Today I ran some VR comparison between FS2024 and FS2020, using DLSS Ultra, DLSS Hi-End, TAA. To be crystal clear, this is not a “best setting” video, it’s just a direct comparison between the two simulators.
Details: 13900KF, 4090, 64GB, HAGS on, Game Mode on. For DLSS, Frame Generation and Low Latency on. TAA, rendering at 100%.
For Ultra, all graphics settings are maxed out. Terrain and object detail: 200.
For Hi-End, I use the simulator preset.
My headset is a Pico 4 and it’s set to a resolution of 4468x4468 pixels per eye (19,963,024 total “pixels”, versus 8,294,400 pixels for a 4K screen).
The footage is shot in the headset, so the images are exactly what you see in VR.
Notes
DLSS Ultra
Here we see an (unexpected) clear advantage for FS2020, in terms of FPS. FS2024 remains fluid and perfectly usable, but the difference is really marked.
DLSS Hi-End
Minimal advantage for FS2020, compared to FS2024. Strangely, with this preset the difference is almost zero. Evidently some options have a big impact, moving from Hi-End to Ultra.
TAA Ultra
Not usable, slight advantage for FS2020 in terms of FPS. Too heavy to fly, nothing more to say.
I do not understand why the DLLS Ultra is so different, in terms of FPS, between 2024 and 2020. Probably I’ll have to look at the individual options. Sure, it remains flyable (given that flying with everything on Ultra doesn’t even make much sense), but… that’s for a 4090.
Memory considerations: on FS2024 the peak values are Ultra 41.57 GB, Hi-End 32.65 GB, TAA 39.61 GB; on FS 2024 the peak values are Ultra 27.03 GB, Hi-End 33.00 GB, TAA 33.20 GB. It’s clear how, with FS2024, VR consistently exceeds the 32 GB RAM threshold - for systems with this limit, resorting to virtual memory is inevitable.