What's the deal with FPS?

I have been an X-plane user for years so am fully aware of the FPS fetish. Now I see it nosing into the MSFS community. My question: Who needs more than 35 fps? I have an RTX 2070 and consistently get anywhere from 35 - 45 fps. Why would I upgrade my graphics card to get anything higher? What difference would I perceive? Would I see a significant difference, or even a detectable one, in my graphics quality? Or would it only be for bragging rights? :smirk:


I have the 2080 super and i also get 35-45FPS on highest settings on 2k.
As far as im aware going higher right now doesnt net you as much FPS as you would think.
This might change in the future however.

1 Like

Idk why people say they dont need more than 30fps for a flight sim game. Its all the same no matter the game. 60 FPS is going to look WAY better and smoother. When you look around 60 or 80 FPS is obviously going to be way less stuttery than 30FPS. 30 FPS just isnt enough, 60 is the ideal for me. And I have that already on max settings (render scaling 100 ofc)


This is one of my biggest eye roll complaints when I read “the gamers” who clearly have never used a flight sim since they were children and are now into it because it was marketed to gamers… and now all we hear are FPS, FPS, FPS… sadly Asobo budges and now the visual quality has taken a big hit. I’ve read countless posts with people who have high end machines, like myself, and are getting sub par quality on 4k or 1440p. Who cares about the FPS.


Fps and graphical quality are tradeoffs. While graphical quality will give you a sim that looks better, higher fps will make the sim more playable.

If you can’t see the difference between 30 fps and 60, it probably means you don’t play that many games.

If pretty pictures are your main concern, certainly a high framerate might seem superfluous.

1 Like

One thing that really makes a difference in what fps you “need” in my experience is head tracking devices. Another thing is flying VFR and looking around a lot vs. flying IFR and mainly looking straight ahead.

Flying an airliner, IFR, mainly looking out the front window and slowly panning the view with a hat switch I could live with 20 fps or even a shade below; even 30 was not really necessary. With TrackIR 30 feels like an absolute minimum and 60 would certainly be better.

Fast screen changes is what drives the need for high fps in my view. Same as how in a regular 24 fps movie it looks ok in a fixed view scene but you can easily see the choppiness as soon as the camera pans.

I have also been using flight sims for a while but personally I prefer the sim to be running 45+ using track ir.Much smoother 45+ for smoother head movement.If I am not using track ir I am fine with 30fps.

I just use FPS only as a graphics tuning tool. Once I have a handle on what setting impacts what visual, and get my MSFS working for my usual aircraft/scenery scenarios, FPS is ignored. FPS only gets attention again if I am trouble shooting a patch issue.

As a general rule I have found aiming for 25-30FPS on my system in the most demanding scenery/aircraft combination gives great performance everywhere. Using this simple rule allows me to ignore FPS once my graphics settings have been optimised. So FPS are only used as a guide for minimum acceptable performance.


Are you bothered by the screen tearing with Vsync switched off? I never even saw it before I started using TrackIR, but felt it became quite visible and really distracting. Therefore I leave Vsync on, and since I have no hope of getting 60 fps with even remotely acceptable visuals on my system I am stuck at 30 fps. But maybe there is something I don’t know about that would help with the tearing.

Look, nobody is expecting silly first person shooter frame rates like 114+ fps, but if we could get 60fps at a base that would be very nice. I also have a 2070 and while the center of the image is smooth of you look at the bottom of the image where things are larger and moving out of view you can clearly see choppiness. It breaks the immersion. If it were nice and smooth it would look much more lifelike. I’ve been waiting to grab an RTX 3080 when stupid nVidia can actually deliver (what an embarrassement of a launch!) but I’m starting to think Direct X 12 might just bring the extra frames to really not need to keep hunting for a 3080.


I have never noticed it since using this sim since the sim doesn’t hit 60fps anyway on my setup.I run with vysnc off all the time.Tearing is present for me once if I hit 60+fps and that’s only noticeable mainly in DCS

1 Like

The reason you want a higher AVERAGE FPS is so when it dips you don’t get a massive stutter. If you run at 30 - 40 FPS, when you hit an area that is a little more demanding or you move around to cause it to dip to 15-20 FPS, you will perceive the stutter more so than if the FPS average is higher, say around 60 with minimums around 40 FPS. That’s why if you ever look at game benchmark videos they report the minimums of 1% for those time when the FPS drops.

for me, I have a 2080 ti I do not exceed 35 to 40 fps when I am at altitude.
My config is an AMD 3950X, 32 G ram, finally a last generation pc and I am with an fps of ME ** DE.
My fps drops at times to 3fps and often when I am in the final landing phase a real challenge to have a good flight with MSFS.

For me, the more FPSs I have, the more complex addons I can Install. That simple. It is like the money in your credit card, the more you have, the more you can spend. In Flight sim games, this is important because usually, the most valuable addons are CPU intensive, an ATC for example, Weather, AI planes, etc. By default all those items come in a vanilla state, a sort of placeholders just to say “X” game has ATC for example, but in reallity it does not. MSFS came with 20 planes or so, we all know they are toys compared to a real payware plane from reknown companies. Wait for a PMDG for example, that plane by itself will consume like 10,15 or 20 FPSs out of your system, you now have 45, then you install a PMDG and you will have 35, I am guessing the numbers just as an example, based on what I saw in other games.
That said, 35,45 FPS are pretty good, in the future you might get a lot more than that.

1 Like

I only have a few delivered, no addons, because everything is still in the beta phase with each update, everything has to be questioned so I haven’t installed anything so as not to rage again.
but go down to 3 Fps understand that this is annoying …

Have you ever wondered why we get to see those, well…crafted “around the world”-videos at a frame rate no system (at the moment) is able to deliver instead of the choppy 20-30 most of us is getting (at higher settings, i must add)? Because frames DO matter.
but 35 would be fine with me, as long as they were consistant.

However, i think we really are now at a point were visual fidelity an fluidity are going to “converge” in the near future. At least judging by those few rtx3090/i9 10900k videos slowly popping up.

Then again: how often have i been at this point in the past :laughing: