Will try it.
Hey guys, my vsync seems stopped working completely after update 3.
I need to fix it at 30FPS for video recording purpose, anyone has similar issue?
Btw, the clouds look interesting
Below is a video showing both issues (I set vsync@30FPS).
The problem exists since World Update III (1.13.16.0). Enable adaptive vsync in the graphics driver for half vsync.
There are many aspects I love about msfs 2020 in comparison to fs9; scenery, clouds, airport activities, detail in aircraft cockpit, even the flight planner. In fact there have been times I have actually said âwow!â out loud because the scenery looks so real.
But this latest update (March 9 Sim 3) has annoyed me! I tend to fly the Neo A320, after the update there are no gauges at all or any read-outs. Even in the Flybywire mod developer version, the AP doesnât fly the flightplan, I have to manually turn at each waypoint and also refuses to fly the ILS approach, again I fly it manually. Then today, to top it all after a LIPZ-EGLL flight the logbook didnât log the flight! Itâs all very frustrating.
I am not one to be obsessed about Frame rates but have also noticed stuttering at EGLL today, which I have not had before now (live traffic and weather). It is such a shame that these updates were not delayed until tested properly, as the flightsim experience has really been tainted
1 Like
I did a full uninstall of FS, clean all traces out of my registry and folders, re-install with no MODS in my community folder, not even the driver for my Bravo quadrant and STILL, horrible performance and issues loading. Sometimes the data for the scenery is barely downloading (I have a 1 gig fiber connection) and my graphic card (RTX Strix 3090 OC) is barely at 40%. i9-9900k all cores at 5 Gig and 64 gig RAM. All NVME. Before this update and with a much lower video card, an RTX 2070 (not super) I was getting much better frames/sec than with the RTX 3090. At this point I find it highly suspicious of any posts that try to apologize for Asoboâs lack of testing before such a major release. Thousands of us can not be wrong!
4 Likes
Still no reaction from Aboso on this catastrophic update, never seen in my life an update broking so many things.
We absolutely need a way to decline or rollback an update âŚ
7 Likes
Iâd like to see the option to hang onto the current working version before updating to the next update. Many of us get our working version running just right only to be crippled by an update that has so many issues.
Holding off would allow people to get a feel for issues and benefits before moving to the next update and âunleashing HELLâ on their system.
At least those that decided not to update would still enjoy flying the previous version until a better more robust version surfaces.
6 Likes
Asobo is doing an amazing job! Iâm always so excited when new updates hit and see the improvements that are made. Of course, I want everything that needs to be done, already done, but I understand how huge this game really is. I just love the work that is being done and the transparency we get from Asobo, it really is first class. Now that some of the Working Title crew is brought on board, I canât wait for the Garmin improvements to come out. Iâm also excited about the new aircraft that they hinted, Iâm hoping that it will be something with stream gauges, we will see. Anyway, keep up the great work Asobo, Iâm really enjoying the sim!
3 Likes
Which version is working? heheheh, I was good till SU3
1 Like
A knight with no post history loved it, sus
1 Like
Accepted. No problem. Typing thoughts is hard.
Well said, you summed it up perfectly. I hope asobo reads your post. I am sure they are working hard and it does looks good but there are serious problems. when I first downloaded the sim at launch it looked better than it does now, the ground textures look awful in places. Since sim update 3 itâs been running like â â â â for me, Iâve lost about 10 fps, the in menu frame rate limiter has stopped working and ai aircraft just appear about 4 miles out. There are no ai aircraft a long way away like before sim update 3. I had it running smooth and now itâs rough. They are trying to hard to update all countrys with scenery and photogrametry (which for me looks awful and Iâve switched it off), when they need to fix the problems of the sim itself and test before releasing the updates. Every update opens a can of worms. I wish we could roll back updates. This sim has so much potential but I feel they need to slow down and fix the sim and stop the world updates until itâs sorted out.
2 Likes
I have noticed this too, I liked mine set at 30 fps but it no longer works. Iâm getting fed up with the updates ruining the sim
1 Like
absolutely correct there
Have you tried to change it in usercfg.opt file by hand and then make the file r/w?
No, we canât all afford to buy aircraft. And we donât need to with communtiy released ones.
But let me reply to some of the things in your long old post:
- " DCS Worldâs direct predecessor with [Ubisoft] as [Lock On: Modern Air Combat]." ⌠âIt [Flaming Cliffs] was originally an add-on for the previous Lock On: Modern Air Combatâ â From Wikipedia
- â$60 bucks, hardly a fortuneâ â depends on your income. And thatâs just one aircraft.
- âeveryone is holding out for the paid aircraftâ â nonsense, holding out against what? There are only a few full non-stock aircraft out there, paid or unpaid, and the others are FSX ports with non-working cockpits etc. I am waiting (not âholding outâ) for the FBW A380, which is not paid. Similarly, I have been flying the Airbus H135 (also not paid)
- âeveryone except total beginners in msfs would already have bought some add-on planesâ â more nonsense. Being experienced does not mean you insantly buy aircraft.
- âI donât need to download endless free community patches for the scenery, because it already just worksâ â what in DCS world? No one has to get patches from the community to get scenery in MSFS. Itâs a flight simulator, not a world simulator - if you want to fly over some football ground, you can download it. The rest of us are at 20,000 feet and canât see it, unless we do a sightseeing flight.
- âAnd msfs runs like Garbage on my rigâ â OK! Maybe you should look around, or ask for advice on how to fix your issues.
- ânone of the storms mechanics are implemented itâs just for showâ â Cancun - I found some weather but it killed me - YouTube
- No, my main draw is that I can fly the Airbus A320 & H135, a Cessna 152/172 and a Typhoon/Mitchell/Spitfire/Whatever â I donât need to kill things to feel good. If I want to fly around and shoot things, thereâs always plenty of sims out there. Warthunder for the arcade style, ARMA for the various infantry/tank/air, or even DCS world (which you now know came from a mod for LockOn)
Your original post said âIâve been in Dcs world and it is phenomenal. I would be surprised if Msfs ever catches up, ever.â â and yet now you are saying that â âDcs looks just as good as msfs today, no joke. ⌠realistic weather is dropping at the end of this very monthâ
If you want to pay for aircraft so you can shoot people down, thatâs up to you.
I got a nice shiny new helicopter, a Mitchell bomber, and an A380 and they cost me nothing, and I have been flying in realistic weather since August last year.
4 Likes
Interesting, msfs does not have helicopters until at least 2022.
Iâve only ever seen distortion fields this strong before regarding apple products.
If this is what you enjoy, I guess just keep on going. Pity what happens to the industry when so many people are blind to the difference between forward and backward progress.
1 Like
Youâre talking about the difference between a multi-million dollar military jet, and a little Cessna or Piper. Iâm an instrument rated private pilot who has more hours in Cessnaâs than every other kind of civilian GA craft combined, and I have zero confidence in my ability to climb into an F16 and even as much as getting it started (or for that matter, even figuring out how to open the canopy so I can get my butt into the cockpit in the first place), and yet I would feel completely comfortable jumping into just about any other Cessna, Piper, Cirrus or other kind of civilian single engine piston airplane and being able to figure out how to fly it.
Or even, for that matter, most GA twin aircraft, even though as someone who doesnât hold a multi-engine rating, Iâd be in deep excrement if an engine decided to blow up on me. But theyâre all SOOO similar, itâs really not as hard as youâre making it out. Mixture rich, props full (if there is a prop control), maybe prime the engine (and maybe not), maybe turn the fuel pump on (and maybe not), and then youâve got the engine started. Same for most piston twins.
But it doesnât necessarily follow that I can then jump into an F16 and just start flying her. Or for that matter, even a civilian turboprop, business jet, or airliner. And, just as in real life, if youâve got a realistically modeled civilian turboprop, business jet, or airliner (that doesnât have a magic CTRL-E button somewhere), I would once again feel uncomfortable with even the prospect of starting the engines, which for realistic aircraft in MSFS, like the WT CJ4, or the FBW A320, or a payware A2A or PMDG aircraft, also holds true. And thatâs even taking into consideration that the CJ4 is actually easier to start than a piston single, but if you donât know how to do it, youâre probably not going to figure it out based on your Cessna experience.
But then take the Extra 300. Right now, I could climb into one of those, and most likely get it started (mixture, prop, maybe a squirt of primer or a fuel pump on, or maybe not), and next thing you know Iâm in the cockpit of a running airplane. But, having zero real world experience in a tail dragger or with an engine as powerful as what the Extra has, my ability to taxi it to the runway, take off, and definitely land would be questionable, JUST LIKE it is in FS2020.
Can I jump from one piston single with a triangle landing gear configuration with a G1000 into another piston single with a triangle landing gear configuration that also has a G1000 and be reasonably competent with taxiing, taking off, and navigating? Absolutely.
So, yes, the idea that a competent private pilot can crawl into many (but not all) of the default planes in MSFS and figure out how to fly them is not that far into fantasy land, whereas even a competent F16 pilot may be completely lost trying to figure out an A10.
So your objection to MSFSâs ability for a pilot to jump into most of the sims default planes and being able to fly them with some degree of competency actually matches the real world just peachily.
So letâs move on, shall we?
Because the paid aircraft (usually) adds a degree of realism not found in the default ones. I bet I could crawl into a default MSFS 787 and with the help of a checklist, at least get it started. I have less faith that I could with a realistically modeled 787, which you might find in a payware aircraft. Just as in the real world, payware planes require some degree of knowledge of how to even get them started (do you have all the fuel pumps running? Are there any interdependencies (such as making sure your APU is running and fuel pumps turned on as just one (two?) pluck it out of my butt example) that might prevent you from doing so? For a default, dumbed down airliner, no, but for a more realistic one, in many cases, absolutely.
Now, donât get me wrong, the default dumbed down airliners are important to the success of MSFS as a platform, because many users, especially kids, want and expect precisely that. They want an airplane that they can start easily (or use CTRL-E, or just start on the runway with everything already running and ready to go), switch to an outside view, and firewall the throttle and go âflyingâ, without worrying about such details like leaving the throttle on 100% power for too long might just blow up your engines, as can happen in the real world. And itâs equally true that itâs important from a business perspective to keep that demo happy (else they will take their business elsewhere, and influence their friends to do the same) is a reality. They donât care that just yanking the elevator all the way to the rear could cause a tail strike that could render the airplane unflyable in the real world, so itâs important that they have a plane that doesnât simulate that to keep them happy.
Who has said it was a problem, except maybe those who expect such things for free?
Perhaps thatâs because your sim of choice doesnât try something as ambitious as having the entire globe simulated to at least some degree of realism, that addons (free or paid) can add to or enhance? I mean, what happens in DCS if you want to take your F16 to KMIA or KSFO? Unless they both happen to be simulated in DCS out of some coincidence, my guess is you simply wonât be able to do it. And if it just so happens that they are both modeled, take your pick of one of the 34,000 airports that exist in MSFS that donât exist in DCS. Then what?
See, for a finite area of geography that exists in DCS, itâs entirely possible to model it to where streaming is in fact not required, and to the point that addons (whether theyâre paid for or otherwise) donât enhance anything, but thatâs the nature of the beast. You can store all of that data on your local computer, but the amount required (last I heard it was on the order of 3 petabytes) is not something you can just throw a few SSDs at and call it a day.
So, have I destroyed your points enough yet for you to understand? No? Good, letâs keep going.
No, it doesnât have those. Because âjust flying aroundâ is the whole point of MSFS, and if you want a combat sim, then you go buy and use a combat sim. Youâre making this too easyâŚ
Congrats on being able to spend way more on your computer than most users of MSFS can afford. MY rig cost more than $5,000 just 9 months ago or so, and wasnât even the top of the line from a HW perspective that existed then (for example, I have âonlyâ an RTX2070 Super, instead of the higher end 2080ti that did exist at the time, or even a 30-series that didnât), and it actually runs MSFS fairly well, including in VR, which is a new feature that is nowhere near as optimized as it will be over the course of the next year or so. Itâs only in the most scenery dense areas (think LAX surrounded by LA itself, or Charles de Gaulle airport in France) where mine stumbles a bit, and even there (well, except maybe CDG, which is the worst area Iâve found on the entire planet from a performance perspective), itâs still quite playable even with my âinferiorâ hardware.
As for your objections about Mesa Verde and Niagara Falls, while I canât speak to Mesa Verde having never seen in (IRL or in MSFS), itâs a well known and well documented fact that photogrammetry doesnât always create the best results. And my version of Niagara Falls (which was free, btw) looks just fine.
And can you even fly to those locations at all in your beloved DCS? If so, count yourself lucky, because it would be a trivial exercise to find literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of places somewhere in the world that you canât.
Last quote, Iâve grown bored with this:
Speaking for myself, Iâm not on the hunt for a 3080. My 2070S is good enough for now, but when a 3080ti or Super becomes real, and is available from inventory (which is sort of Nvidiaâs fault, but not completely, given Covid and all that happy equine excrement) at MSRP, Iâll think about it. But I fly exclusively in VR (and by exclusively, I mean Iâd rather not fly than fly on a 2D monitor), and the performance I get, with the exception of those scenery rich areas I already mentioned, is perfectly fine.
I have no clue what fps Iâm getting, nor do I care. I only know that when I gaze out on the interior of my plane, everything is sharp and crisp, and ditto for the outside world. The motion itself is smooth, so whatever the fps happens to be, itâs good enough.
I already got a significant boost in performance by the most recent OXR update, and I fully expect both MS/Asobo to come up with further optimizations, and Nvidia to eventually make a driver that specifically targets VR mode in FS2020, so before I start spending money, I may get upgrades that extend the life of my current hardware by a significant amount of time.
But none of that is really relevant here.
Whatâs relevant is that you do not want a sim like FS2020. You find âjust flying aroundâ to be boring and beneath you, but that is the ENTIRE POINT of FS2020 in the first place. So hereâs what I suggest that you do:
Uninstall FS2020, chalk it up to an investment that you never should have made, and continue flying and enjoying your sim of choice (which is obviously DCS), and go and hang out in DCS forums. You flat up made a mistake by purchasing it in the first place knowing (or at least you should have known) what it was and what it was about, because flying a 172 around just flightseeing, or doing some aerobatics in an Extra, or even simulating a tubeliner with FBWâs amazing (and free) A320 is not your thing.
You do you, and weâll do us, and all will be right with the universe. If you ever decide you want to try âjust flying aroundâ again at some point in time in the future, FS2020 will still be here waiting for you, as MS has already committed to at least 10 full years of continued development of the platform, something which I canât think of a single other app, game, or sim, except maybe some Enterprise class stuff can say. (For example, despite itâs decreasing popularity in the Enterprise server space because of Windows on x86, I donât think AIX is going anywhere anytime soon. But even with that, I havenât heard IBM come out and guarantee (though they might have and I just donât know it), that itâs still going to be in development for another decade.)
Given what you want out of a flying simulation app, youâre in the wrong place.
Ciao!
7 Likes