Jeff_Fortuna

For those looking for CYHM in MSFS, Simaddons has done a great job visually! I live a couple of miles from the airport so I know the area well.

I second this. First quick flight (low over the strip) after the update and the performance is unchanged. My test was not thorough, but I can say with certainly that there was no significant bump in frame rate anywhere - still about 40 on the runway and down to about 25 halfway down the strip with the Carenado Mooney. Certainly flyable at 4K with a 3090 but just barely. Overall I'm still pretty happy with the addon but I could see others interested in 4K with lesser hardware are going to be disappointed.

According to the latest Steam HW survey, only 2.25% game at 4K and about 7% at 1440. I don't think they were too concerned about the high VRAM usage because the vast majority of users would not experience it. Those of us with higher end HW assume that everyone is seeking (or can afford) the same experience but that simply is not the case. I think that FT will make some compromises to improve VRAM use over the next week but it really isn't all that necessary for most users.

Earlier in this thread I had asked if anyone was curious about the performance with a 9900k and a 3090. So, at 4K with a cub, I ended up with about 50 fps at the airport to a worst case of about 35 fps very low in the middle of the strip. In a more complex plane like the Carenado Mooney, I got about 40 fps at the airport and about 25 fps in the middle of strip. Performance was not improved with the hotfix. It seems pretty clear what is going on - at 4K VRAM usage was over 11 GB. This will bring all but a 3090 to a grinding halt. A switch to 1080 will solve the problem, of course. Interestingly, with the hotfix, VRAM usage was a little lower - around 10 GB. With this, I would expect that something like a 2080 ti or a 3080 would do better. Perhaps that is why some have observed better performance post hotfix. Anyway, this is a nice looking scenery which is well worth the $20. However, as it stands, 4K is a no-go unless you have a lot of VRAM. If FT wants mass appeal at 4K they really need to drop the VRAM usage to less than 10 GB. As a side note, I don't believe that there are a lot of folks that will purchase a 3090 for gaming, because it isn't true that the 3090 is unavailable. A quick check on my local computer retailer's site shows plenty of in-store availability, although not of all variants, of course. In general, IMHO, people are simply not willing to pony up $1500 for a video card. I don't blame them. I purchased the 3090 for machine learning work and there is no way I could justify the expense for gaming.

Is there anyone here interested in how this works at 4k with a 9900k and a 3090? I wasn't planning to pick this up (yet, anyway) but I don't mind trying it out tonight. It is only $20... I am concerned about the current performance of the FT implementation because I'm only getting about 40 FPS max over the city at low altitude with the default. I actually don't think that the default photogrammetry looks all that bad. Note that I do run the sim somewhere between high and ultra settings.

IMHO, a considerable number of people use a flight "simulator" to "fly" around and look at the scenery. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - anyone that paid for the software can use it whatever way they want - subject, of course, to the license restrictions. However, the reason I reach this conclusion is that I can't figure out why some are so concerned with how the sim looks if one is primarily concerned with simulating aviation. I got into this back in the mid 80's to learn something about aviation using SubLOGIC's sim and obviously the graphics were awful. But it was a "simulator" - the graphics weren't all that important. Same applies today. I hope that P3D v5 has a long life. So far, 5.1 with just a client update has been painless. Yes, there are still many issues with EA but again, I don't see that as a big deal. What worries me most is that 3PD's will completely lose interest simply because those that are most interested in sightseeing will abandon P3D. I have about 50 airplane addons for P3D and it will be a LONG time before MSFS gets there. Incidentally, I have a 3090 and I can certainly keep the graphic fidelity very high in both sims. However, I get absolutely NO additional joy from MSFS simply because I can see a photogrammetry version of a city from the air which I can also see from google maps. As I see it, the graphics quality in both sims is plenty good enough to simulate both VFR and IFR conditions. MSFS is obviously better for VFR but (and maybe a pilot can correct me if I'm way off base) I can't really see too many pilots navigating by using specific physical objects that are not shown in P3D (for example - fly to the Eiffel tower and turn right...). In fact, with a GPS, why would anyone navigate by staring out the window? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yes, I can see some issues with avoiding power lines, etc. in VFR that aren't simulated but you can't have everything...

Since few people have a 3090 and it seems some are curious about the performance, I will chime in here as I have done elsewhere. I have a 3090 MSI Ventus. So far I have had no trouble with it. I have it overclocked a little bit (+100 MHz on the core clock). I could probably go a bit higher but I'm not motivated to do so yet. I am running an i9 9900K at 5 GHz across all cores with no AVX offset. The 3090 was purchased for machine learning work to replace the 2080 TI that I was using. In terms of MSFS performance, with the 172 steam gauge sitting on runway 4R at KEWR (typically a heavy load situation), scattered clouds, with 4K at (mostly) ultra settings (terrain LOD 200 with 100% render scaling) I get 47 fps. The sim is using 7.7 GB of VRAM and my total VRAM usage is 11.5 GB. Frame rates remain in around the 45-50 FPS range for a low flight (< 2000 ft) over NYC. In this situation, the sim is primarily main thread limited. I consider that to be a "practical" worst case - i.e. one that folks would typically encounter. It isn't an absolute worst case with something like render scaling at 200%. I could get the same performance in MSFS with the 2080 TI under the same conditions with the settings on high with a few on ultra and an terrain LOD of 100 instead of 200. So the sim looked very similar but obviously LOD was reduced in the distance. Under these conditions, however, the sim tended to be GPU limited (which actually made for somewhat smoother performance). So the 3090 is a bit of a step up from a 2080 TI but the difference isn't huge. The 2080 TI was expensive at the time and the 3090 is a few hundred more. I would argue that it isn't worth the upgrade unless you have an unlimited gaming budget. The 3080 is a much better bet except for the VRAM limit. Interestingly, the 2080 TI would have just about handled the aforementioned NYC scenario in VRAM but the 3080 would probably struggle. A 3080 with more VRAM (20 GB?) seems likely, but it will, of course, be more expensive. The bottom line (as has been mentioned many times by many people) is that the 3090 was not really intended for gaming. It is a good platform for a graphics workstation or for scientific work with CUDA. It is great that some folks on this forum are very happy with their 3090 but it is incorrect to think that the 3090 gets even close to 60 fps under all conditions at ultra settings at 4K which I have seen other people claim. To me, the sim looks great and performs very well with a 2080 TI by just dialing a couple of settings back a bit and the 3080 offers about 20 percent better performance. I have no problems with P3D or X-Plane visuals either, because I got into this hobby to learn about aviation, not to stare out the window admiring the scenery. In fact, I seem to recall having no problem with subLOGIC visuals either, way back in the mid 80's :)

Yep, that was me. I only got it a couple of days ago so I haven't had a ton of time with it. For P3D v5, which I also use, I have so far found it even less beneficial. The reason is that the VRAM requirements are less - at least for single monitor - even at 4K. It is rare in P3D to go beyond 10 GB whereas it is pretty easy to do that in MSFS at 4K. Frame rates are generally good (greater than 40 fps even in dense areas with lots of eye candy) but I could get similar performance with the 2080 TI by just dialing a few settings like reflections back a bit.

I have an MSI 3090 Ventus. All of the comments here have correctly pointed out that these cards are overkill for general gaming at the moment. Yes, the 24 GB is helpful for MSFS - it allows for somewhat higher settings without stuttering but it wasn't a huge jump over my 2080 TI. Bottom line is that I purchased the 3090 for a course that I teach in Neural Networks and Deep Learning and I use it for research. Otherwise there is NO way that I would have bought one. The 3080 is a much better fit for gaming - but I would wait for something with a bit more VRAM, as is rumored.

This has been my contention all along... I purchased a 2080 TI a while ago because it is obvious that when gaming at 4K you need as much VRAM as possible. What I noticed is that 11 GB is simply not enough. It was too easy to fill the VRAM. Once VRAM is full, you WILL get stuttering as you pull in data from main memory. The exact amounts of VRAM used are certainly up for debate but it is obvious enough that when VRAM is full it will stutter. What I find fascinating is that many, many people claim that they can run MSFS at 4K ultra settings on an 8 GB card (or even a 10 GB 3080) and have absolutely smooth performance under all conditions. The bottom line is that a great many people report performance based on ego - as in, I'm better than you because I get better performance. Even though it is clear to me that these exaggerated claims are complete fabrications, many folks that are not as computer savvy believe this stuff... Bottom line - if you want stutter free performance in 4K with this sim under a wide range of conditions a 3090 is a better call. I need the 3090 for some machine learning work so I'll be purchasing one once I can but I will admit, they aren't cheap.

Just checked the 172 steam gauge version specifically, which is a Deluxe airplane. The airplane folders and associated files are not encrypted. I don't have the Premium Deluxe but I doubt these aircraft are encrypted. I can't verify this one way or the other, however. As it turned out, I would never have went with the Microsoft Store version anyway. It has caused no end of trouble for me and many many others. Aside from that, on launch day there was a bug in the store such that the flight sim could NOT be installed if you were on the developer ring of Windows Insiders. This bug was eventually fixed about a week later but it didn't matter to me. Steam is not perfect by any means but as a software distribution mechanism it is infinitely better than the Microsoft Store, IMHO.

In the Steam version, nothing is encrypted. The config files are plain text and they are easy to find in the Official directory. Basically, you get what you pay for when you use the Microsoft Store...

How long were you flying for before they turned off? I'm just trying to get a sense of what to watch out for... I've only had it quickly up and down so far.

Exactly what I found! Best way to reduce stutters was to make the sim GPU limited. Makes sense, though, I think. GPU timing is generally much more deterministic because the "tasks" are much more constrained.

With all due respect, flight simulation is not tied to the accuracy with which the scenery can be represented. If it were, no one would have ever purchased X-Plane, P3D, IL-2, DCS, etc. Additionally, none of the professional pilot training sims would be used. The professional 777 sim that I had some time on a couple of years ago had terrible visuals. I got interested in flight simulation way back in the subLOGIC days because I wanted to learn something about aviation. I didn't need pretty scenery to do that. However, you can use these programs for whatever reason you would like and they all have strengths and weaknesses. Claiming that MSFS is somehow the ultimate in flight simulation is simply myopic.