OzWhitey

Pretty good, Bert. Though I think things got a little out of hand in this thread. 🙂 If #OccupyRedmond3 goes ahead, I’ll give you a call, cos we’ll need some hot cocoa.

Nice, 65 FPS with the G2 is decent though as I said before good luck getting that in the Fenix at iniBuilds EGLL! That’s what I mean by not quite there yet, even with state of the art gear you need to fly a simple plane or accept that you’re not going hit the native refresh rate. Maybe with the next sim, or maybe the 5090 will finally do the trick.

Last I checked, it wasn’t clear if that was true, even though some people were claiming it - the data I’ve seen was unconvincing. They’re both great chips and the price difference is not much in the scheme of the total build.

Not really, believe it or not some people choose to use variants of the 737 in their username. 😉

I’ve been avoiding betas, but signed back up for this one on day 1. Hassle free so far.

Yeah, RTX 4090 helped quite a bit for me. But my 7950X3D upgrade is still pending, should happen in the next few weeks. Will be interesting to see if I still need to compromise much once that’s in.

You're not exactly raising the tone of the conversation with sarcasm like that, Cobalt. All I'm doing here is clearing my inbox of a rather large number of stupid posts directed at me after I posted a link to the Steam stats for MSFS about 10 pages back. Yes, I probably should just ignore them, but if people are going to quote me I'll respond to them. Yes, even people like you who a make a low-effort post like that.

You'll struggle to get 70 fps on a decent HMD (G2/Varjo/etc). I mean, I'd love to be getting that but I'm not even close in an airliner/complex airport/traffic. Maybe 20-25 FPS, and not exactly smooth once the traffic is turned on. As I said, still too many compromises needed for this to count as sim nirvana. Also, I'm aiming for more than 0 FPS with the 486, though I was going to try my copy of MSFS 2002 last night but it's not supported. Maybe if I can adapt the old RTX 3090 to VLB I'll get it running.

You have got to be the most childish poster on this forum Ricardo41, and that is saying something. Every one of your posts is a weak ad hominem attack coated in an extra layer of snark. Did you actually look up "straw man fallacy" like I told you to yesterday? It would seem not. There was no "data attack". I posted the Steam stats in response to the hyperbolic post you made. I'm stupid enough to waste time actually trying to explain my posts to you, but it's clearly a losing battle. Why don't you try actually addressing something that I wrote, rather than aiming to get for the world record for most (and stupidest) straw man posts in a single Avsim thread? Because - hurrah! - I suspect you already reached that lofty goal.

Snappier and less stuttery is good... I'm still on Win 10, haven't really seen a consistent theme that Win 11 is better for the sim. Might try it sometime soon. Despite the (rather extreme) snark around here when you're perceived to be criticising the sim, overall I fall into the "very happy" category. But I could definitely be happier, I still have to make way too many compromises for my liking. I currently have $2831 worth of extra components in my PC Case Gear shopping cart for the MSFS upgrade, maybe I'll be up to "couldn't be happier" once that's all installed! On a random note, I just finished building a second sim PC yesterday which is a 486, I'm going to use it for MSFS for Win 95, we'll see how the frame rates go on that one. 🙂

Ha, I was pretty sure you were going to say that. C'mon, you guys started your careers hacking the avionics files in MSFS, and that seemed to work out OK for you. It's just one file, Asobo probably won't even notice. 😉

No it's not. You can make up stupid rules if you like, but that doesn't make them real. But the point is not the exact cost (which is high - its not just the currency, the absolute cost is a lot higher in than the US in many countries), it's that a lot of us are building insanely expensive rigs to try and get MSFS to run well. MSFS performance is "OK", but it's certainly not "great". Anyway, stupid thread with way too many low-effort posts and a whole heap of snarkiness, I've got no idea why I bothered posting here last night. Some people have asked me why - not sure, I think I was hoping that the "mean girls" MSFS clique might actually look at the data and reflect on it rather than resorting to child ad hominem attacks and repetitive straw man fallacies. Meh, it's Avsim, I guess I should expect this low standard of debate by now. <shrug>

Things aren't so cheap where I live, matey. The RTX 4090 alone was over 3K in AUD. Yes, my upgrade is solely for MSFS and it's going to cost more than 6K once I get the new CPU/Mobo etc in. I'm happy to do it to try and get a smooth MSFS experience, but the sim does not have stellar performance (with the recent exception of DLSS for flatscreen). Of course, X-plane, P3D and DCS are not well optimised either so unless you're flying Aerofly (which only about 3 people are), you need some pretty chunky hardware to get good frame rates with complex use cases.

To clarify, he is talking about stages of his sim career. There is zero mention of real flying. What is more important though is - why does he have a sink in his sim pit? I have yoke, throttle and rudder pedals and thought I was well set up. But apparently you need a sink as well these days. What sort of sink are people installing? Mods, if this question belongs in the hardware forum, feel free to move it.

Meh, I’d describe MSFS performance as mediocre. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be spending 6K trying to get it to run good. If the question was “What does MSFS do not best”, performance would be somewhere fairly high on my list. Somewhere up near “retain users” and “have a proper long haul aircraft”. 😉