I don’t know about glass cockpit performance of the sim regarding how much of resources are gone into, but FBW’s A320 mod needs significant power to run smoothly. Aside higher quality polished textures when compared to those in the default plane, 2D performance is a bit of trouble maker. It’s not only because of the textures, its higher quality anti-aliased fonts and symbology on each screen take the credits too. I agree with you though. Low refresh rate is not ideal most of the time. The only thing I’m afraid of is the aircraft that will be released by PMDG in future. I hope that performance in general goes upwards.
2 Likes
80-50 makes a huge difference to the eyes. Go buy a 144hz monitor and see for yourself please. Or go argue about it somewhere else. The reason that i wrote killer is because of the fact that the glass screens almost cut fps in half. So it can be considered to call it like this.
Btw. It was just a question. No complaint. Nowhere did i talk about pc specs, you brought that up.
I was just looking for an answer cause i don’t exactly understand the big difference in fps. Not this big. But i’m sorry you’re unable to answer a question in a normal way but somehow feel the need to just bash my question cause you’re jalous of my frame rates. So please just ignore and don’t reply to this topic no more. Thanks:ok_hand:
Well, i was actually just asking the question because i can’t really see why this difference in performance is so big. I understand that there is a difference sure. But it seems rather huge to me.
I can’t remember this from fsx/prepar3d with the default aircraft. Sure the pmdg’s were fps killers but that would also be to the higher quality of textures and cockpit models used. Not only the displays. In aerofly i can’t see really any performance difference between aircraft. Ofcourse those are of lower quality in terms of functionality but they still use glass screens with some sort of basic fms implementation.
But thanks for the explain though. Seems some people finding it difficult to at least try to give some normal answer.
I hope they’re able to increase performance a bit though. Because it kind of hurts to go from a analog aircraft flying with smooth performance to an airliner and being back to 40fps.
1 Like
I share your grief! I have found it best just to optimize my simulator’s performance for my favorite glass-screen aircraft. Then obviously, whenever I climb back into the C152 or other analog guage aircraft, the extra FPS headroom is just “frosting on the cake”, so to speak!
1 Like
Most defenately. But considering how flybywire runs compared to stock aircraft, it is encouraging that there is optimization to be had with results. Even if highly complex simulations tend to run at lower frames. As long as it stays above 30-35 it is fine for a civil air sim.
1 Like
I could tell you this doesn’t surprises me, and when I look at the example in this discussion when just using the PA 28 EFB is causing a drop of 10fps, I have a pretty fair idea why this would be happening in this case.
Probably you might want to consider supporting this:
1 Like
It may seem counterintuitive, but rendering the 2D screens is more processor intensive than rendering the 3D objects. That’s because the GPU processes all the screen buffer pixels in parallel while the HTML/Javascript code is slower by nature and processes the pixels sequentially in a big loop.
Then you have the calculations to go from the sim variables to the final values that are shown on the avionics screens. How the dev set those up can have a big difference on CPU cycles. And even if nothing changes, that all has to happen for each frame.
Maybe the choice to use HTML and JS for the displays was a poor decision. They traded ease of development for performance which did make it easier for more third-party devs to be able to create complex avionics. So maybe a fair tradeoff.
1 Like
I understand very well that you wish me out.. btw why don’t you answer my question about your configuration ? I’ve never seen a screen print 1500 Ft above NYC that sais “51FpS”. Very nice ! Just curious.. 
you seem to have quite high expectations. This is not a single person shooter, it is a flight simulator. That 51 FpS should work fine for any human.
The question was why there is such a big difference between analog vs glass cockpits. This has nothing to do with 50fps being enough or not. So bye👋
Ps. None of the screenshots are from nyc…
2 Likes
You do not get to determine what is acceptable for anybody. Period. I have the exact same concern about the FPS hit as the OP and THAT is what this topic is about.
1 Like
Question still stands. What’s that GPU board and memory @Omarliew… giving you 51FpS above large cities like above ? If you don’t answer I’ll flag this topic as impolite toward others (me) and negative trolling, insulting Asobo/MSFS developers with your arrogant “why is it so hard”.. The title here is my main issue, not the content of the opening. Questions are ok. Again: I would like to see some specs, because these FpS numbers are impressing. That’s all.. rest my case 
Hopefully now that workingtitle is a partner they could help improve on this, altough, complaining about 50FPS???
Im happy if i can manage to maintain 30FPS
The UI in this game is really badly optimized. Undocking a simple text window or changing the toolbar button layout causes large FPS differences for me, when the difference should be negligible. And I believe the software behind the UI is actually doing the work in drawing the digital displays in the cockpit. So you’re probably paying a penalty up front due to the bloat and overhead from the UI software before you even get to the actual work that needs to be done to draw the digital display.
Disregard the usual crowd scoffing at performance differences above 30 fps or the ability to see those differences. These tired tropes have to be dismantled in detail on every thread, only to see them pop up once again.
Did you reply to me by mistake? Your comment makes no sense in relation to what I said. Your comment looks more like a solution in search of a problem I don’t necessarily have. Now you’re in an argument with someone else over some made up number I never even mentioned.
Relax, most people arent having the same performance as you are, so calm the fudge down. I for one would actually be able to fly the 787 if the displays didnt draw all my fps.
It is strange how glass displays make such a dip in performance. But lowering refresh rate seems to help a lot
Yes but there’s no reason saying to me that you’d be happy with 50 fps. I’m happy with that too. But there’s allready multiple answers likr yours and i explained multiple times allready. I allready asked multiple times to stay ontopic.
Just shut it down. I’m done with this forum. Asking a simple question and only few people willing to discuss this. Bye