I7 9700k overcloxked to 5.2 ghz
Rtx 2080 ti with a slight overclock
32 gb 3200 memory
1 tb samsung nvme drive
Asus z390 maximus hero
I disabled online weather and traffic.
With ultra settings im getting about 24 fps.
With low settings im getting 30 fps
32in 1440 144hz monitor
The only difference I see is the cpu and gpu utilization goes down. Gpu went from 98 percent to 70 percent and cpu did not change much.
I took off putnof jfk in a king air. Flew circles while climbing upto 12000 feet with preset weather set to ran. Of course my fps went up as I got higher and was just clouds and sky.
I did the same flight with all the preset graphic settings and on average was same result. The only difference was less stuttering since the gpu was not maxing out with the lower settings. And of course the sim did not look as good with low settings.
So low settings results in lower utilization on the hardware from ultra but not much difference in fps
This tells me there is something in the programming that is creating low performance even with low graphic presets.
This is my experience. I read articles with people getting better performance with high or medium settings.
in my opinion that there is something in the programing that is causing low performance no matter what hardware a person has. An average of 10 fps from low to ultra settings is not much at all. I would think low settings I would get 50 or 60 fps. I know this sim needs to be better optimized but seems more so than other games from the past.
For flight sim fps is not as important compared to fps games. With dcs im used to 30 fps, but my hardware is not maxed out and I do not get any stuttering. That is using dx11 as well.
I’m only mentioning this for the people who have a setup close to mine or better and maybe getting the same results as me. Hopefully over time with patches it will get better.
It’s well known that the sim is not very well optimized, hopefully that will change with the update to DX12.
I’ve been warning people that they should not be going out and spending thousands to upgrade their computers just for FS2020 thinking it’s going to translate to all this extra performance. Yah it might be little better, but overall, gains are not that good (YET).
I plan on upgrading to the 3080 next year. It was a planned upgrade and not because of msfs. I did make some progress. I max out all the settings but turned down not the texture slider but the other slider to 10 and worked up from there. I increased upto 140 and now I’m getting an average of 50fps but more importantly my gpu utilization went down from 98 to around 88 to 90 percent. Visually I do not notice a downgrade going from 200 to 140 on the slider. Injad to manually do that. When I went to low settings those aliders went down to a 100 with the preset but I did not get any better performance. Im happy where it is at now, and hopefully with more patches it will get better b
I have a similar setup as yours (9900k in my case and no overclock) and I would say that only few settings are relevant for performance, as far as I have seen:
rendering scaling (200% causes the highest impact as it doubles screen resolution)
volumetric clouds (ultra is a killer, and you may even need to stay at high or medium)
terrain shadows (going above 1024 kills performance and performance is worse with cloudy weather)
heavy air traffic concentrated in a small area (e.g: where multiple airports co-exist in a city)
Rest of things you can leave at max. On the other hand try not to run at high screen refresh rates. 144Hz has sense for a FPS game, but on a sim you should try to focus on stability rather than on high FPS, as you don´t need them. You can try to set 60Hz or even 50Hz if your monitor and card support it for your desktop refresh rate. In my case I use 120Hz, so with NVIDIA Vsync game goes to 40fps stable in most of the cases (1/3 of native refresh).
Take into account that with 144Hz your card initial targets are 144, 72 and 48 fps, which are still high, while with 120Hz they are 120, 60 and 40, which are less demanding. This is the complete list of resolutions and the fps targets that your system will try to achieve when NVIDIA v-sync is active (it will start from higher and go to lower in steps if it can´t achieve stable fps):
I only have one cpu showing in order using gafterburner. I should change that to see if any cores are maxed out. I dont want any bottlenecks. Im sure the sim will get better optimization with new patches. Right now I’m trying to find the best visuals without overloading my hardware. I dont mind the lower fps, but I dont want stuttering and I have solved that . Dcs world I have no stuttering. Im comparing this to dcs world because its the only other sim I regularly use and that is not optimized that great either. I get around 30 fps with max settings and that uses dx11 as well. Vr is great with dcs. Looking forward to vr in msfs.
Can I set the refresh rate in nvidia control panel for just msfs? Is that one of the options or is it just global? I dont want to jave to keep changing refresh rates for msfs and then change it again if I play call of duty or doom.
Devs explained the usage of cores some time ago. Basically there´s a leader core with assigns tasks to others, then a core dedicated to render tasks, another to other things and so on. I can´t remember the details now, sorry.
At this point game just renders at your desktop resolution. You can´t change refresh rate in settings. So, simply go to NVIDIA panel and set the screen resolution+refresh rate there.
I would suggest that, as in the case of all sims, you don´t push your system beyond its limits. Find your system limits and try to live with that. Basically there´s no magic solution. If traffic is the killer for your system lower it. If it is graphical details, reduce them and so on.
Workload for the PC is huge indeed (RAM, CPU and card). We have to understand what a normal scene on the sim means in terms of computing. It´s not comparable to any other previous sim, nor with DCS. They are two different worlds.
I don´t use any overclock at all since years ago. I found more problems than benefits with it. I would start by restoring your system to its default status and let it do the job it was designed for, in plain words. Then try 120Hz or lower rates. You should see your card workload released and the overall system should work more fluent as you go to lower refresh rates as the required render targets (fps targets) will be also lower.
This seems to be the root problem for a lot of the performance (and crashing) related issues that get posted in this forum. If there was indeed reduction in quality at code level in the updates we got, I particularly blame this set of people.
These are people who have a low to low-mid tier graphics card / system and crank up the settings to ULTRA on their 4K TVs or three 1440p/4k mix of monitors and blame FS2020 when it runs like crap or crashes. The constant barrage of these type of posts is annoying and paints an unfair picture of FS2020 and was likely the cause for Asobo to tone graphics back a bit to support these systems better, that’s my belief.
People need to lower their expectations down to what their hardware is capable of delivering. I’ve already told countless number of people they are simply expecting too much out of what they have.
Yeap. I totally agree. We need to balance things and not blame developers systematically for everything. There are errors, sure, but I also saw many posts were users were clearly the major source of the errors.
I think we all put expectations on this. Time will relax things when people see were the limits are. This also includes where the expectations limits have to be placed. Now it’s time to wait, be constructive and report so that devs can do their work.
I dont want ro push my system to the limits. I like to leave some headroom for the hardware. I think I found a good spot. Only losing a little visual quality but have no stuttering and the hardware is not maxed out. I still need to play with the refresh rates.
I had the sim working fine and looking lovely from when i purchased my brand new custom built PC back in September 21. Its only been since SU8 and more importantly, SU9 that im having major problems with performance. If i had it running for months on end and now I cant, it suggests updates caused the degradation.
I have a zillion screenshots of it looking beautiful on my travels.