I’ve always checked out the forums to see suggestions and info about ideal graphics settings for MSFS ever since 2020 launched. I wanted to share my own analysis for a mid-tier build in MSFS 2024 now that Sim Update 4 is out, in case it might help others.
I wanted to be realistic with comparisons, so for most settings I looked at between Ultra and Medium. On my 55” tv in 4K, any settings on ‘low’, as you can imagine, look terrible and are a no go!
I have managed to stupidly miss a few settings such as plants and rocks. I will add these at a later date.
As always your individual hardware differences can and will most likely cause different responses to the results below, to be used as a guide only.
Feel free to let me know if you have questions 
System Specifications
- CPU: Intel i7 14700KF
- GPU: NVIDIA 5070 Ti 16GB VRAM
- RAM: 32GB DDR5
- OS: Windows 11
- Resolution: 3840x2160 (Native)
- Drivers: Nvidia 591.59, HAGS off, Game Mode On
Testing Scenario
- MSFS 2024 Sim Update 4 - 1.6.34.0
- Testing location: Handcrafted KJFK Runway 31R
- Time: 12:00
- Weather: Scattered Clouds Preset
- Aircraft: Fenix A320
- ULTRA Preset, 4K resolution
- Air Traffic: Off
- Antialiasing: TAA
- Nvidia Low Latency: On in sim
- Frame Generation: Disabled (though I do enable it when not testing)
- VSync: Off (though I do enable it in NVCP when not testing).
- Vanilla NVCP
- Rebar: Off
The Settings
Below are each of the individual settings I tested. Some I did not test, for example Antialising and Upscaling. TAA is the only one I’ll accept with glass cockpits, even despite the latest DLSS updates.
Baseline Ultra preset with Air traffic off:
FPS: 37
CPU Time: 26ms
GPU Time: 23.7ms
VRAM usage: 12.1GB
RAM usage: 28.1GB
Terrain LOD
Famous to be a big hitter and my findings did not suggest differently:
| Setting | FPS | CPU (ms) | GPU (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS between each step | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400 | 31 | 30 | 25.4 | 13.7 | 31.5 | |||||||
| 350 | 35 | 28 | 24.8 | 13 | 29.2 | +12.9% | ||||||
| 300 | 36 | 27 | 24.3 | 12.5 | 29.2 | +2.9% | ||||||
| 250 | 37 | 26 | 23.8 | 11.8 | 28 | +2.8% | ||||||
| 200 | 38 | 26 | 23.8 | 11.7 | 27.8 | +2.7% | ||||||
| 150 | 39 | 25 | 22.6 | 11.2 | 27 | +2.6% | ||||||
| 100 | 39 | 24 | 22.2 | 11 | 27.1 | 0.0% |
- % change to FPS between 400 and 100: +26%
- Average % change between each increment: +4%
FPS, CPU and GPU Performance decreases uniformly from all settings from 100 to 350, with around a 4% loss of performance (1 FPS) at each step. 350 to 400 sees a much bigger decrease in performance, by as much as 13% FPS. VRAM and RAM take a real hit beyond 250.
Visual difference: A relatively uniform decrease in visuals as you step down, although in my eyes the sweet spot is 200-250 to ensure that blurry ground textures are not observed near the aircraft. Note: Ground textures are still not up to same standard as MSFS 2020 even at the higher settings.
Setting I will choose: 200. I considered 250 given that after this seems to be where the major falloff in performance is. But 200 gives me a little headroom.
Off Screen Terrain Pre-Caching
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to VRAM | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 37 | 26 | 23.5 | 12 | 28.2 | |||||||
| HIGH | 37 | 26 | 23.5 | 11.6 | 27.6 | -3.3% | ||||||
| MED | 37 | 26 | 23.1 | 11.3 | 27.2 | -2.6% |
- % change to VRAM between Ultra and Medium: -5.8%
- Average % change to VRAM between each increment: -3%
Not a heavy hitter for FPS, CPU or GPU regardless of setting. Has around a 0.7GB impact on VRAM and a 1.0GB impact to RAM from Medium to High so if low in those areas be sure to lower slightly.
Visual difference: Reduces stutters a little on high and ultra, but not massively.
Setting I will choose: HIGH. Again, I could have considered ultra but wanted to give some head room.
Displacement Mapping
This is a simple on/off setting.
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ON | 37 | 26 | 23.1 | 11.6 | 27.8 | |||||||
| OFF | 40.6 | 24 | 21.3 | 11.4 | 27.4 | +9.7% |
Pretty Heavy hitter with a 10% loss in frames when on and quite a big affect on both the CPU and GPU.
Visual Difference: Changes the way elevation on the ground looks slightly, but for airliner flying is barely even noticeable at all. Maybe if you are GA flying or have a 5090 you could consider.
Setting I will choose: Easy one this - off.
Buildings\*
I want to caveat this one with the fact I had Photogrammetry ON in the sim. I have a feeling that this setting only affects autogen buildings. May need to retest with PG OFF in the future.
| Buildings | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 37 | 26 | 23.4 | 11.6 | 27.9 | |
| HIGH | 37 | 26 | 23.4 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 0% |
| MED | 37 | 25 | 23.4 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 0% |
Visual difference: Almost zero as far as I could see, but again this may be different in areas with less PG or with PG off.
Setting I will choose: You’re spotting a trend here - I will give myself some headroom and go HIGH.
Trees
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 40 | 24 | 22.2 | 10.6 | 28.5 | |
| HIGH | 41 | 23.5 | 21.6 | 10.6 | 28.2 | 2.5% |
| MEDIUM | 42 | 23 | 21.1 | 10.6 | 28.1 | 2.4% |
- % change to FPS between Ultra and Medium: +5%
- Average % change between each increment: +2.5%
Another setting with a uniform performance improvement for each step down in terms of the FPS, CPU time and GPU time. Very little difference to VRAM or RAM on my system.
Visual difference: Medium is pretty decent to be fair, but does not include tree shadowing. High introduces the shadows, and Ultra adds more detail still.
Setting I will choose: HIGH. For airliner flying where on departure and approach I’ll be looking at instruments, I feel Ultra is a waste of resources. At a modest altitude you can notice the lack of shadowing on the trees on Medium so if you can afford to go High you should.
Grass
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 37 | 26 | 23.6 | 11.6 | 27.9 | |
| HIGH | 37.5 | 26 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 1.4% |
| MEDIUM | 38 | 24 | 22.7 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 1.3% |
- % change to FPS between Ultra and Medium: +2.7%
- Average % change between each increment: +1.4%
Has about half the performance impact of Trees, but the setting changes are also about half as obvious. Like trees, little to no change to VRAM or RAM.
Visual difference: More grass as you go up the settings.
Setting I will choose: MEDIUM. I like to see the grass if I am low over parks or around the airport when taxiing, but other than that I’ll be too high to see it in an airliner.
Object LOD
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 47.7 | 20 | 18 | 11.3 | 28.4 | |
| 150 | 47.9 | 20 | 17.9 | 11.3 | 28.4 | 0.4% |
| 100 | 48 | 20 | 17.7 | 11.1 | 28.2 | 0.2% |
- % change to FPS between 200 and 100: 0.6%
- Average % change between each increment: 0.3%
I feel this use to have a bigger performance impact in MSFS 2020, but object LOD on my system only seems to have a negligible effect.
Visual difference: Alot more objects appear at airports further from you as you go up the settings. People say a higher setting may also reduce stutters near touchdown as details are being rendered earlier but TBH I have not observed this.
Setting I will choose: 150.
Texture Resolution
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to VRAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 38 | 25 | 22.4 | 12.7 | 30 | |
| HIGH | 38 | 25 | 22.4 | 11.3 | 28.9 | -11.0% |
| MEDIUM | 39.5 | 24 | 22 | 10.6 | 28.3 | -6.2% |
- % change to VRAM between Ultra and Medium: 17.2%
- Average % change between each increment: 8.6%
If you are short on VRAM, lower this setting as it has the single most impact. 2GB VRAM difference between Medium and Ultra. Also a small increase in FPS at Medium.
Visual Difference: Barely anything at all on my system. Have a 55” 4K screen and in Medium, High and Ultra there are just subtle differences to the cockpit textures/airport that you can only see if comparing screenshots side by side. Pretty much impossible to spot a difference if you change this setting and restart the sim.
Setting I will choose: MEDIUM. I need VRAM resource and given I can barely tell a difference I’ll knock this right down.
Water Waves
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | 48.6 | 20.5 | 17.5 | 10.4 | 27.4 | |
| MEDIUM | 50.2 | 19.9 | 17.5 | 9.9 | 27.2 | 3.3% |
Mainly affects the CPU and a small amount of VRAM.
Visual Difference: When close up to the water there is a difference in quality, just more distinct waves over a given area.
Setting I will choose: MEDIUM. With an airliner I’m not going to be looking close enough to notice the difference and a 3% FPS hit is not worth it.
Raytraced Shadows
| FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ON | 35.6 | 28 | 24.4 | 13 | 30.6 | |
| OFF | 40 | 24 | 21.5 | 12.7 | 30.2 | 12.4% |
This is a big one for performance, affecting both the CPU and GPU. Aside from TLOD, it appears to have the biggest impact on performance on my system.
Visual difference: Shadows are much sharper, feel more ‘3D’ and not shimmering, particularly in cockpit.
Setting I will choose: OFF. The improvement in shadow is not worth the performance hit that comes with it. As long as I’ve got some decent shadows I am ok, and I do with 2048 shadow maps. If the shimmering or soft shadows annoy you, then by all means leave it on.
Shadow Maps
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2048 | 40 | 24.5 | 21.5 | 12.5 | 30 | |
| 1536 | 40.1 | 24.4 | 21.5 | 12.5 | 30 | 0.3% |
| 1024 | 40.1 | 24.4 | 21.5 | 12.5 | 30 | 0.0% |
This setting has pretty much no impact for me as I move through the steps.
Visual difference: sharper and less blurry shadows both outside and in the cockpit. Not the same improvement as RT shadows but still decent.
Setting I will choose: 2048. Given I have RT Shadows off and there’s no performance impact, I’ll set this one as high as possible.
Terrain Shadows
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1024 | 52 | 19 | 16.8 | 9.4 | 25.4 | |
| 512 | 52.4 | 19 | 16.5 | 9 | 25 | 0.8% |
| 256 | 52.7 | 18.9 | 16.2 | 9 | 25 | 0.6% |
| 128 | 52.9 | 18.5 | 16.2 | 9 | 25 | 0.4% |
| OFF | 53.4 | 18 | 15.9 | 9 | 25 | 0.9% |
- % change to FPS between 1024 and Off: +2.7%
- Average % change between each increment: +0.7%
This was a much heavier hitter in earlier versions of the sim. It does affect performance a little but can be raised quite safely to at least 256 with only a small impact.
Visual difference: Shadows on terrain are longer and more defined as you move up the settings, however past 256 I don’t feel like it improves the scene drastically at all.
Setting I will choose: 512. 1024 seems excessive particularly given tiny improvement in visuals.
Contact Shadows
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 50 | 19 | 17.2 | 10 | 27.3 | |
| HIGH | 50 | 19 | 17.2 | 10 | 27.3 | 0.0% |
| MEDIUM | 50.2 | 18.9 | 17.2 | 10 | 27.3 | 0.4% |
Similar to Shadow Maps, I am seeing very little difference in performance between the settings here. A slightly improvement in FPS at Medium, but pretty minimal.
Visual difference: Others have described it better but an overall more realistic feel to scenes with buildings or trees and how the shadows hit the ground.
Setting I will choose: Ultra.
Windshield Effects
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | 38.9 | 24.5 | 21.7 | 12.8 | 30.9 | |
| MEDIUM | 41.6 | 23 | 20.7 | 12.6 | 30.9 | 6.9% |
This one surprised me. I was not expecting such a difference in FPS between the two settings.
Visual difference: With the Fenix you do get more realistic looking glass with smears and also slightly better rain effects, although the rain is not massively noticeable
Setting I will choose: MEDIUM. Would probably go High if I had a 5080 or better, but going Medium for the 7% FPS gain.
Raymarched Reflections
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 46.3 | 21 | 18.8 | 11.4 | 30.2 | |
| HIGH | 46.4 | 20.8 | 18.6 | 11.4 | 30.2 | 0.2% |
| MEDIUM | 46.6 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 11.4 | 30.2 | 0.4% |
I expected this one to have a bigger impact on my system, but just a small FPS hit. May be higher in scenes with more water.
Visual difference: Reflections are more defined and longer as you go up through the values.
Setting I will choose: HIGH. Ultra would probably be fine but just like to give myself headroom.
Glass Cockpit Refresh Rate
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | 38.8 | 25 | 22 | 12.2 | 30.4 | |
| MEDIUM | 39.4 | 24.7 | 21.8 | 12.4 | 30.4 | 1.5% |
This was supposed to have negligible impact since the sim was more multi-cored, however I am still noting a small decrease in performance on High, albeit not huge.
Visual difference: In some aircraft the speed of glass cockpits is subtly different between the two settings, in others there is no perceived difference at all.
Setting I will choose: HIGH. You will not particularly lose much immersion if you feel you need to drop this to Medium IMO.
Ambient Occlusion
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 42.9 | 22.9 | 19.8 | 11.9 | 30.3 | |
| HIGH | 43.5 | 22.1 | 19.7 | 11.9 | 29.9 | 1.4% |
| MEDIUM | 44.5 | 21.7 | 19.2 | 11.9 | 29.9 | 2.3% |
- % change to FPS between Ultra and Medium: 3.7%
- Average % change between each increment: 1.8%
A modest affect on performance, but nothing to the level of RT shadows and the like.
Visual difference: Does actually make a significant difference to realism in my opinion. Higher settings make objects look deeper and more realistic.
Setting I will choose: HIGH.
Cubemap Reflections
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 386 | 43.2 | 22 | 19.8 | 11.8 | 29.9 | |
| 256 | 44.3 | 21.5 | 19.4 | 11.7 | 29.6 | 2.5% |
| 196 | 44.8 | 21.4 | 19.2 | 11.7 | 29.6 | 1.1% |
| 128 | 45 | 21.4 | 19 | 11.6 | 29.6 | 0.4% |
- % change to FPS between Ultra and Medium: 4.2%
- Average % change between each increment: 1.4%
Like ambient occlusion it does have a modest impact on performance as setting is increased. Does not affect VRAM or RAM though.
Visual difference: Harder to see this one, you have to be looking for it as it’s mainly how the clouds/sky reflect off of things. A nice to have not a must have.
Setting I will choose: 196. Given the above, this is a good compromise on my system.
Photogrammetry
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to VRAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ON | 43 | 22.8 | 20.2 | 13 | 31.5 | |
| OFF | 41 | 23.5 | 21.2 | 11.2 | 28.6 | -13.8% |
Ironically, I had better performance with PG turned on in my test scenario. However the big difference is the VRAM and RAM, with PG on using almost 2GB more VRAM.
Visual difference: Buildings and some ground textures closer to real life, but quality can suffer and the melted buildings can be ugly to look at. This has been documented much better elsewhere.
Setting I will choose: I have flitted between both on and off over the last 6 months. I have it turned on at the moment. When it works it looks fantastic, when it doesn’t it looks pretty bad.
Volumetric Clouds
| Setting | FPS | CPU Time (ms) | GPU Time (ms) | VRAM (GB) | RAM (GB) | % change to FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA | 37 | 26 | 23.7 | 12.1 | 28.1 | |
| HIGH | 38 | 25 | 22.9 | 12.1 | 28.1 | 2.7% |
| MEDIUM | 39 | 25 | 22.4 | 12.1 | 28.1 | 2.6% |
Clouds have a modest performance impact on my system, with around 5-6% hit on FPS between Medium and Ultra. No impact to VRAM which I didn’t expect.
This setting may have more impact with live weather or more cloud depth.
Visual differences: As others have commented, medium looks like mashed potato and is a no go, despite the performance improvements.
Setting I will choose: HIGH. Ultra does look better yes but High is a good compromise.
Comparison of all Settings Ultra v Medium and their impact on FPS, CPU time, GPU time, VRAM and RAM
A higher value denotes a bigger performance hit as you move from Medium > High > Ultra.
Thanks,
Sam
to give you the best visuals your system can produce in the context of your flight. I hope they do that eventually.