Dynamic resolution scaling support would be great. The option to select desired FPS and let the internal resolution scaler do its thing.
Considering the variety in scene complexity it’s not uncommon for someone to get 60+ FPS in the middle of nowhere but under 20 in a complex airport.
This proposes an adaptive render quality feature like many other modern games whereby quality is modified in real time to reach a target FPS.
2 Likes
I have an i5 processor and an Nvidia 1070 GPU and I’ve settled on high settings for most graphics with 130% render scaling so that I don’t see distant rivers looking like worms crawling across the landscape. It’s wonderful with a nice high frame rate and smooth update when over the countryside but the frames slow when I’m near a busy city and I can recover by dropping the render scaling back to 100% or lower. I’d love it if the render scaling would automatically adjust to maintain my frame rate. This isn’t an option in FS2020 nor in the Nvidia control panel, but it might be awesome to add. What do you guys think, or am I missing another option?
Sounds interesting. Not setting a quality but a minimum framerate. 
1 Like
render scaling would go up and down automatically to lock a specific frame rate.
Regards
This would be a nice feature for those that are GPU bound, but I think most people in MSFS are CPU bound, in which case turning render scaling down doesn’t help at all.
1 Like
I see that this topic is not so popular… but the result of such an implementation would imho increase the satisfaction of many people who are currently trying to somehow hack and adjust settings somewhere to achieve a better/ smoother sim experience…
my suggestion would be the following:
The settings in the graphics are set dynamically by an AI -engine, according to the following criteria:
There are 2 main parameters (quality vs. speed):
- graphic details
- FPS
these two can be set against each other: how much must the FPS be maintained vs. how much must the graphics quality be maintained dynamically. This by means of a slider in both directions, that according to the inertia principle tries to keep the FPS more than the graphics quality, if the slider is closer to the FPS. In the extreme case 100% FPS vs 0% graphics means that the FPS is ALWAYS kept, conversely at 100% graphics.
a cross-section parameter is the flight phase
per flight phase the above main parameter could be defined, how much one is more important than the other, e.g. during approach before landing the FPS is more important, but during cruise level or taxing the graphics is more important.
Possible identified flight phases (exemplary, there could be more, or differentiated differently):
- parking
- taxing
- take off till gear-up or/and flaps zero… or if not set or not available, up to 1000ft AGL
- climb
- IFR below 5000ft AGL
- IFR above 5000ft AGL
- VFR versatil below 5000 AGL
- descent
- approach
- just before touchdown at airfields (spatial recognition "within x nm of the airfield)
- landing
The simulator automatically detects the flight phase and smoothly switches to the other mode, so that e.g. ground vehicles at the airfield are not visible during the approach and are only displayed again after touchdown.
For each flight phase, you can now set which of the two parameters is weighted more heavily, with a slider. In addition, can then be defniniert for both parameters:
- A target value can be entered for the FPS.
- for the graphics, after the previous subdivision (trees, traffic, light effect, cloud quality, etc.), a slider can now be used to determine how much this is to be taken into account in percentage terms, between 0-100%, that is:
when the graphic is brought down, which parameters are then brought down first or more strongly… e.g. the trees are more important to me on approach than the cloud quality
Finally you can define with which inertia or within how many seconds the dynamic change of the settings should take place, between 1 - 30 seconds
for better clarity I can imagine a table as GUI, which is easier to use than an abstract listing with dropdown switch…
2 Likes
some of this is already done through LOD, but I like this idea
1 Like
I’m very surprised dynamic scaling is not an option as the game has all the components for scaling… gpu use >90% then render scaling -5% and so on… this could also scale positive for extra clarity in some areas.
It would be a major boon for airports particularly where stutters are still prevalent and specially when on the ground.
VR fps would be much more stable where any stutter is painful when the world is writ lifesize.
Asobo, could we have an option in graphics for FPS target with auto adaptive LOD ?
A mod in Xplane called 3jFPS-wizard (3jFPS-wizard11 - Page 12 - Utilities - X-Plane.Org Forum) was great to achieve stable performance with this concept .
It could have three levels of tolerance (very stable, 15% and 30% of deviation from the FPS target) depending of how much LOD we want in sacrifice of performance.
And also , a different auto adaptive view distance for ground level where we don’t need as much LOD as in the sky , and much room at the edge for panning during taxi and visiting airports .
1 Like
With the incorporation of DLSS an in game FPS slider would be great in locking the came to a specific frame rate (All on one place settings)
Asobo has implemented the current FPS limiter as the most basic possible. DXGI present interval. Surely they won’t be able to code a better option than the graphics driver provider or RivaTuner developer.
I think the topic is about dynamic scaling, though? If the GPU can’t meet the frame rate target, lower the quality.
But regardless, isn’t a good in-engine limiter usually (very slightly) preferable to a driver/RTTS limiter? The engine does have more information than either of the other two.
Yes it would be. I guess my point was, I don’t think it will be. Good luck.
Good idea BUT give us a choice do not force feed it down everyone’s throats. If we have this “option” let’s make it an option only - one we can turn on or leave it off like we never had it. Much like METAR I don’t want to be force fed something I (and many others) really never wanted especially if it ruins the rest of the experience.
Since the Terrain LOD factor is the most influential this could be the one that would change depending on frame rate. Better yet, maybe we could as the user specify “I want LOD 4 above 1,000 AGL but I want LOD 1 below 1,000 AGL”
I agree, since I’m CPU-limited rather than GPU-limited, dynamic resolution isn’t really what I need. I need something that limits the CPU limiter. But I upvoted this topic anyway.
There is also variable rate shading and mesh shading which could be implemented.