Jump to content

bonchie

Members
  • Content Count

    2,734
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,279 Excellent

About bonchie

  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Because FSX and P3D did not play well with AMD. I want to make sure there aren't similar issues with AMD in MSFS. I already know what my budget is and what resolution I want to play at. That's why I narrowed it down to the 3070 or 6800.
  2. Probably gonna go AMD 6800. I just don't want to get into a GC that only has 8GB. That doesn't seem smart for future proofing. I keep my graphics cars a long time (970 for like 8 years at this point), and I want to take the biggest step forward possible. Plus the 6800 is more powerful overall anyway for less money. I just want to make sure AMD plays well with MSFS. Any first hand experiences? Not just FPS, but stutters and stuff.
  3. Haven't simmed really since the MSFS beta. Busy with real-life flying. Kind of have the itch again. My system is definitely derelict on the GPU side with a GTX 970. And my CPU is a now getting old with a 8600K at 4.8Ghz. Obviously, the GPU has to be upgraded. Is the CPU decent enough to put off for a while? As to the GPU, don't want to break the bank, so the highest I can get with Nvidia is a 3070. Highest with AMD is an RX 6800. Kind of worried about the Nvidia only having 8GB of memory, but do AMD cards work well with MSFS?
  4. Haven't simmed really since the MSFS beta. Busy with real-life flying. Kind of have the itch again. My system is definitely derelict on the GPU side with a GTX 970. And my CPU is a now getting old with a 8600K at 4.8Ghz. Obviously, the GPU has to be upgraded. Is the CPU decent enough to put off for a while? As to the GPU, don't want to break the bank, so the highest I can get with Nvidia is a 3070. Highest with AMD is an RX 6800. Kind of worried about the Nvidia only having 8GB of memory, but do AMD cards work well with MSFS?
  5. Thanks for all the tips. Honestly, the freeware improvement mods have been enough to get me going. The rest of the sim is already there except for AI traffic issues. It's nice to not have to run 50 add-ons at start up to get a decent experience. Just used the TBM 930 w/ improvement mod to go from KHKS to KDTS (Destin, FL) just to see how the sim would render the outer bands of the now tropical storm passing through. It did it perfectly. Flew the RNAV, broke out about 1200ft. Plane felt great on the approach and in the landing phase. My ancient GTX 970 had zero issues despite the heavy IMC and the FPS were smooth except a couple of time when I tried to pan too fast. It was shocking at times. Maybe I'm just honeymooning right now, and the flaws will slap me in the face soon, but there seems to be a lot done right compared to my experience in the Alpha and with the early release over a year ago. I can't imagine going back to P3D after this.
  6. I was originally an Alpha tester but just didn't play much at release due to frustrations and performance issues. Have read horror stories about SU5 but I figured I'd jump back in given the performance increase should help with my ancient GTX970 (if video cards ever go back to MSRP, I'll upgrade). I'm going to Taos, NM in a few weeks so I figured a flight there would be nice. Loaded up in the 172 for something simple and set the GPS for Angel Fire about 20 miles away. The plane started up as expected, it's no longer pulling left on taxi, and the takeoff roll feels good, if a little twitchy as speed builds (haven't adjusted sensitivities yet). Into the air, the effects of density altitude seem to be superbly modeled (I leaned before takeoff) and it climbed like an absolute dog. As I got over the mountains, the sim was clearly simulating wind gusts off the ridges in ways I'd never seen another game do. The plane was all over the place. Approached Angel Fire from an extended right base after coming over a ridge. Flaps out and everything did what I expected. Held it over the runway and let it settle. The ASOS matched the windsock as I rolled out and the weather seemed correct. Performance seemed good the entire flight, the trees look so much better and the density feels right, and aside from the comically high hangers at airports, the graphics met the mark. So my question for you is what now? I'm about to finish my CFI in real life and enjoy GA opts in small planes so I'd like to stay in that lane for a while. Are there free realism mods for the Cessnas and Bonanza? How have you toned down the overblown lighting in SU5? Any other must have freeware addons I should install immediately? Performance tweets I should know about?
  7. I hadn't played in 5 months. My performance is way worse.
  8. And even then, sometimes they won't bother. I've never had a tower give me the altimeter unless I've asked for it. But those little things are less important to me in a sim than having a system that just works and runs smoothly for a congruent flight. P3D's ATC isn't right either, but it's usable. I haven't booted up any flight simulator in five months so I'm curious to update MSFS2020 and see what's changed.
  9. I heard AMD will have two different VRAM options for their new cards. So you may be able to get 3070 performance with 16GB of VRAM from AMD's relative product (I think it'll be the regular 6700, not XT? that rivals the 3070).
  10. I don't need to check with "youtube pilots." I'm a commercial pilot. I've flown twin engine planes. Whether the default A320 is spot on is not my concern. But the idea that MSFS is more arcade that simulation is nonsense.
  11. Nonsense. I'm a real pilot and this sim is not "closer to an arcade" that an simulation with it's flight model. Not even close. Having problems doesn't mean hyperbole is helpful.
  12. 29% faster in 4K is nothing to sneeze at. But it's what I expected. The biggest gains are going to come for chumps like me still on a 970, not the guy who has a 2080ti already.
  13. No, I don’t think so. The purpose of the cache is not better performance. It’s to save internet usage for those with data caps. Naturally, when you ask a computer to stream and cache at the same time, performance may suffer.
  14. Given there was a whole thread on the reviews being bad in the first week, I think it’s relevant to point out they’ve rebounded.
×
×
  • Create New...