What’s your reasoning behind 120% render scale. Just curious, would think running at native (100%) would be the sweet spot?
I am having 10…I would be really happy with 30 lol
As long as I have fluid visuals, I’m good. Anything above 20 FPS looks good on my system.
I think microsobo will need to worry about fps now, with the Reno Air Races…
At the beginning I set no FPS limit, and got up to 50 with my settings, however, everything was running super hot. After SU5 I set a limit to 30, and actually it was acceptable for me. I had to increase the FPS limit to 40, because I use a head tracking app, and it is much smoother with a slightly higher FPS. 40 is my choice.
I personally disagree.
The great strength of the flight simulator is its excellent graphics. For me, however, a smooth gaming experience weighs more, which is why I set the preset to “high” instead of “ultra” with my RTX 3070 and an i7-11700K at a resolution of 2560x1440p and thus get a much higher frame rate.
For me personally, the lowest limit for the frame rate is 45fps. I would rather turn the graphics down a bit than have to sacrifice fluid performance.
But I think that everyone has to decide for themselves.
30fps is practically unplayable for me, I aim for 60 and get it for the most part but the occasional dip into the low 50s is fine. Anything less and TrackIR becomes a nightmare. 1440p @ 80% render scaling and medium-high settings on a 2060.
I genuinely don’t understand the people who say “flight simulators dont need high frame rates”, I could not disagree more. Maybe if the only thing you fly are airliners where you are just pushing buttons with your head buried in the cockpit, but for GA or any sort of aerobatics it is completely unplayable in my opinion.
sharper image, and I don’t notice a difference in performance at all!
BR !
hi, on my small setup with small planes I am using 25 fps. This is good enough and I have a lot of fun in VFR with the settings on high. Everything is fluid.
(Intel (R) Core ™ i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz. 32.0 GB. Nvidia Gforce GTX 1070. 2560x1440)
Good game.
I would be very happy with 30 ! but I’m also happy with 20. My vsync is 20. I run i7/ssd/MS330, so I’m used to framerates around 18-20 in MSFS. I can land at 14, below that.. it becomes more difficult. Only when I set my graphics to Low-end and photogrammetry off, I can land in London City airport at 17 or so..
When a product calls itself a “simulator” instead of a game, it should be obliged to, at least for the immersion of “being there”, play as smooth as possible when trying to replicate real flight.
For me, with all bells and whistles on, at 1400p, MSFS runs capped at 30fps.
But, by turning down some eyecandy, i managed to get a very stable 60fps, and this is , when using Trackir, the best experience when flying.
30fps isn’t enough when using TIR, 60fps should therefore be the minimum, at least IMHO.
I have almost the same setup (only difference is an i7 10700K) and since SU5 its running pretty well in WQHD (apart from all the “downgrade” topics regarding this update).
Wouldn’t it make more sense in your case to set the renderscaling down to lets say 90% and keep ultra settings? You would get the same performance increase without sacrificing ultra mode and it’s almost not noticable.
Personally i let the Sim run in native resolution without any downscaling of the render resolution, but im also fine with 50-60 fps in 90% of the scenarios.
Absolutely no issues with 30fps but then obviously it also depends on the resolution of the monitor.
Try it and see for yourself. The quality increase is really noticeable.
You definitely notice it, since the game is internally rendering in a higher resolution, everything else is phyically impossible 
I guess what you mean is that the slightly decreased FPS do not bother you for the gain of quality in exchange.
After that patch the other day im getting 55ish fps on ultra with a 3080ti…after SU5 i was only getting 45ish…so it’s definitely hardware
Not really, if you’re CPU limited increasing render scaling won’t impact performance at all, until you become GPU limited.
Prior to SU5 I had repeatable cases where 720p and 5K gave me exactly the same framerate due to major CPU bottlenecks.
I’m happy with 32 fps locked and constant, no matter where in the world with a GTX 1060. Mix of ultra and high graphics (clouds on high). After some recent updates this year that improved optimization I even started investing into the sim on addons.
With the apocalypse of GPUs worldwide, I’ll be staying at 32fps locked for some more time.
Flying often and I forget about fps. I just look at my gpu temperatures and clocks and it behaves better than other games around (55 to 75 celsius which is very safe for longevity)
Well but that would mean that you have a very imbalanced system, where either the GPU is overkill or the CPU is bottlenecking as you mentioned in your case.
Of course you would then not notice a performance impact in higher resolutions since your GPU basically never was able to perform to its fully extend.
But not noticing a difference between 720p and 5k should definitely NOT be the norm for most gaming rigs.
I get in the region of 25 to 40 fps and I honestly find I all pretty ■■■■ smooth, im happy out with it. The odd time in a fully modelled airport it can drop to the low 20’s and that is jerky but its only for a fraction of the time I’m on so I don’t mind it much