again, I'll use Cyberpunk as an example... there are settings that will bring a 5090 to its knees that need to be specifically enabled.

12 minutes ago, Funky D said:

True, and unfortunately only Asobo/MS has the actual metrics on this. I'm sure they are also looking at folks that load up the sim a few times in GamePass and then abandon it and try to look for reasons/trends for the lack of "retention".

Did they actually remove the ability to get better quality in SU6 though, or does increasing the LOD provide similar quality to SU5? There doesn't seem to be a consensus on that yet.

Let's also consider the user who always sets their quality to "ultra" because that is what they set for every other game. Most of us here know that MSFS has always been a different beast. I think it's perfectly fair to nerf the ultra presets, as long as there is a way to get beyond those settings. Again, I'll use Cyberpunk as an example... there are settings that will bring a 5090 to its knees that need to be specifically enabled.

maybe FS needs a Avatar style Unobtanium setting?

1 minute ago, Funky D said:

. I think it's perfectly fair to nerf the ultra presets, as long as there is a way to get beyond those settings.

Strong disagree here. perf optimization is one thing (increasing efficiency to get the same output .. in this case visuals) but nerfing what should be a static setting/benchmark while not informing the general public that it is being done does not promote trust in the developer at all. Each setting should remain what it has always been so there is a proper point of reference.

If you cant run ultra then you simply cant run ultra and the dev should have the confidence to tell the userbase this and not go and nerf the settings behind people backs to make the userbase think they are able to run ultra (Or whatever setting they aspire for and cant reasonably attain).

I personally build and tune my PC to be able to run ultra or as close to it as possible. If the visuals look stunning but i cant run at a particular setting i have to accept that and "try" to upgrade my hardware. I am not going to run to the dev (unless i have been misled in the hardware requirements) to moan about it. What i will moan about is the visuals now looking like word not allowed after they go and secretly change the reference point (Ultra Setting) and now I have to go and figure out how to get it looking like it was again.

Edited Wednesday at 05:51 PM1 day by Maxis

34 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Strong disagree here. perf optimization is one thing (increasing efficiency to get the same output .. in this case visuals) but nerfing what should be a static setting/benchmark while not informing the general public that it is being done does not promote trust in the developer at all. Each setting should remain what it has always been so there is a proper point of reference.

I never said Asobo should stay quiet about the changes, but I'll still respectfully disagree about settings remaining static. MSFS is in constant flux... including the addition of things like FSR, which, if enabled, would invalidate all previous benchmarks anyway. And unlike most games, there is much more competing for resources in MSFS (flight dynamics, aircraft systems, ATC, etc), all evolving over time. If adding things like wake turbulence means the LOD has to be cut by x% to retain performance, I am personally fine with that.

Many folks have complained about the LOD on landing gears... but one complaint I haven't heard much of since that change is stuttering on short final. Whoever mentioned the optimization of the MSFS engine is akin to getting blood from a stone is likely spot on. The alternative could be worsening performance with each update unless you lower settings... until the next version of MSFS is released, at which point all of those settings have a new baseline.

47 minutes ago, Funky D said:

I never said Asobo should stay quiet about the changes, but I'll still respectfully disagree about settings remaining static. MSFS is in constant flux... including the addition of things like FSR, which, if enabled, would invalidate all previous benchmarks anyway. And unlike most games, there is much more competing for resources in MSFS (flight dynamics, aircraft systems, ATC, etc), all evolving over time. If adding things like wake turbulence means the LOD has to be cut by x% to retain performance, I am personally fine with that.

Many folks have complained about the LOD on landing gears... but one complaint I haven't heard much of since that change is stuttering on short final. Whoever mentioned the optimization of the MSFS engine is akin to getting blood from a stone is likely spot on. The alternative could be worsening performance with each update unless you lower settings... until the next version of MSFS is released, at which point all of those settings have a new baseline.

Yep we will have to disagree here. When im talking benchmark i mean it in terms of a static reference. Adding dlss/FSR is fine as an option. TAA is the reference.

And if adding stuff like wake turbulence is going to add additional resources... fine add it (I'm all for it) but make note that this feature is going to require additional resources .. DO NOT mess with the LOD to accommodate it. You want to enable wake turbulence and your system is at its limits? Sure turn something you don't think is as important down. Most reasonable people know adding features may incur a performance cost. Messing about with what should be consistent objective measurable settings and presets like LOD (LOD 200 of today is not the same as LOD 200 of last month) to accommodate its addition is a no go. There is a word that comes to mind for scenarios like this. Unfortunately Avsim probably wont allow me to post it so ill leave the comments here.

Edited Wednesday at 08:00 PM1 day by Maxis

The console crowd will help prevent 'the biggest, most powerful computer is almost fast enough' FSX situation.

dd