There is one remedy for same old story/reality/cycle/plague 20fps rates - upgrade your hardware. I am consistently amazed at how smart people keep expecting near-photorealism on a consumer computer.
Or perhaps I misunderstood your comment. Yes, it is a race. They add performance and then add sim details that consume the performance increase. At least they give us switches to turn some of that stuff off. 
Exactly. The objective is to add stuff, which of course will lower the performance, but the expectation is that players will upgrade their PC when new hardware comes out. Jorg stated many times that they will be increasing the quality to stay current with the latest hardware. The players who do not wish to upgrade their hardware have always the option to turn some details off (sliders). I think as long as the latest hardware can pull 30-45fps in ULTRA, that will be the threshold.
Nobody should expect ULTRA level on a mid-range hardware like in most videogames. Simulators also take advantage of the latest stuff and give the option to turn some of it off if performance is low. The problem is when performance is low even on the latest hardware (current MSFS situation).
I understand the “spirit” of what you mean, but I never use the word foolish for anything but for good intent. To give an example:
If its true it surely does help. Telling a new student pilot it would be stupid, foolish, and could be deadly to skip a preflight checklist even on a brand new plane, would help them remember and emphasize to never skip a preflight on any plane. No harm, and excellent advice.
However, stating:
Helps who or what? A trending phenomena that contributes to toxicity, and is dismissive, off topic, uncalled for, judgmental, condescending, attacking of character, that only serves to derail topics to get them closed, or used as an attempt to get peoples posts blocked or get them banned from forums.
If this kind of statement was rare and stated after an attempt to understand with some dialog then that would be another matter entirely, but this is most certainly not the case here.
For the sake of peace I would like to get back to the topic of performance which should not be derailed.
We still have the plague of poor performance long term with maybe 1 (possibly 2 but never ever 3 in flight sim history) major (worthwhile/community wide reaching) performance fix per year. Leaving this forum filled with the same old low FPS and stutter complaints. This could possibly be a preventable major disaster for MSFS Xbox in the future.
My first post on the matter was explicit, easy to understand, and posted to shed some reality on the big picture that has been the reality for many decades. MSFS is built from FSX and FSX from FS9 and so on. The same old behind the performance curve issue is there to be solved. This will not be solved by being satisfied with 1 major performance update every couple years.
All I can hope is that decision makers will understand and develop a way to keep up the performance curve. Perhaps quarterly major performance updates would suffice. Not just when there is a major outcry in the forums, its way too late by then.
I’m in no way am saying its easy, but neither is cramming MSFS into Xbox One (!!!).
If one thinks about it, since the old Xbox One is in the future plans, there will essentially be zero excuse for current top of the line PC’s to not get 120FPS w/ max settings in NY or London. If not, them Xbox Ones set to the lowest settings may still only get 5 FPS in Antarctica…a total waste of time and effort.
For the record my specs:
ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO
INTEL CORE i9 10850K
NVIDIA RTX 3090
DEEPCOOL CASTLE 240EX
DDR4 3600MHZ 128GB
1200W PLATINUM POWER SUPPLY
970 EVO PLUS 2TB NVME
2nd M.2 Solid State 2TB
IRONWOLF PRO 8TB - 7200RPM
OCULUS RIFT
240mbps NO CAP INTERNET
The “race” as you refer to it is what I’m talking about. End users are always, for a majority of the time, way behind in the race even with top end hardware, and yes I know all about the factors involved (I have been doing flight simming/top end hardware for over 30 years).
Now when you say “at least” above, how about we examine that. For example lets say; ‘“at most” they’…, well we get the 1 update (“at most”) on July 27, and then a few weeks later its back to at “least” again, and behind the performance curve we go for a year or more.
I’m hoping that there can be a plan put in place to get us to “at most” more often instead of “at least” most of the time.
I also hope I’m making sense.
I hope they will not improve performance like they did it for LFPG last update.
the texture appears only when you are a few meters from it… very ugly 
As I said originally, I don’t have much problem with visuals. I’m disappointed with all of the math errors like roads/cars on the side of mountains, coastline creep, coastlines underwater, morphing elevations, visible seams, etcetera, but for the most part I think the visuals are good for $60.
Also, my experience, after all this time since purchase, is better frame rates and scenery. No lagging behind the curve. Perhaps I have a lucky combination of hardware? Or is it something else?
You forgot to consider a few things, IMHO.
First of all, hardware can be updated and is updated. Hardware is not static over the years, it will grow along with software, try to keep up with software. When the settings ranges are decided, Asobo/MS take the current “spectrum” of GPU’s and CPU’s and RAM amounts into consideration. It does not require any additional software development to improve Ultra quality, or get the FpS up for lower levels.
My two cents about the compromises needed: I love making screenshots. For screenshots, I need a working Ultra mode. If that means 10FpS for me, I take that for granted. I think Ultra mode should have a separate status, it should not be scaled down along with other settings. Ultra mode must be optimal performance, not optimal FpS, but optimal quality. I hope the Asobo/MS people will separate out Ultra, accept it will not be flyable for everyone (e.g. XBox), the Ultra mode needs not to be flyable, to be usefull. For flight, set medium or high.
When the Nordic update came, they scaled down Ultra down along with the other levels. That turned out to be an awful decision. I hope for MSFS E3 release, Asobo/MS will not primarily look at FpS performance. I prefer graphics quality over framerate, especially for the Ultra mode.
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/tune-the-ultra-levels-to-perform-for-pcs/412000
Might be time to buy MSFS as I have been using my sons setup.
Hopefully I’ll now be able to fly over London without it turning into a complete slide show 
what is the rig of an ordinary NASA PC ?
This is all known, and is the end users responsibility. This topic is about performance updates by the developers. I did not forget, but you are correct, hardware does play a part in performance.
I agree.
I agree, for $60-$120, the permission to run this software is satisfying for now. I was on the alpha test team and I’m still learning the ins and outs of the planes, the planner, etc… My concern is how satisfying will it be flying into a KJFK add-on, with a PMDG 747-8, from a EHAM add-on, along with realistic AI traffic & weather, etc., say next year and beyond. At this rate it will not be satisfying at all performance wise. I’m saying the goal should be for it to become satisfying.
These add-ons (which this community thrives on) are going to get more and more complex, and the lowering of sliders and the limits of what add-ons one can use in conjunction with other add-ons is actually a plague. I call it a plague because the forums get filled to the brim.
But looking at a broader picture, I remember FS4 being well worth the price too. So, it is absolutely ok to expect more, and rid ourselves of past plagues, as time passes, hence my position.
He’s lucky, the frames on mine arrive by post 
I hope the rewritten coding as they told will improve the weird performance on ground, not only the overall FPS count.
I have an 3900x and rtx 3080 and during taxi it’s like a slide show since the last update.
We don’t differ opinion about that 
but you don’t have trust the hardware will be able to keep up, you stated this… which sounds completely hopeless…
Looking at your VERY nice config (i9/3090/128GB) it seems you were not satisfied before the previous update ? You expect more FpS on Juli 27 ? What is the FpS do you get now, eg. 400Ft above Tower Bridge London, on Ultra in a C152 ?
Thing is… more than 30 is not really needed when you fly an aircraft on a screen. MSFS is not a shooter.
I have no audience with anybody at Intel or Nvidia. They would not listen to me anyway. But they would listen to the MSFS team.
From my position it is hopeless. Just look at the hardware situation, even mid-range older systems remain expensive and it remains a guess if anything will even be purchasable. For the first time in history I had to settle for my specs because of months long backorders. I would have much more HD space and a faster processor if they weren’t backordered, and if I did not buy when I did, the 3090 likely would have been backordered for months. Compared to say 10 years ago, when I could get anything I wanted whenever I wanted, this situation is hopeless.
But even with no backorders in the past, when the hardware caught up in the past, the next version of the flight sim would squash the performance back down. This is the way it has been for 30+ years. It would be nice that for once in history we could reasonably keep up with the performance improvements. I believe it may be vital to the survival of the Xbox version.
I’m very happy with my performance presently. Yes there are the stutters in the LA area, maybe other areas too. But I have not done any round the world trips or airline hauls. I’m doing up to 5 hour flights between small to medium sized airports in primarily Textron Aircraft, with ultra settings locked at 30 but even satisfied with 20 FPS (I’m a very long time flight simmer 
), live MP, traffic, and weather.
My posts here refer to the future (after Jul 27), when PMDG jet airliners, real weather is much better, AI traffic fills the tarmac/skies etc… This is why I’m saying there is a need for more of these major performance updates to be in the schedule, not just once every couple years.
Here’s hoping that most of backlogging is a result of COVID and will be ironed out. Since GFX cards are no longer needed for bitcoining, these things should level out and become competitive again eventually. If not, the whole thing is a scam to ensnare rich kids and the industry will lose most of their audience.
I think July 27th will tell us a lot about the future.
I would love to upgrade my hardware, but refuse to pay $2000 for a RTX3080. First world problem, I know…LOL.
I would wait till after the July27 fixes and DX12 to upgrade as such powerful cards might well turn out to be overkill.
The video is very encouraging, it shows 60fps in 40%-4K over Manhattan, the PC used is a i7/9700 - RTX2060 super (which happens to be exactly my config too). So I would wait a few weeks if I were you.
I really hope that the performance upgrade addresses stability. It needs to be FAR less temperamental to driver updates, mods, add-ons or any changes that cause endless CTDs