GCBraun

According to Parallel42, publishers of Chaseplane and multiple other add-ons, P3D usage numbers continue to drop. From their latest May 11th. newsletter: Prepar3D New development remains frozen, and the number of active users continues to drop.

There is the FSS E-Jet for MSFS that costs about 30 Euro. The X-Crafts is probably a bit better, but the FSS is improving and the price is much more attractive.

Quite impressed with what Working Title managed to accomplish with the 787-10 so far. Having used the QW787 extensively on P3D, I must say that this is not far off. In fact, there are many areas where I think it is better than the QW offering, but that is mostly due to the overall improved textures, image clarity and quality provided by MSFS. I did a small circuit flight using A/T and A/P and was happy with what I saw: Starting the 787 using checklists and FMC operation worked as expected, automated flight performed mostly correctly and the plane flew nice by hand. With Spacedesk, I could easily program the airplane using my iPad. Some pictures from the instrumentation (might be somewhat dark due to my HDR monitor): I will conduct some additional tests on the weekend but I am confident that, by the end of the beta, the first MSFS enthusiast-level large modern widebody will have arrived (free for premium edition users). 😃

That is not entirely true. Soon MSFS will get the first A2A GA aircraft and the built-in avionics from Garmin that power multiple aircraft are very good due to the Working Title partnership. In my opinion, XP is currently significantly ahead when it comes to large wide-bodies, that’s true. Nevertheless, the soon to be released WT improvements on the default 787/747 and PMDG’s next releases may close this gap significantly. Anyway, coming back to the topic, I would consider buying the E-Jets, but the asking price is just unjustifiable to me. I’ve paid a similar amount for the CL650, but that aircraft is on a completely different level.

MSFS add-ons are cheaper because the potential costumer base is much bigger. The Fenix A320 is costs considerably less when compared to the Toliss, for instance. Yes, the WX Radar is missing, but that’s pretty much it unless you are very picky. On the other hand, it looks much, much better both inside and out.

Add-on prices on XP are much more expensive when compared to similar offerings MSFS. This is a huge issue for the platform.

It would be great to have some sort of AAO central repository to share control configurations for popular add-ons and hardwares like other tools offer.

Disregard

MSFS supports control assignments for different aircraft out of the box, even though I prefer to user Axis and Ohs for that. Autosave might be indeed the only reason the is for purchasing FSUIPC but, even then, I am not sure if non-PMDG add-ons are compatible with it. The stability of MSFS has never let me down until now, so I did not purchase it...

Gamers of today are simmers of the future. I have started as a kid with FS 5.1 and had no idea, for instance, how to use the autopilot. I believe it was just with FSX that I really started to get the hang of things. Today, with YouTube and Twitch, I expect this jump to happen much, much faster. Besides, was the A330 from Aerosoft or many others more "arcady" titles not available for P3D as well? Is MSFS not the #1 platform for PMDG already? FSLabs has all but confirmed they are working on planes for MSFS... In summary, I believe that, with MSFS, we are getting the best of both worlds: not only we have an actively maintained and updated platform that has improving support for high-end add-ons, but also we get the goodies of a modern gaming title like amazing graphics, DLSS3 and FG support, DLCs (some of them free, btw) etc, etc...

Me too, but I don’t remember having over 100fps during an IFR approach into a payware airport with dozens of live traffic. Will check this benchmark and try to do it during the weekend.

FG always on.

I had about 70 live traffic using PSXT + Real Traffic. on that test. That makes a big difference. Just with static traffic, my fps basically doubles.

Today I had a bit more time to use MSFS instead of benchmarking and managed to complete my first flight with my second 7800X3D chip. Flew from EDDM to EBBR with the Fenix A320 and performance was nothing but stellar. Below is a screenshot showcasing over 100fps on a full IFR approach into Aerosoft's EBBR with Live Traffic. Not sure this would have been possible with my previous CPU's, especially not with just 72W average power consumption! The 7800X3D is slowly growing on me...

Getting a 530 Not Logged in error when trying ot download new clips. How can I fix this? See the end of this message for details on invoking just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box. ************** Exception Text ************** System.Net.WebException: The remote server returned an error: (530) Not logged in. at System.Net.FtpWebRequest.EndGetResponse(IAsyncResult asyncResult) at System.Threading.Tasks.TaskFactory`1.FromAsyncCoreLogic(IAsyncResult iar, Func`2 endFunction, Action`1 endAction, Task`1 promise, Boolean requiresSynchronization) --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at RossCarlson.FlightSimulation.FsAtcChatter.Clips.ClipUpdateManager.<GetManifest>d__17.MoveNext() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at RossCarlson.FlightSimulation.FsAtcChatter.Clips.ClipUpdateManager.<GetAvailableClips>d__16.MoveNext() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at RossCarlson.FlightSimulation.FsAtcChatter.Ui.Forms.ClipLibraryUpdateForm.<GetAvailableClips>d__20.MoveNext() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at RossCarlson.FlightSimulation.FsAtcChatter.Ui.Forms.ClipLibraryUpdateForm.<ClipLibraryUpdateForm_Shown>d__18.MoveNext() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.AsyncMethodBuilderCore.<>c.<ThrowAsync>b__6_0(Object state) ************** Loaded Assemblies ************** mscorlib Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9139.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- FS-ATC-Chatter Assembly Version: 1.2.1.0 Win32 Version: 1.2.1.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/FS-ATC-Chatter.exe ---------------------------------------- Serilog Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.10.0.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Serilog.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9075.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Core Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9139.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- Serilog.Sinks.Console Assembly Version: 3.1.1.0 Win32 Version: 3.1.1.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Serilog.Sinks.Console.DLL ---------------------------------------- Serilog.Sinks.File Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.1.0.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Serilog.Sinks.File.DLL ---------------------------------------- Ninject Assembly Version: 3.3.4.0 Win32 Version: 3.3.4.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Ninject.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Drawing Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll ---------------------------------------- System Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9139.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll ---------------------------------------- Ninject.Extensions.Factory Assembly Version: 3.3.3.0 Win32 Version: 3.3.3.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Ninject.Extensions.Factory.DLL ---------------------------------------- Castle.Core Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.2.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Castle.Core.DLL ---------------------------------------- Appccelerate.EventBroker Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.0.0.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Appccelerate.EventBroker.DLL ---------------------------------------- netstandard Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/netstandard/v4.0_2.0.0.0__cc7b13ffcd2ddd51/netstandard.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Configuration Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Xml Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll ---------------------------------------- DynamicProxyGenAssembly2 Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.2.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Castle.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- DynamicProxyGenAssembly2 Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.2.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Castle.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- Anonymously Hosted DynamicMethods Assembly Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9139.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_32/mscorlib/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- Newtonsoft.Json Assembly Version: 12.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 12.0.3.23909 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Newtonsoft.Json.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Numerics Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Numerics/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Numerics.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.Serialization Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Serialization/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Serialization.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Data Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9110.0 built by: NET481REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_32/System.Data/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll ---------------------------------------- Accessibility Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Accessibility/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Accessibility.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Net.Http Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 built by: NET481REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Net.Http/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Net.Http.dll ---------------------------------------- NAudio Assembly Version: 1.10.0.0 Win32 Version: 1.10.0.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/NAudio.DLL ---------------------------------------- Microsoft.FlightSimulator.SimConnect Assembly Version: 10.0.61259.0 Win32 Version: 10.0.61637.0 (FSX-Xpack.20070926-1421) CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Microsoft.FlightSimulator.SimConnect.DLL ---------------------------------------- msvcm80 Assembly Version: 8.0.50727.9680 Win32 Version: 8.00.50727.9680 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/WinSxS/x86_microsoft.vc80.crt_1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b_8.0.50727.9680_none_d090cb7c44278b28/msvcm80.dll ---------------------------------------- SharpDX.DirectInput Assembly Version: 4.2.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.2.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SharpDX.DirectInput.DLL ---------------------------------------- SharpDX Assembly Version: 4.2.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.2.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SharpDX.DLL ---------------------------------------- Microsoft.Data.Sqlite Assembly Version: 3.1.9.0 Win32 Version: 3.100.920.47303 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.DLL ---------------------------------------- SQLitePCLRaw.core Assembly Version: 2.0.2.669 Win32 Version: 2.0.2.669 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SQLitePCLRaw.core.DLL ---------------------------------------- SQLitePCLRaw.batteries_v2 Assembly Version: 2.0.2.669 Win32 Version: 2.0.2.669 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SQLitePCLRaw.batteries_v2.DLL ---------------------------------------- SQLitePCLRaw.provider.dynamic_cdecl Assembly Version: 2.0.2.669 Win32 Version: 2.0.2.669 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SQLitePCLRaw.provider.dynamic_cdecl.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Memory Assembly Version: 4.0.1.1 Win32 Version: 4.6.27617.02 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/System.Memory.DLL ---------------------------------------- SQLitePCLRaw.nativelibrary Assembly Version: 2.0.2.669 Win32 Version: 2.0.2.669 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/SQLitePCLRaw.nativelibrary.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation.dll ---------------------------------------- Windows.Storage Assembly Version: 255.255.255.255 Win32 Version: 10.0.10011.16384 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/SysNative/WinMetadata/Windows.Storage.winmd ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Runtime.dll ---------------------------------------- Windows.Foundation Assembly Version: 255.255.255.255 Win32 Version: 10.0.10011.16384 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/SysNative/WinMetadata/Windows.Foundation.winmd ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.InteropServices.WindowsRuntime Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.InteropServices.WindowsRuntime/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Runtime.InteropServices.WindowsRuntime.dll ---------------------------------------- System.ValueTuple Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.9032.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.ValueTuple/v4.0_4.0.0.0__cc7b13ffcd2ddd51/System.ValueTuple.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe Assembly Version: 4.0.4.1 Win32 Version: 4.6.26919.02 CodeBase: file:///D:/FS-ATC-Chatter/System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe.DLL ---------------------------------------- ************** JIT Debugging ************** To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this application or computer (machine.config) must have the jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section. The application must also be compiled with debugging enabled. For example: <configuration> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" /> </configuration> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer rather than be handled by this dialog box.

Just for the record and for other potential 7800X3D buyers: the expected Cinebench R23 results for this CPU is around 18000 points with an all-clock speed of 4.8Ghz. I was getting just 16.5k with my chip with only 4.450Ghz on all cores, something that caught my attention. After debugging for some hours, I have decided to just drive to a nearby store and get a new CPU. After switching the processors, I was already seeing the correct frequencies and score on Cinebench. Moreover, after some quick curve adjustments on the Bios (set to -30), I can now see a stable 5Ghz speed on all cores, both on benchmarks and on MSFS/XP12. Even though I've managed to gain almost 1000 points on Cinebench and scored the 7th. best result in the world in 3DMark's CPU profiler, the fps increase on MSFS and XP12 were negligible (a couple fps, at most), showing that both Sims did not benefit much from the clock increase, even on an extremely CPU-limited test case... Unfortunately I am not able to test P3D anymore, as I have restored Windows, and the installation process for that sim is very cumbersome when compared to the others. I assume the stable 5Ghz clock would make a bit of a difference, but not enough to surpass the best Intel processors.

Coming back to MSFS, here is another comparison between my previous 13700K and the 7800X3D. Not seeing any difference using my previous test scenario (4K @ Ultra, TAA + FG, KJFK, 12:00, Overcast, AI Traffic with the Fenix). 13700K - 55fps: 7800X3D - 55fps Here it is possible to see that MSFS makes much better usage of all cores/threads in comparison to P3D. All of them are similarly used and none is reaching 100%: As for the 7800X3D, even though I am seeing some gains here and there, I must say that I am bit underwhelmed with it. It is more efficient, for sure. On the scenario above the 13700K was using around 150W, whereas the X3D can accomplish the same using 84W. Nevertheless, if I could back in time, I would probably have kept my 13700K. At least I should be able to upgrade this AM5 chip keeping the rest of the system for the foreseeable future...

Well, sorry about that. Besides the HDR issue on the P3D ones, here I can see all the numbers on my 1440p and 4K monitors. If I click on them twice, I get a full copy of the image and am able to zoom even more.

See my answer above regarding the first part. As for the second one, that is right, but, as far as I know, the second CCD is generally not used for games, unless you bypass that pro-actively. Regarding P3D, considering that it seems to be completely dependent on the first core/thread, not sure if the second CCD speed would be at all benefitial, or? Perhaps if you force it to use the second CCD first core/thread with Process Lasso or some other tool… Anyhow, if I was a P3D user exclusively, I would only consider getting the 7950X3D due to its future upgradability. Based on all I’ve experienced with the 7800X3D so far, I would bet that a 13900KS, out of the box, would perform better on that sim.

5.4Ghz is what top overclockers managed to achieve using a series of different and non-straightforward tweaks. Considering that stability and practicality are more important to me, and that clock speeds are not as critical to MSFS/XP12, I have only applied minor adjustments on the BIOS to allow a couple hundred mhz gains here and there. In my tests, the highest all core clock that I saw was around 4.85Ghz, with some achieving 5.05Ghz individually…

Not much. Top overclockers get it to 5.4Ghz at most. I have enabled Precision Boost Overdrive on the BIOS to get some better speeds (now boosting to 4.8Ghz more often), but sensible overclocking is very hard on X3D chips. I have done some additional tests after updating GPU drivers to 531.61, deleting P3D's and Nvidia's cache and enabling PBO on the Bios and observed the following: No significant impact on MSFS; On P3D, I now get about 25fps in EGGL in the flight deck in a similar scenario to the one above. The first core/thread is still significantly used, whereas all the others are sitting at 5-30% at most. On MSFS, the impact of AI Traffic is brutal. From 45-50Fps with ~90 live aircraft, I go to 80-90fps with Traffic off; On P3D, I also saw a significant increase, from 25 fps to about 45 on the flight-deck (first core/thread is still being hammered, though).

Which ones? All of them? On the flight-deck the difference is 10%, but on the spot image, about 20%. I have the latest BIOS (1410) and Chipset drivers (5.0.3.24.2328), just confirmed. After updating to the latest HWINFO Beta, I am doing a test flight on P3D from KMCO to PANC and I am now seeing 100% C0/T0 usage, both on the airport and on cruise. Nevertheless, performance is still underwhelming @ about 4.4Ghz, with some spikes to 4.7Ghz. Around 20fps on the airport with AI and now 30-35fps on cruise. Similar, but definitely a bit lower, when compared to my 7600X (with base speed of 4.7Ghz and boost up to 5.3Ghz). I will still conduct additional tests but, as of now, it seems that P3D prioritizes clock speed in detriment to cache. If that is the case, a 13900KS would be a better option for that sim...

Yes, Simwings EGLL. The CPU readings on the left seem incorrect. That is why I have shared HWINFO’s summary on the right. There we can see about 17% CPU usage @ 4.5Ghz. My sliders on P3D are all set to the right and, even then, I am still highly CPU limited with about 60% GPU usage. Frankly, I am also a bit puzzled with the results, as it seems that my system is not being fully utilized, especially on P3D. Will play with the settings some more during the weekend.

So, I have just replaced my previous CPU (7600X) with the 7800X3D. Before switching the chips, I have made some screenshots showcasing similar scenarios on all simulators I have installed. The scenario is simple: Flight-Deck and Spot pictures of high-end Airbuses (Fenix, Toliss and FSLabs) at EGLL on RW09R with live AI traffic (PSXT + RT with about 70 aircraft), at 12:00 with clouded skies. All sims are configured with high/very-high settings and the only thing that changed significantly between the tests was the CPU. Here are the results, initially with the 7600X and then with the 7800X3D: 7600X + RTX 4090: MSFS (latest official version) XP12 (latest beta) P3D v5.3 ( bit hard to see on the spot picture, but the reading shows 37 fps) 7800X3D + RTX 4090: MSFS (latest official version) XP12 (latest beta) P3D v5.3 So, I am still analyzing all the data myself, but it seems there is a clear 10-20% increase on MSFS and XP12, but a similar decrease on P3D, where I lost about 10% fps on both scenarios (24 to 21 fps on the cockpit and 37 to 33fps on spot). Sorry that the P3D images are not that good...not sure why they are so washed out. On the right side, it is possible to see the CPU utilization details on the flight-deck picture and the GPU data on the spot screenshot. I am pinging @Ray Proudfoot here, because I know he is about to buy a new Rig just for P3D. Now, considering that Prepar3D is not my main sim, I may be doing something wrong here, but the first impression is that this sim is more sensitive to clock speed and does not use the V-Cache in the same way as XP12/MSFS. Finally, I double checked and my FPS are set to unlimited within P3D and Nvidia Panel and V-Sync is set to off... Anyway, happy to answer any questions or act based on any suggestions you may have. Hopefully this is helpful for someone.

A quality air-cooler is perfectly capable of keeping the 5950x in normal operating temperatures. Here the NH-D15 is able to keep the 5950x @ 71C when running ALL cores @ 100% (162w) on Cinebench: With that being said, there are some high temperatures appearing the shared screenshots, so perhaps it might be worth it to run Cinebench and check how are the readings on the Multicore test. Nevertheless, I don't see anything particular wrong with the pic below: GPU Load seems to be reasonable when a high-end aircraft is used on what seems to be a major hub with AI traffic.