Ok.. Two days ago the machine was not the problem. That better reflects the situation after SU9.
Cheers
2 Likes
âTwo days ago, my computer was fast enough for Microsoft Flight Simulator.â
5 Likes
Hahaha. Exactly 
1 Like
Two days ago, my computer was fast enough for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Two months ago it was. Today it still is. I712700K, 1080 ti. The title of this post should, like many others, have the words âon my systemâ added to it. Not trying to be smarmy here, but to highlight the difficulties developers have in configuring a product which will be used on such a wide variety of systems with differential internet connection values.
3 Likes
Unless they have different hardware AND real coding experience.
itâs a combination of machine specs and coding. Obviously code needs to be optimized the best it can be, but ultimitely, weâre asking more and more from the sim in terms of graphics etc, the system needs to be up to spec too!!, you want performance, invest in the hardware!. Microsoft / Asobo are making great progress, new features, bug fixing, and admittedly some breaks of things that did work, but in general things are moving in the right direction. Bottom line though, if you want the performance of new features, improved visuals etc then you need to invest in new hardware that is capable
Clear, concise and thoughtful contribution. Being 100 percent correct also adds value. Well done.
It canât be much better than this and wonât be untill the DX12 version of the sim is not properly finalized. Once done, the issues such as LOD of the PG can perfectly be optimized with mesh shaders, actually a lot more elements..then thereâs the Sampler Feedback that amazing DX12 feature incredibly innovative especially for complex anisotropic shader when sampling mips of textures of varying object LODs in scenes such as the ones in our simulatorâŠand the list goes on.
Had the awareness of at least some of those powerful features of DX12 and what they mean for our sim been widespread within our community (which is of course just a hypothesis cuz itâs too crazy) - the MSFS community wish list would have DirectX 12 at the first place since the beginning - with probably an insane number of some 5000 votes or something like that.
Sorry but I disagree with this popular mood of supporting the poor developers which are doing their best and so on. The only source of bugs in a piece of SW is the quality of the work. We are suffereing a chain of mistakes with severe impact on performance and playability since months ago. This happens also in Xbox, which is supposed to be a standard platform less heterogeneous than PC. We had a CTD plague during several updates, then the low fps issues, then they solved the fps and generated another CTD plague, then we are back with a low fps release and the party goes on. Every month you have to pray to have at least a playable game. I donât see we are in the right way when they fix one thing and break three.
Cheers
5 Likes
From reading some of the treads on this issue I carefully think the following.
What I notice are a lot of people going from 50+ fps to 40 or 35 fps and they say itâs a performance loss. Technically thatâs imaginable.
However. I think developers are trying to stabilize the memory usage by preventing the sim from pumping out (rather useless) frames all the time. It puts the CPU on steroids for hardly any improvement. Flight Simulators really arenât the domain for frame-chasers, to put it very bluntly.
I use my 165 hrtz monitor with Gsync enabled, Vsync 20, and I have a completely stutter free environment with very sexy screen quality running some settings ultra and the rest high. I do differentiate LOD settings between GA and 39K flights and thatâs not great adjusting all the time but a small thing to exchange for a great flying experience. Now much to many surprise I have an i5-10400F and the fairly experimental Nvidia 2060 which was the first one doing full raymarch reflections. I only have 16 GB memory but compliment it with a pretty big page file to tank extra. Thatâs not exactly the greatest 6000 dollar setup, yet the sim runs beautiful on it so hardware isnât the only answer.
Again, my sim runs on mostly high and some ultra settings and I never experience difficulty with payware scenery. The only thing that I experience recently is the FlyByWire-addon being bad on memory and I see many people taking comparisons using that particular aircraft. Maybe they just need some more time catching up with SU9 and close down memory leaks, I donât know, Iâm not that tech-savvy but letâs say from now on we only compare the default C172 for comparison to keep it fair. As Asobo does their part and add-on developers have to do theirs. Thatâs unfortunate, obviously, but with the sim being a moving target thatâs the only way it is for now.
1 Like
well said dude. unfortunately this will never reach devs radar⊠so disappointed as well
2 Likes
SU 9 made my system worse, I was very happy with SU 8 and DX12 but SU 9 has put more load on my CPU and less on my GPU so I am going to need to downgrade to DX11 and retune,
1 Like