I never said it was a mainthread problem, just an unbalanced system. In simple terms microstutters occur when the gpu cannot handle all the data being thrown at it. Although my video has minimal stutters they are still there but if I reduced cores from 8 to 4 then everywhere that I’m not simply dropping frames would be as smooth as butter, when I try on four I did get the odd sound drop out so smooth recording would have been unlikely.
This test really only demonstrates that my cpu at stock settings is slightly too powerful for a GT1030
What is wrong with your vram? Which videocard do you have?
EDIT: Your videocard doen’t meet the requirements for MSFS.
The video title says all that and yes vram is only 2GB. It’s really just to show MSFS can run on lesser hardwhere … with compromises naturally.
Amazing it runs so well, didn’t expect that. I thought it was just indicating the amount of vram incorrectly, lol.
Nor did I expect it but I took the chance of buying MSFS before my new card arrives and I’m glad I did.
I think I might try this again using only 4 cores, sound disabled and a lower record resolution, it should be even smoother.
I think some people are being a bit pedantic about stutters. Here is a video that I made and some of you may have seen flying over London. I’m running an Intel i5 10600K and a GTX 1060 6 GB card and I’m more than happy with this. Note that the co-pilot decided it was a bit too hot in the cab and sat on the wing. 
(1) Microsoft Flight Simulator 2021 02 23 10 49 53 01 - YouTube
1 Like
Sorry for being pedantic, but the frame times are all over the place and it’s hard to ignore. Anyway, I’ve partially accepted it as the way it is right now, it was like this for years in FSX, but according to the past few dev Q&As there’s a lot of optimisation been going on behind the scenes for the Xbox launch, and it’s coming to the PC version with DX12.
In a slow title like MSFS I’m ok with framerates around 30fps, but it needs stable frame times in order to feel smooth.
With VR of course it’s different, 30fps give you a headache in no time.
4 Likes
As always has been the case with MS flight simulator you always have to find the sweet spot for your computer. I only have an I5 and run it at mostly medium settings and it runs pretty smooth with only small stutters with trees at low altitude. But even at that it’s still eons beyond FSX or X-plane.
1 Like
you’ll always get the optimal perfomance for your hardware 3rd person in a small aircraft, try the same thing cockpit view in an airliner and you’ll see what people are complaining about
1 Like
Hi SalvoVulpine exactly!
The A320 NX FBW is quite OK, but the 474 and especially the 787…
Slideshow…
2 Likes
I have just flown the A320 and it is just as smooth as the video that I posted in both cockpit view and outside view with no stutters. I did make a video but for some unknown reason, the videos that I have made lately have distorted sound so won’t post it. I shall try the 787 latter.
Here we go again… Mostly outside views, and in-cockpit views flying.
Please be so kind and post a video landing and taxing in Wellington…
No stutters, perfectly fluid there?
5 Likes
No need to post a video as it is perfectly fluid there too. You will just have to take my word for it. As I have said before you have a bottleneck on your system which is causing your stutters. Too powerful a graphics card for your CPU. End of topic. I won’t be posting any more videos.
Hi guys, I attempted the same flight from Innsbruck to Grossglocker with my new SK Hynix P31 drive. Huge performance difference thanks to a faster SSD. Much less ‘asset loading’ stutters.
Before (Intel 660p):
After (SK Hynix Gold P31):
Firstly, it has a lower QDs, less queueing for stuff. Next, note the difference in “<1ms response times”: 99 percent was less than 1 ms compared to the prev. drive where 90% was < 1ms. However, the true objective that we should optimise to minimise painful stutters are RT 10ms < 100ms. I think only Optane can help in this scenario.
Side note: I have no clue why the # of read/writes are much higher with the new drive.
Though I don’t take your word for it.
To believe it, I would need to see a video at at least full HD 60 FPS
with a perfectly fluid approach, landing and taxing with the 787 or 747
to any airport. And no, my graphics card is not too powerful for my CPU,
as demonstrated by the perfectly fluid function at 60 FPS of a half a dozen photorealistic games
and more importantly the other simulator, all maxed out at 4K . End of topic indeed…
1 Like
this has bottomed out as a totally useless thread, mods pls close this.
2 Likes
Yes particularly when some people don’t believe that their hardware is at fault. This happens all the time on other games forums I visit people blame the game and the developers for their hardware woes. I look at it this way why isn’t everyone getting the fault if it was the game developers that caused the issue. As someone said that my computer runs other games with no problems. MS FS 2020 is a very demanding game and if your computer isn’t up to spec to run it you shall have issues. You just need to read the top specifications to run it at full bore.
There is a lot of denial on this forum about the performance issues FS2020 faces, mainly the microstuttering that affects even the highest end users (10900K + RTX3090, etc.). I have yet to see a shred of evidence from those claiming to have perfect performance other than the subjective “it runs fine on my system, buy better hardware”. For a lot of us including myself, it’s not even low framerate or maxed out resources that are the problem, it’s the stuttering that’s very noticeable if you’re used to smooth experiences like in DCS or X-Plane
6 Likes
I agree with you 100%.BUT…
Before MSFS was released last August, MS/Asobo published several recommended PC configurations for both Intel and AMD, basically Small, Medium, and Top. However, there were no corresponding performance/quality expectations. Since last August when MSFS was released, users are able to choose from four graphics parameter groups, Low-End, Medium, High-End, or Ultra. The HELP description says “… applying high settings on lower spec machines may significantly impact load times.” What does that mean? What is a low spec machine? What are “load times”? Is it the time it takes to download an update? Is it the time to start MSFS as it loads in all the scenery files? Is it the time it takes to create a graphics frame? Medium and high-end machines shouldn’t have any problems,right?
MSFS allows users with just about any hardware configuration to select “High” or “Ultra” without any warnings or messages that their system lacks the power needed. All users see are poor FPS, stutters, pauses, and FPS tanking during a long flight. Or maybe they see “melted” cities, unrecognizable landmarks, or featureless terrain.
MS/Asobo does not know how to manage effectively user’s expectations. MSFS should have had blocks preventing low-end, older equipment selecting high-end or ultra settings. Or they should have had weekly sessions hosted by their top performance specialists to help users calibrate their systems.
MS/Asobo didn’t promise something and not deliver because they’ve never promised any performance or quality deliverables except in their release trailers. They never said that I cannot have 90 FPS @ 4k or 60 FPS @ 4k. But they should have because my six-year-old hardware isn’t the problem.
Meanwhile we wait for the next update hopefully with improved FPS, graphics, or both without any new bugs.
