huh, speak for yourself
1 Like
Well, if the sim is going to receive support until 2031 and windows 10 will stop receiving support from 2025 I guess you will have to taste the sweet flavor of Windows 11 at some point hahaha
It’s all owned by MS, they would have had inside running , It was pathetic really to launch MSFS without the latest API from the developer.
DX 12 came out 5 years before MSFS2020 launched. It’s really a bit of a strech to claim it wasnt ready in time for development IMHO.
3 Likes
p3d v5 managed to get DX 12 on a very old code base … didnt stop LM!
1 Like
Why is everyone so insistent on DX12? First of all, it’s just closer to the hardware, more work for the devs, more testing, more bugs, more specific optimisation required for a large variety of GPUs, before they get to a usable product. Those are very good reasons to start off with DX11, which has a lot more things working automatically that are up to the dev to implement in DX12.
Yes, it enables more features, more optimisations, but at the cost of more testing and more work. We’re getting there, and Asobo made it very clear we’re also getting the DX12 features.
3 Likes
This looks very exciting.
3 Likes
Suppose to be similar for VR, but if you have maxed GPU now gain may be not as big/significant, but - heaving 45 fps without stuttering and having more distributed load on CPU can give great chance for reprojection being just 2x (for G2). Well we will see (for me just few hours 
).
2 Likes
YouTube video compression? Really? And hey, I didn’t say anything like Asobo scamming us. Sheesh!
The size of building textures could cause a significant FPS hit without adding much detail. A texture that’s four times as big is only four pixels to one. The video CLEARLY shows major differences in tree density. That means fewer trees are being rendered in medium. (I think it looks better) Cloud rendering can also cause a fair hit on FPS.
I flew through London when it was first updated and noticed the ‘melting’ that a lot of simmers were upset about. When I dropped my GFX down to medium, everything looked fine. Then again, I don’t expect reality.
In any case, nothing looks ‘horrible’ on my medium machine. I hope you get your issues worked out.
1 Like
Well, Asobo just explained the issue THEY had and solved it:
Up to 30 more fps on high-end systems.
A surprising solution for an issue most of you said did not exist!
Best regards 
1 Like
IIRC, your issue, as you described it, was not FPS. It was image quality, looking horrible.
1 Like
Oh no, my point was that with ultra quality users with high-end systems get below 30fps. I was replying to a guy that said he got 60fps on big cities and airports, and I said that that was impossible.
2 Likes
To shed some “realistic light” on performance, one has to consider several things.
What happens to the performance gain when:
- Live AI or AIG OCI aircraft finally fill the tarmacs and skies
- The weather system is finally working correctly
- PMDG Airliners and A2A GA make it to the sim
- Photogrammetry/texture resolution and rendering improves
These are just a few to get started with.
There is going to have to be much better gains in performance than what is scheduled for July 27. These gains have to come much more often and/or be much greater gains, since 3rd party products are such a prominent part of this. Also MSFS is still being fixed and improved very often. These realities make this (July27) performance gain insignificant if we are honest.
In other words, it will remain the same decades long game of a small gain (like Jul 27), that is relevant for a few weeks, then obsolete. We wait for many months or possibly years with poor performance; the cycle (plague) continues.
This post is not designed as a complaint, a bubble burst, or ungrateful rant. Check my specs in my profile, I do my part hardware wise, and have been for more than 30 years.
This post is a reminder to developers and users, of the reality of the performance situation - big picture.
It is important to remain realistic in any confidences and reactions until these gains are able to be very long term despite any add-ons, updates, or improvements.
It really is the same old story/reality/cycle/plague.
1 Like
In think it’s a good idea to wait on dx12 for PC until the xbox version passes the litmus test. Good decision by devs.
1 Like
With regards stutters and sub 20 fps framerates we are talking about basic usability of the sim even for VFR flight. Obviously as they enhance it they will make it more resource hungry but the things you mention are opt in to a large extent. You can choose to enable these features if you have the top end hardware to support them.
Maybe it’s just me / my eyes, but the comparison between sim update 4 and 5 didn’t work for me to 100%. If I look at the buildings from the sim update 5 video, they do not appear as sharp as on the sim update 4 video. Some buildings on the sim update 5 video even look blurry compared to the sim update 4 video.
What do you think? Maybe it’s just because the airplane is no flying on the same altitude which of course does not help in terms of comparisons.
1 Like
Yes basic usability is vital. And yes this performance update addresses this for now.
My point is, usability will be available for only a little while. The sim/world updates are much more of a large extent than your reply seems to give credence. But the main point is, since these are mandatory (not opt in) for years to come, if there are not performance updates often enough (or in conjunction with) to keep up with the mandatory updates, the 20 fps stutter-fest plague remains for a long while.
Add-ons are just another layer on the matter. But the reality at this juncture is, that some of these add-ons are as critical (“mandatory”) as sim/world updates to make MSFS a flight sim, and not just a photography game.
So knowing the commitment of the MSFS development team to making this a realistic flight sim and knowing the determination of the most excellent 3rd parties, one or the other (really both) mandates that we have regular major performance updates. This way the plague can be eradicated.
At the same time, yes, there is a responsibility of end users to adjust settings according to hardware. But with big picture in mind, this should not negate developer responsibilities.
A relevant question would be, since this kind of performance is possible, why was it not possible prior to Xbox? I mean like 2 (during alpha) or 4 (early development) years ago. Its not like there is something new (W11 or DX13 or some new platform) in the mix; just performance updates, at a curious (exact same Xbox) time.
Always behind the (performance) curve, and never a good enough reason.
1 Like
Now you are just being negative. Software development and optimisation is a hard problem.
1 Like
So I suppose you’ll just be positive at the continued prospect of 20 fps and stutters.
This July 27 performance update is not so hard, that it could be done specifically in time for E3 and Xbox.
Being “negative” is a good thing as it aids in “positive” results, in case you did not know. Think of batteries; you get nothing if there is not a negative for the positive to function. Think of traffic laws; without death and destruction there would be no positive laws to prevent common death often - there would not be enough land for the allotment of cemeteries.
The same concept is true here in this forum.
This recent campaign against negativity is foolish in the extreme.
Excuses of how difficult something is, is foolish in the extreme.
1 Like
It’s not negativity, we are against. It’s toxicity. There’s a difference.
Wrong. Being critical and expecting high quality is aiding in positive results. Stating that something is stupid or ridiculous or foolish doesn’t help anyone. Again: There’s a difference.
12 Likes