Simple question: What is the reason people cannot crank all settings to ultra and have a smooth performance? Computers not up to the task yet? Is the MSFS2020 program more advanced than any known computer manufactured so far? Maybe a stupid question, but just asking as an end-user. Why cant I crank this up and get a solid 60fp over cities in bad weather? And I am talking VR.
1 Like
yep, pretty much. It’s a next gen sim, so current systems have problems with the ultra performance.
Nice thing is, in 5 years the sim won’t look 5 years old.
4 Likes
I’ve noticed a major degradation in performance since Sunday. It is not the update, at least I don’t think, but I can barely get 5-10 FPS on ultra and I’ve been on 4K HDR ultra since the beginning.
It is driving me bonkers.
2 Likes
I can get around 50 FPS at 4K maxed out, I imagine DX12 will help a lot too
Got worse after update
1 Like
Wrong with the game is, that the current PC generation can handle Ultra.
Normaly a new game have to be designed, that only the next-Generation ( or next-next- ) can handle Ultra Settings… It should be a “new next-gen” game , and not a “new old-gen” game.
Its a good thing the eye only sees about 28-30 fps. Want to be able to turn up the settings? Set refresh rate at 30 Hz. Set Vsynch and limit to 30. Now instead of processing wasted frames, the gpu/cpu can put power to eye candy. Think X=Z whatever you do to make X better there is a corresponding negative impact to keep the equation balanced. In other words you can’t get something for nothing. This constant chase of FPS beyond 30 is a waste of time. Get the most eye candy at 30 fps. Period.
2 Likes
Respectfully, it’s all in the perception of the user.
I can tell when I’m dropping frames if the cap is 30 and I’m down in the 20s on final approach, with the threshold growing in my windshield and the trees are skimming past, getting bigger, forming a visual corridor.
If I start at 57 and then drop to 45 on the approach, it’s all silky smooth and FLUID. I cannot stand dropped frames, and having the beginnings of a slideshow at critical flight phases (takeoff and under 500 AGL and landing are just two examples), absolutely kills immersion for me.
I’ll settle for a lower-fidelity scenery (nice houses, but really I’m paying attention to lineup, descent rate) if that buys me a fluid flying experience. I’m a low-end rig owner anyway, these discussions of 2K and 4K are the sim equivalent of the 1 Percenter Problems. Amusing, but not my world.
1 Like
Actually the lower end rig are a thing of the past. Time to refresh. We don’t need any more visual degradation.
This. Totally this.
Nothing wrong. On my 6 year old trashcan of a PC I can run it at Ultra at 4k res and maintain 30 fps anywhere in any aircraft or scenery, be it default or third party. A constant 30 fps is more than good enough for a civilian flight sim.
2 Likes
That statement is incorrect. The eyes does not work in fps. The issue is processing speed of the brain.
We just perceive movies as fluid around 30 fps, the same is not true however for purely digital input like video games.
If we were unable to see above 30 Hz, we would have a lot of problems.
4 Likes
I don’t reach 60 fps, but between sometimes come close to 50, which is fine. As a long time simmer I am happy with everything over 20. ^^
2 Likes
Wrong.
It’s not a next gen sim
It doesn’t use next gen software, ie DX12. It’s stuck waaay back in the past on DX11, hence poorish performance until they polish it further.
2 Likes
ow get off it. Being next gen doesn’t pivot around having DX12.
This summer we’ll have DX12, and a RTX3090 still won’t be able to run it at 120 FPS. Will you then call it next gen? Or will you have found something else to complain about by then?
6 Likes
Way back in the past would be DX1…
2 Likes
I guess my degree in optometry is useless then. Movies are projected at 24fps for the most part. As a human if you see 30 fps SMOOTH and 120 FPS SMOOTH you will not perceive a difference. Sure there may be a corner case here and there. Kind of like someone born with 12 fingers being a piano virtuoso. However, if you get 30 smooth with eye candy, that is all your brain will care about. Above 30 fps, as long as the sim is smooth, is wasted processing.
1 Like
not really. It all depends on the amount of movement.
If you’re flying slow, and pretty high up in the sky, then 30 fps will be good enough to be perceived as smooth (which is why 30 FPS suits most people fine in a sim like this).
If you’re doing mach 2 down a narrow canyon (or playing a fast paced competitive shooter), even 60 FPS might not be fast enough to be perceived as smooth.
To test this, take your 30 FPS sim, and rotate the view around in the cockpit as fast as you can. You’ll notice it not being smooth for sure.
The myth that 30 fps is good enough for everything because cinematography has been stuck there for ages is just that. A (incorrect) myth.
1 Like
Of course, if what you care about is showing a friend you have more frames than him/her, well that is another discussion. This is like the old landing rate competitions in virtual airlines. “I landed at -123fpm! I am a good pilot!” Well that depends, did you land in within the touchdown zone or more than likely float past it, endangering your virtual passengers? A good landing is always center line, in the touchdown zone and allows the aircraft to come to a smooth turnoff. A good frame rate is one that allows the game to be smooth with all the eye candy the particular user wants, thereby allowing the sim or game to be enjoyed by the user. Anything more is wasted processing power.