sivart2000

👍

So then what happens when we add FSLabs Airbus or PMDG NGX3 and a respectable amount of AI traffic? I feel like we will be right back at the "it can look amazing or run amazing, but not both at the same time" place we are with the other sims. I remain hopeful but skeptical.

Hopefully my Lightning can exact some revenge for you! Cheers

Stick with it. Steep learning curve but worth it! Start with the F-18, watch Grim Reapers and Spudknockers tutorials on YouTube. I have the same modules as you. I know about 70% of the Hornet and 50% of the Warthog and am able to participate and enjoy it. I'm stoked for the OH-58D. I flew Kiowa Alphas and Charlies in Germany 88-93. And before I make this next point let me qualify; everyone in this thread has been super helpful and I appreciate it! That said, the DCS community is a bit more mature and FAR less toxic than the P3D, X Plane, MSFS community. Why? I don't know.

Money no object, you are absolutely correct and if MSFS had come out 10 months ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. But current events have me in a position where I'm struggling to keep a once successful business alive so discretionary spending is now a concern for me. Gotta make sure everything counts.

Pretty sound advice also. Yo! Lightning or Stars?

I do mix in GA (70/30) and had high hopes for "Deadstick" but I think that will never be released. Been doing a lot of DCS the last 6 months and am thoroughly pleased with both the graphics AND performance on my system! Also, the DCS community is pretty outstanding.

I run everything pretty dense on 4.5. At the gate at FSDT KORD V2, heavy AI traffic, DD Chicago X, I get 18fps and probably average 30fps for a whole flight. Usable but hardly ideal fps at ORD. I'm good with my fps smoothness enroute and flying into say, FT Tampa. I'm actually cool with 24fps which is where I set my frame rate, not asking for 60 fps. But, I have reservations about respending thousands of dollars moving to MSFS unless I know I'm going to get 30fps solid ,NO exceptions, without having to compromise on visuals, AI traffic etc. 17 9700 4.8ghz, RTX2080, 32GB@4000mhz

I'm sure I would be happy and amazed now, no doubt! But, I am worried that third party developers will gobble up all of the performance "head room" leading to lengthy discussions on forums, and constant setting adjustments to get a smooth running sim. All that glitter is no good if you have to turn it all off to fly into or out JFK in a PMDG with a usable amount of fps.

So the graphics look absolutely spectacular! Here is my concern though; I see guys running MSFS2020 at 40-60 fps stock, with good computer systems but what happens when we start getting our PMDG loaded up, AIG air traffic, third party airports etc? Are we going to be dropping all our sliders to get 24fps departing KORD? For perspective, I can currently run P3D 4.5 with max settings including 100% GA and Airline traffic (a lot of dudes fail to let others know they have traffic at 0% when boasting of high fps) flying a high quality third party GA aircraft, complex scenery and weather at a pretty consistent 40fps. That drops considerably as soon as I hop in the PMDG NGXu. From what I understand I could gain a handful of fps switching to V5. And, while not at the reality level of "seeing my house", I do find P3D immersive. So I guess my real question is; if I spend money on MSFS2020 am I going to end up having to compromise some of the visuals to use it AND run study level tubes, good looking airports and also, very important to me for immersion, a good amount of real world livery AI traffic in order to squeeze out a decently smooth frame rate? It seems to me that if 2020 is running at 40fps bone stock, that some folks are going to be disappointed when they start getting their third party goodies. I'm going to wait and see what happens for a while. Right now, the option I'm leaning towards is going to V5 since it will take better advantage of my RTX2080 giving me a few precious fps, which can be the difference between a stutterfest and enjoyable flying. Also, many or most of my 3rd party addons can be used with little or no extra $$ investment. Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

How do you go about doing this? My tropical waterclass extends way too far north around the gulf of mexico and inland into some rivers and lakes, up the east coast of the US and is in places like the Hong Kong Bay.

Does anyone know if someone has compiled a bgl with the P3D default GA traffic only?

I just noticed all of a sudden that the water class around Tampa, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, up the eastern seaboard and off the Texas coast are incorrect. Up around KJFK, KBOS they appear correct. I don't know if there are other areas that are incorrect or what has (I) changed to make this happen. I first noticed approaching the KTPA that the bay area, the coast, deep into inland rivers and ponds/lakes near the coast are showing the tropical waters textures instead of the inland waters or ocean textures. It looks like the tropical water class is going too far north and too far inland. What add ons establish water class? I'm guessing this would be the starting point for troubleshooting. Anyone else experience this? V4.5 HF2, Orbx Global, Orbx Vector, Orbx NA Open LC

word not allowed! I don't know what happened there...lol. Last line should have said; Another way of putting it is, I'm an word not allowed and will gladly shell out $200 for an extra 4 or 5 fps. In some scenarios, that is the difference between word not allowed and great.

Well, I think there may be a difference, even if the textures are the same, in how the GPU renders since this is what is was designed to do, as opposed to the CPU which was kind of being forced to render by the old FSX engine. So that may bring about a difference in appearance but that is just a guess. I don't think, aside from the new sky and water, V5 is supposed to look any different. The big change is the off loading of the rendering from CPU to GPU which theoretically will should leave your CPU with a bit more headroom and allow higher performance. As far as frames unlimited with vsync on, this will do almost the same thing as using frame limitation in that your GPU is only going to try to crank out the number of frames equal to your refresh rate. The difference being that the fps will bounce around a bit more because of latency. Unlimited with no vsync just dumps work into the GPU without restraint and in a lot of cases is overwhelming the VRAM. As far as the 35% improvement in performance, that is monumental in some cases. In cases where I already run smooth at 30fps, it is inconsequential. But, at FSDT KORD or FT EHAM and Netherlands HD, those extra 4 fps are the difference between a slide show and an enjoyable experience. It is worth the $$ for me if that turns out to be the case. Occasionally I have to kill the AI at a dense scenery to get a few extra fps and a smooth landing. If V5 gets me that few fps without killing AI, or lowering shadows etc. it would be worth it to me. If it turns out people are getting equal fps to V4.5 with some new atmospherics and water, I'll skip it. I think what is happening with a lot of folks is they think that some miracle has been worked so they install V5 and all their stuff, don't make any changes based on the new way the rendering is distributed, "turn it up to 11" and expect 120fps. I will make the V5 leap when I'm convinced that it will buy me those extra few frames to keep me at 30fps in demanding scenarios, reduce texture popping in areas like NYC and some of the night lighting shimmering. Another way of putting it is, I'm an word not allowed and will pay $200 for 4 or 5 more fps..... Cheers