The solution is getting a 5090 to achieve same resolution as msfs2020?
With my Pimax Crystal Light I play at 4248x4*** in DLSS DLAA and I don’t get any single “flash” from directx12 rendering triangles wrong.
I have nearly the same system specs (7800X3D; RTX 4090; 32 GB RAM).
FS2020 i can run in VR in good resolution, but FS2024 (on lower settings!) gives me 40% less FPS and stutters (on a Q3). I found that when you do a low altitude flight over tree tops FPS are especially bad, even in unspectacular remote areas with no airports or traffic near by. Not understandable why this happens.
Also, playing with the video graphics settings does not have the same amount of optimization potential as it is the case with FS2020.
2024 VR performance, at least for high res HMDs, is terrible. That’s an unfortunate fact. Unless they do some optimizing, 5090 really is the only solution, if that.
(Assuming you don’t want a sim that looks and runs substantially worse than 2020, which I don’t. I’ve gone back to 2020 for now.)
$2000 + dollars just to get a few more frames in flight simulator? With the cost of a new PC and a 4080 running 3 to 4K, now your talking a 5-6K gaming pc For that you could go in on owning a real one
same … sold the plane when vr and 2020 came out, long story too but flight sim advanced to the point it is no longer worth the time, effort, risk, and cost to fly for real Well $2000 for a gpu for the game hurts but funny how quick $2000 would go in to the real airplane either for maintenance or running costs… Not sure why buy hurts more to think about spending that on a gpu !
In both of his shots, he is limited by GPU. I think VR just puts a lot of demand on the Hardware. This Sim runs really poor, in comparison to MSFS.
I also get only about half the performance compared to MSFS (non-VR 9800X3D/4070Ti OC), and the textures are blurry… so basically i have a worse looking sim, which performs worse, unless i go hiking with my Avatar on ground, but thats not the reason i spent 140 bucks for a FLIGHT Simulator.
Visuals in actual flight got downgraded, but it looks stunning on the ground, but the performance-impact of that is not worth it at all.
Save yourselfs the pain and use MSFS. Thats what i do…
The degraded textures and overall loss of sharpness is currently a real downer in VR, even with my Pimax Crystal running at native resolution and when using TAA mode and a 5800x3D and 4090. I agree that currently FS 2020 looks far sharper.
However, even on a 43" 4K monitor running all Ultra and TLOD of 400, the textures also look bleh to me, so it’s not just VR. There’s heaps of comments about crummy 2D texture on this thread, for example:
Consensus is that its down to deliberate server settings atm not distributing full resolution, not just the game engine (some people who got on early on day one report far better sharpness before it all turned to poo). Hopefully that will improve over time.
As for performance in VR, that really is a mystery. Flying low there are some new settings that can tank performance, especially trees now, and also displacement mapping (which gives depth to hollows, bumps and plough lines on the ground when you get close) but climb high enough and it should not be rendered. Yet still we have a 40-50% loss in FPS, even on 4090s. There are DEFINITELY serious coding errors in VR that is not reflected in 2D performance, either in the sim or, just maybe, GPU drivers.
Absolutely agree. Its no pleasure at the moment to use FS24, i really try to like it, but i just cant right now…
The 50% performance loss, with worse visuals (besides on the ground at airports) is a big downer for me.
Im not on VR, and on decent Hardware (4070Ti OC / 9800X3D / 64GB DDR5 Ram), and even on medium settings FS24 looks and performs worse than MSFS.
That with traffic, animals, Raytraced shadows, displacement mapping and all that stuff disabled…
What fixed that for me was doubling the RAM from 32GB to 64GB - though why is a mystery. Everything running all at once (i.e. with extra apps in the background) doesn’t even use up anywhere near the 32GB so why doubling it sorted things is hocus-pocus mystery magic!
Reducing the sim settings to medium fixed blobby terrain (not so much to download, I guess).
7800X3D, 4080, 64GB DDR5 6000, P3 NvMe & PCL
That could be internet related - was for me at higher settings
So that is a good hint. It would mean that 32 GB RAM is not enough for FS2024. Also, in the performance overlay it is shown that all of my 32 GB are used.
I will wait until new year and see if others also experience reduced performance (or possibly a patch will improve the situation) with 32 GB before upgrading to 64GB.
Then I start adding it up:
-Finish getting PPL ~12k
-Rent a 172 at a rate around $175/hr with fuel
-Insurance
-Or buy a plane which is going to be at least 40k for a okayish experimental, plus insurance, hanging fee, fuel, inspections…
That’s interesting, I’ve noticed when most people show their overlay in developer mode that the max memory used is right around 30GB. I’ve been thinking 64GB is probably going to be beneficial more than ever with 2024.
I also think MSFS2024 servers limited the max resolution that textures can be streamed, based on the player PC’s hardware configuration (detected) and connection bandwidth (measured). Because this limitation is so arbitrary and greatly downgrades image quality, it makes MS2024 VR unplayable for many who has no problem enjoy VR in MS2020.
If so, then it will be very hard for MS/Asobo to improve VR in MSFS2024 for those without top PC hardware or broadband connection. Streaming most things from remote servers is NOT a good design in first place and it will likely doom MSFS2024 until it provides a texture download solution same as in MSFS2020.
For that you could go in on owning a real one 
