This may, or may not be true. But what is true is often people’s incorrect assumption of how multi-threaded software works, one of which being that if all their cores aren’t running at close to 100% then the software is somehow faulty, or unoptimised to some gross degree.
But you can’t dispute that MSFS has only one core to draw most of the calls. So from all the reviews, a good six core (no hyper threading) is all it takes to run the game. Then we might assume the upcoming Ryzen 5 5500X (six core / six threads) is the cheap option for everyone, being the Ryzen 5 5600X the king of cost benefit.
That’s not too far from the old qua-core / eight threads of the ancient past of single threaded games.
So in this regard yes, we are still in ancient times playing MSFS. We could say it is a Sandy Bridge type of title. Ryzen 5000 gave it a good boost because of what? IPC. Exactly what everyone talked about during the i5-2500K era.
Hardware Unboxed said it was bizarre, and I quote “bizarre” that MSFS is DX11. So all this talk of “NASA hardware” for flight simulations is just a myth that has been thrown around for a decade. And then people settle down thinking: “I need to get a R9 5950X”. Bad wish. You won’t get a frame. Perhaps a couple, since the max turbo is a bit higher, which bring us back to IPC and clock.
I knew it from the time I heard they saying that the code was made on top of the MFX 2006. This back in 2019. I foresaw all the problems we are having now, with is a pity. I thought the ‘Sandy Bridge era’ for flight simulators was over. Rude awakening.
Perhaps MSFS 2030 will get it right, because I doubt that they will rewrite the code to DX12. With the bug fest we are having now, if they try to rewrite it for DX12, we will continue in this pace until 2025. DX12 might bring Ray Tracing and a few other blings, but I’m not sure they will tackle the core usage as it should.
Different people want very different things out of the sim. What I don’t get is, why downgrade it for all to upgrade performance.
Some people want stutter free 60fps or higher, personally I’m fine flying as low as 15 fps with the occasional stutters. Even lower when AP is doing the flying (which is 90% of the time) So give me the option to increase the LOD ranges (above 2.0) on the fly instead of having to edit cfg files. (Or turn it back to the way it was before so you don’t have to increase beyond ‘max’) Then I can dial back detail for hands on landing / take off, and turn it up for the eye candy along the way.
They included the option to limit fps to 20 (which I have enabled) yet leave all this ‘headroom’ to not utilize currently existing hardware at 20 fps. I’m ‘angry’ Ultra does run on my 16GB 1060 laptop. It should not have any business running anything on Ultra.
I would love a hi-detail screenshot option like Elite Dangerous where you can take 8K screenshots. Got to have something to look forward to for upgrading.
I think the first version was too bad. I know that most general aviation simmers pan the view with the mouse and everything, but they can’t release a game for the open market, Xbox and all with that kind of performance. I’m not sure the reason for the recent downgrades, perhaps Xbox (they might have access to Xbox samples), but they will have a lot of work ahead to compromise things.
Which is a pity. The release version was a treat to the eyes, but for me it was unplayable.
Well said - and I agree - I would much rather have a wider range of options in the graphics to fine tune what is important to me, to have higher fidelity in certain aspects, at the price of perhaps some performance - this way the sim can adapt to each person’s wishes as closely as their system will permit. And as tech advances and optimization improves, that fidelity will expand across more areas of the sim, for more people. Let us decide what ‘price’ to pay for certain aspects we feel are necessary to enjoy the experience.
I’ve been doing multiple tests today in order to publish an update to
My 2070 SUPER 4K settings and suggestions - episode 2
During my tests, I’ve tried to see whether cutting in half the number of cores FS2020 is running with would allow freeing some of them for background Win10 tasks, so that if there is such background task popping in it wouldn’t affect FS2020 multi-tasking scheduler.
I’ve therefore launched FS2020 on the 9700K (8 cores, no HT), opened Task Manager, changed process affinity and only selected cores 1,3,5,7.
Results (non scientific whatsoever): when running only on 4 cores on this CPU there was no difference at all performance wise, no additional stutters either. Given the average load on all cores but 1, I even wonder if it wouldn’t run the same on 2 cores only.
Of course once they implement DX12 they will be able to take better advantage of multi-core for rendering.
Another patch is out and we got another downgrade of LOD quality… Sim now looks good only about 1mile around plane.
Today’s downgrade is even mentioned in patch notes: " * Optimization on photogrammetry loading"
So tell me this Is not intentional…
And the worst part is it didn’t help with performance.
What makes you think that statement indicates a downgrade?
I noticed this just from putzing around Tuscon, AZ. Trees and stuff in the desert (wrong but I can deal) fade in and out about a mile away. I was about a mile up and looking almost straight down the PG stuff was chunked up really bad, too. This was in a very sparse area, but had really good data according to those maps they published today with the update. I have also been keeping an eye on my bandwidth consumption and I’ve seen a lot of time spent >50mbps and a few times I glanced over it was over 100mbps! I bet MS told them to tone it down a notch. I also set up a 50GB rolling cache on an SSD, but it doesn’t seem like it writes much of anything to it.
My testing after the update in game and many posts with proofs about the last patch by other simmers
The word “optimization” would mean a performance improvement - i.e. more efficient use of computer resources. One big complaint has been that the LOD range for when PG buildings go from “lumps” to proper structures is too small, and that is something which Asobo said they wanted to improve.
If you see a degradation in scenery based on your own observations that’s fine, but it makes absolutely no sense that you would interpret the phrase “optimization on photogrammetry loading” as proof that they have deliberately downgraded scenery, when that phrase means exactly the opposite.
Asobo, you’re awesome but you’ve got to extend (or give people the option to extend) the LOD draw distance for buildings (autogen & photogrammetry), tree’s & keeping ground textures/satellite imagery higher quality further out.
It was, after 5 years of addons and modifications lol
was like this at release.
This is not a game it is a Simulator. The idea is to entice people to get into flying an aircraft or be in awe of it. Computer hardware and drivers and software have a part to play in why not everyone enjoys what they see. I have had the same thought and I know my hardware and software are up to date.
Over engineered software and country coding all play a part into how people experience the Simulator.
107 posts were merged into an existing topic: LOD problems - Trees Fix Revisited
Try setting Terrain LOD to 10 (1000) and see for yourself that no computer could handle proposed changes by you. good day
I already set them far beyond what the sim offers in the in-game settings & had no problems. As I said, people with decent rigs shouldn’t have to put up with far lower settings for people that don’t have more capable systems. The draw distance was far better but didn’t affect how the photogrammetry is loaded. That (along with the trees) is the biggest issue LOD terms with MSFS. No setting in or out of the game can adjust how the photogrammetry is loaded & what it’s at in it’s highest setting/normal setting is utterly ridiculous. What’s the point in a sim like this having photogrammetry when it only loads in a very short distance from the aircraft & anything beyond it looks far worse then auto-gen.
The draw distance was far better but didn’t affect how the photogrammetry is loaded.
Wrong. I already provided proof screenshots in this thread
Dunno if someone mention it, but deciduous trees in the middle of winter are too green in colour, and grass too.It should be more brownish/gray in colour.I am talking about eastern Europe, but its probably the same in whole continental parts of northern hemisphere.