Are some spending to much

My reason I see a lot of people send a lot on the top of the range GPU and CPUs and is there any need I have a modest system that plays MSFS and any thing very well here is my spec -

CPU Intel i74790K @4GHZ
M/B Asus Z97 Pro gamer
GPU Asus gtx 1070 8gb
Monitor 29 inch LG 2560 x 1080
Windows 10
Ram DDR3 16GB G Skill Trident
MSFS is installed on it own SSD Samsung 500gb
Windows on a Samung SSD 250gb
And I have a Samsung SSD 1TB for addons and other stuff.
A total of 3 drives and keep them clean of rubbish you do not use and keep Windows clean.

Here are some pics over London with Photogrammetry enabled

Note the FPS upper left corner, my thoughts keep MSFS on it own SSD drive and nothing else on it.


You’re running a relatively modest resolution and getting bare minimum framerates. That’s exactly why people are spending more. As for VR…

Also, dedicating an SSD to FS might sound virtuous but it does nothing to benefit performance. Same applies to having other ‘rubbish’ installed if it’s not in use.


Your thought processes stem from a time when HDDs were still a thing.

There is no detriment to having other software on the SSD. Back in the day you only had the sim on a separate drive or partition to better sort the files in the defragmentation process so they were written on the platters of the disk in close vicinity of each other. That helped access times and boosted sim performance.

This however is not necessary anymore with an SSD. The SSD can access all data equally fast. These days it is important which kind of memory chips your SSD uses and that you leave some space free as a reserve (overprovisioning).

The question is which settings you are running at. If you run ULTRA settings, I can guarantee you will experience crashes with only 16GB of RAM. That happened to me all the time last year until I upped to 32GB and CTDs have become rare. Although memory is still only just enough.

I think how much people spend is down to their needs. You can of course run the sim on a modest computer, but since the emphasis of the sim is the eye candy, many want to maximize their experience with the best hardware.


Just a small thing. SSD isn’t really needed for add-ons. Good add-ons are very small packages that can easily be kept in an HDD and will not get a significant loading benefit from an SSD. It’s just too little data to really be an issue.

Now, badly optimized add-ons are more complex, and I’m talking about google photogrammetry rips. The problem is that they’re a MASSIVE amount of files that are very small. The benefits for an SSD there are very much bottlenecked by the number of files, and it won’t help much.

Keeping the main MSFS installation on an SSD helps immensely, but you can easily keep add-ons in a storage HDD (and I’d advise avoiding google rips completely unless they’re very limited to a bunch of single landmarks).

1 Like

from the beginning of time , well flight-sim time , the search for the holy grail of better graphics, more framerates and and and has been part of the culture. So a huge part of flight-simming is spent trying to improve scenery, details, framerates etc. Don’t let anybody tell you its just this sim. Has been like that with every single sim. Whether you reach “your” holy grail with software add-ons or hardware improvements, its all part of the never ending search for that perfect sim. The poster’s framerate is in the 30s. I have mine capped at 30. I cant distinguish any difference after that. TV has been running fine on 24 fps for decades. The only advantage I see with 90 fps or more is that you can have 3 people watching your monitor at the same time :wink:
In the end its a pure personal choice what is acceptable to you , what your budget is etc.
Everybody’s level of involvement is different.


No it hasn’t. Happy to elaborate if necessary.


please do so

welldone op. better not listen to the clowns here and enjoy the sim.
30fps is more than enuf.
ppl having issues because they always want more and more and more .
happy flying


Well depending where in the world you are, TVs were traditionally either 50 or 60Hz according to the mains frequency.

TV was broadcast at half that in terms of frame rate (25 or ~30fps respectively) but since the signal was interlaced (that’s the ‘i’ rather than ‘p’ you see these days) the result was effectively 50/60 fps at half the vertical resolution.

1 Like

So much misinformation in this thread…its disgusting :unamused:
As for OP…VR would laugh at your 8GB 1070 while it squeals as VR holds it in a bear hug.:rofl:

1 Like

Enlighten us? :grin:

Not in terms of data bandwidth, but latency is still much improved with an SSD. So there is still a benefit.

1 Like

It isn’t so much graphical detail as it is framerate. I’ve very satisfied on how it looks but wish for better framerate (30-45 FPS now). I’ll be upgrading my GPU if I can eventually find one, the rest of my components are fine.

i7-9700k 4.6GHz (8 physical cores), GTX1080ti (11GB), 32GB, 3440x1440 G-Sync monitor (120Hz), installed on NVMe.

1 Like

Your 1080ti is still a very potent monster in 2021.
I feel as the sim gets more optimizations the 1080ti will shine even more.

1 Like

@N405HT said “Decades”. In Canada we have been cozied in front of our TV’s since the early 1950’s. And we have had “Interlaced” for how long?

Given that we HAVE been watching TV at 24fps for decades and the refresh rate has nothing to do with the number of unique frames being presented 5HT is NOT wrong. The majority of movies are still shot at 24fps. Some film makers use 60fps to achieve a bit of a different feel, and is used to shoot some sporting events. So until broadcasters see a distinct advantage to increasing their output there is no benefit to displays that can run at higher fps. The number of “unique” frames does not change.

I completely get that this is a place where we can express our individual preferences. Some people prefer 60fps or higher. But that does not make it OK to just make stuff up and present it as fact. The majority of people are quite incapable of seeing any significant difference above 30fps. I am personally quite happy to fly with enhanced graphics settings that drive my rates down between 25-30. Looks great and appears smooth, to me. You want 60 or maybe 90? You do you. That does not mean the rest of us are wrong.

I’m aware that there’s a benefit in latency with an SSD, but add-ons are way too small data-wise to take advantage of that. They’ll be loaded in the world way before you get into visual range whether they’re installed on a SSD or on a HDD.

You seem to have that mixed up. Analog TV was always interlaced. Progressive scan only became common with the switch to digital.

Everyone has different needs. Some run VR or high resolution panels. Even throwing on top complex addons like PMDG or payware airports you’re going to need better specs.
If you’re going to stick with basic vanilla sure modest hardware will get away just fine.

I am running a 3440x1440 100hz and my GPU is on the borderline.Fortunately I was able to squeeze some performance. I could have gone with a 1080p ultrawide panel but favored a sharper image.
I am getting the same framerate around London.I would say in the 30s its still playable.

I have what mixed up? I was asking you how long “i” had been around.

Moot point however. Not relevant to the discussion.
Point is…

  • 24fps is still the standard for making movies and 30fps is common for shooting TV.
  • frame rate is a personal preference and if happy at 25-30 then who are you to pass judgement.
1 Like

Yes. Probably many are spending a lot on their PC’s.
More than they should? If your children are going hungry then you probably have bigger problems than spending their dinner money on a GPU.

My guess is that many are spending what they can because in the age of Corona they are spending less money down the pub…

1 Like