Sorry, didn’t see this reply to my post earlier… here’s what I have set up currently…
I have vSync off.
Render Scaling, Objects Level of Detail is 100
Terrain Level of Detail is 200. I could drop to 150, but I will not go below that because there is a very noticeable visual difference that I am not willing to give up. I have to go way below 50 just to see a difference in fps anyway, which is very small, like 2~3 fps. There’s no fps difference between 100 and 200.
Ambient Occlusion is “High”
Windshield Effects is “High”
Terrain Vector Data is “High”
Trees and Buildings are on “Ultra”, because I do see a visual quality improvement (especially the trees), and there is no fps difference between “High” and “Ultra” in my 50+ hours of testing. Not on my computer anyway.
Okay, but again, I spent close to 4 or 5 solid days testing so many settings with no real success. (Even changing resolution from 1440p to 1080p had no effect on frame rate.) However, I will try these settings just to see if it has an effect on the MFD frequency fix.
I understand. I’ve been spending some time adjusting and comparing and what I’ve found out is that the game is self-balancing some of the settings within the frame budget. This means you could get buildings visible farther away in lowering some of the other settings for example.
I’m preparing a post with the details and a base to start with. On a 9700K@3.6 + 2070S I run 4K with 200 terrain LOD in most areas at ~50FPS. In denser areas (KSFO region for example) I’m around 38 to 44 depending, with no compromise in density or for what matters the most visually.
I had used one of the files, can’t remember which one now. I jumped in the JBM and the one gauge was flickering like crazy, removed the file, reloaded sim and it was back to normal.
So i’m guessing we can’t keep the file there with steam gauge planes?
That’s interesting to me cuz I’m just running at 1440p, which is only half as many pixels to push on the screen as 4K. I have some new PC parts set aside in a wish list on Newegg, including an i9-9900K and I’m wondering if I should just go ahead and pull the trigger. Granted, I know that this sim needs patched from Asobo, so I’m not just trying to throw raw horsepower at it to solve fps issues, but I’m wondering if there’s any point in hesitating. Actually, it’s also in prep for my next VR headset, which will likely be the Reverb G2. (Not just for FS 2020, but for improved VR gaming in general.)
With today’s RTX 3000 announcements I’d wait a little longer before upgrading my CPU, just to make sure the first reviews and tests are not showing any detrimental combination of GPU/CPU if any.
The most striking discovery I’ve made in adjusting settings was how some of these are cannibalizing’s others. It is a clever approach in that the game tries to balance out all you throw at it so that you keep performance within a given frame budget. However the drawback is that it can lower the effectiveness of some of your most important settings and when getting too much at once, reduce your overall FPS.
Mind you, it is just experimental discovery and sometimes in comparing settings it could have been more placebo than scientific but in the end, I’m managing a coherent and effective set of graphics settings which is working good in 4K with no real compromise visually speaking.
I’m also looking forward to the G2… If only Asobo would implement DLSS2 and VRS… This would help a lot I’m sure. But since it is expected to run on XBox as a launch title (most likely given the time frame), and the XBox is AMD… I’m not sure DLSS2 is even something there are considering at all.
If Asobo was building the next version of there open world racing game I would agree with you However they were instead building a cutting edge flight simulator with liitle prior experience and massive expectation in a relatively short space of time so yeah let them fix this when they can!
It really isn’t that bad, but for the MFD’s - London with addon’s in a 747 is flyable and I never had that in FSX in default when it was released.
Remember FSX when that was released, you were lucky to get into double figures . There’s no point mentioning X-Plane 11 as that graphics made me want to throw up until Orbx came along (was never a big fan of flat ORTH4XP textures) and by then systems performance had cought up.
Well, I would imagine nVidia probably had a good assortment of i9’s in test rigs during development, so I’m not too worried about it. Nice to see that those new cards will be available soon, but if I have any reason to hesitate on a new GPU, it would be just to wait for pro and consumer reviews to see if they really yield as much performance as nVidia claims. (Wouldn’t be the first time that real-world benchmarks didn’t add up to the hype.) But, anyway, we’re getting off topic here… lol
Okay, I did some more testing, and I was able to confirm that the FPS fix 15Hz was active because I did see the change in the way the MFD’s were less smooth, especially in the speed and altitude tapes. Unfortunately, even following your suggested graphics settings, there was no change in fps for me. I might have seen an extra 2 fps while sitting idle on the ramp, but once I got up and running, taxiing and taking off, it was still the same old fps I’ve been getting, about 25~30, even dipping down into the high teens and low 20’s as I flew over Baton Rouge
Worse, I suddenly had an issue that I saw someone else reporting… seeing trees in the distance, but then they would completely disappear from view long before actually getting to them. So, in reality, the sim was actually drawing far LESS trees than would normally appear even on the “Low” setting. For a large radius around the plane, maybe 4 miles or more, no trees were being drawn at all, but it didn’t help fps one bit. (Not that I would be okay with no trees being drawn, I’m just saying.)
Or wait a month, and see how this PCIe 3 vs 4 pans out. AMD might be the route to go. I have my doubts, but it would be better to make that decision better informed.
I never really seemed to get the performance i expected when I bought my 2080ti several months back.
I run an 8700k CPU, not sure if the GPU/CPU is a good combo.
Is it worth updating to a 9700k or 9900k ? The highest my current mobo can handle is a socket 1151.
However they were instead building a cutting edge flight simulator with liitle prior experience and massive expectation in a relatively short space of time so yeah let them fix this when they can!
. There’s no point mentioning X-Plane 11 as that graphics made me want to throw up until Orbx came along (was never a big fan of flat ORTH4XP textures) and by then systems performance had cought up.
