Why would they only go with 16gb of system ram on their PC in the article? Its 2020 32gb or nothing.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Microsoft Flight Simulator is the new “Crysis”, current-gen CPUs unable to offer 60fps on High/Ultra
- Thread starter Poetic Injustice
- Start date
Running it at ultra turning AF down and super sampling off can get around 30fps on my 2080 super was in disbelief but definitely can see this being a benchmark for the next few card gens.
Easily 2500 as of right now a 3950x /2080 TI/32gb ram will net 42-45 fps i have a 3600/2080S/16gb and i get 28-30 with dips to mid 20s
I really wonder how this game will pan out on console next year, both in terms of controls (because holy shit I don't think my keyboard has enough buttons to map everything) and in terms of graphics/performance.
I understand that they tried with an Intel solution, but what if we add more cores with Ryzen R9 39------
Oh :(
Oh :(
Heh... I was jokingly asking how many 4080Ti Supers I would need to run this at max settings before release!
Do you really think this is the case here though? I suppose it's possible, but we know DX12 usually performs better with mroe cores, thanks to better multi-threading support on GPU workloads processing, right?
While i have 16gb of ram and 1070 nvidia card, it runs like hell, even on the lowest settings.
While lets say tombraider shadows runs fine.
Can it be that this game needs to be installed on a fast hard drive (ssd or hdd but fast)?
It stutters like crazy, some moments it works fine, but a lot of the time it isnt. Already have the latest nvidea drivers.
While lets say tombraider shadows runs fine.
Can it be that this game needs to be installed on a fast hard drive (ssd or hdd but fast)?
It stutters like crazy, some moments it works fine, but a lot of the time it isnt. Already have the latest nvidea drivers.
I'm honestly dying to know how all that will run on the top of the line 30xx series.
Really looking forward to the benchmarks.
Dear god. This is exactly why i missed on world of warcraft. Building a PC is just so intimidating.
I mean, Crysis itself was notoriously unoptimized. On the CPU front no less.
Please note that big boy flight simulators are typically incredibly hardware intensive and very few hardcore sim players expect framerates on par with regular games. There's a LOT going on under the hood of a flight sim.
Compared to other major flight sims, FS2020's framerates are fine for something that looks so great. It's not the kind of genre that needs blazing framerates, although it would be nice to have.
It's CPU bound, I don't think the new cards will make a difference for now.
I mean you can get a pc for 800-1200 thats serviceable that will play next gen games at similar specs. Of course that will change here in a couple months depending on which ampere cards are on par or exceed the 2080 ti
Woah.
I'm tempted to get the game but it'll primarily be used on a laptop - Core i5 8265u and an MX130 GPU. I'm guessing I'll be looking at 30fps at Low (if that), lmao.
I had no idea that it had such variable performance though, gracious me.
The 10-15 second freezing is pretty insane. What's funny is that it is a literal freeze... when it unfreezes, you don't jump ahead to where you would have been once the display refreshes. It starts up right at the point it freezed. I mean, that's "good", but it's still wild that this occurs. I haven't played with any of the settings, but I'm getting anywhere in the neighborhood of 30-55fps on an aging 4790K, 2070S, 32GB RAM, and a 4yo 850 EVO @ 1440p.
The game literally freezing for several seconds is a bigger problem to me. Happens on Ultra settings so I dropped down to High which increased performance significantly and it still freezes randomly. This is with a 1080 Ti, 3700x, 32 GB and it installed on a PCIe 4.0 SSD
They are wiser now than they were back at Win10 launch. If the dev doesn't have enough experience with D3D12 then it will most likely run considerably worse than its D3D11 counterpart and there is no reason to push D3D12 specifically. Also they kinda gave up on the idea of using D3D12 as a reason to move people from Win7 to Win10.
I do not get any stuttering/freezing running i7-8700/gtx1070/SSD. I can run on medium at 70-75 outside of big cities, High 35-40, Ultra 25-30. In big cities subtract 10-20 fps depending on the size.
Microsoft Flight Simulator has, in my experience since at least '98, always been something that needs an upgrade or two to run at max settings at 60fps. But then again I always run mid-grade hardware (i5 and XX70 series, for example). I'm glad I'm getting at least 30 fps on the settings I'm running, and even at mostly-medium settings and 80% res scale it still looks soooooo much better than any other sim I've played.
I need to play it more to make sure it's not just some random issue with steaming or whatever - but what is killing me is how drastic the drop from High to Medium is. High looks great, but runs pretty poorly on my machine - and when I drop it to Medium it looks like an entirely different game.
Probably just need to take the time to sit down and actually tweak the settings instead of using the presets because I'm sure I could get it to look better without totally hosing my FPS. Just wish it was a bit more streamlined. (Silly thing to say about a Simulator but still)
Probably just need to take the time to sit down and actually tweak the settings instead of using the presets because I'm sure I could get it to look better without totally hosing my FPS. Just wish it was a bit more streamlined. (Silly thing to say about a Simulator but still)
I suggest anyone here without a multi-threaded CPU consider upgrading. I flip PCs regularly and I can't stress enough how much people want to avoid the older i5s. Still, if you sell your old hardware for $100-200, someone will usually want to buy it for something basic (e.g. Minecraft).
Honestly I know some of you want to play max settings, but I wouldn't recommend going above High. Generally anything above that hits your system really hard for very little gain.
Honestly I know some of you want to play max settings, but I wouldn't recommend going above High. Generally anything above that hits your system really hard for very little gain.
I doubt DX12 is much of an install base reasons these days. According to the Steam survey the vast majority of the user base supports it. My guess is that it's what the team knew best and felt most comfortable with in terms of being able to meet deadlines.
More experience working with DX11 and no apparent reasons for which DX12 would be any better (but a lot of ways it can be worse when you don't have experience working with it).
Only if it's the rendering pipeline that's the bottleneck and not the simulation itself*. However DX11 does have support for multithreading already, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with a DX12 patch.
* Note that while graphical options do seem to have an effect on CPU usage, those options may be influencing simulation work the CPU has to do in advance, rather than simply "draw this at lower LOD".
Thanks i have the same kind of setup, but not installed it on a ssd. The main reason why it freeze i think.
I still get freezes occasionally when flying into a new area, where the game basically pauses for a bit. The game just has to load in new stuff. This happens very rarely though and usually only when I'm flying into a really dense city. I just let the game do it's thing and give it time to load, then it runs fine again.
DX12 has only been out for half a decade, got to give developers time to adapt. /s
(Vulkan would be even better, but we all know that's politically impossible, even if it'd mean the game would run better and on more platforms).
How does shipping a DX11 renderer make every sense? Closer to no sense.
Remember, they're having to write a DX12 renderer to ship the features the want, anyway. That's the bottom line here.
There's just really "it's what we were familiar with". Not good enough for 'makes every sense' in my view. I'd be more lenient if this was 2017, but it's not.
Seems I missed the fact that they are going to ship a DX12 eventually, but I'll try to touch upon that the best I can (*also do not that I specifically said it makes sense if they're not bound by the rendering API, not other scenarios). I'm also not a render engineer, so unfortunately you'll have to make do with sort of a second-hand view, but from what I know:
- DX11 being more common and the team likely having more experience there means that you potentially can ship earlier (which publishers tend to care about rather lot)
- DX12 has proven to be tricky (for example in terms of crash rate, and even to this date UE4 is shipping with fixes to their DX12 render path and the editor can be quite crash-prone when run on the render path) and as earlier mentioned not necessary more performant if the game is not render thread limited
- Meaning the team can first focus on nailing the game and iterating on the visuals, rather than building on something that has potential to mean the game is not internally playable as much/early/often (and few things are as valued as much as build stability and iteration time)
- Shipping DX11 means you not only have a more stable build earlier, but when you do build DX12 you then get a solid baseline to work against (improving both perf and stability) while being able to direct players with issues back to a more stable DX11
- All these risks and investments that might not result in any performance improvements for a majority of the playerbase if they do not expect the render thread to be the immediate bottleneck for most people (really not sure what the case here is though), but instead could be tackled later with a more appropriate release cycle to get those additional DX12 dependent features in later
Obviously not all of those reasons are ideal (for example obviously you want your DX12 to be as stable as possible, but the reality is that you're going to have more issues no matter the effort you invest), but more of the reality of game developers have to work with. And obviously might've missed something else, but even with my limited knowledge any of those points could be very much something that could lead a team down the path of shipping a DX11 renderer at this point. But happy to hear other viewpoints and learn more.
Last edited:
RTX 2080 Super
i7 9700K
16GB ram
Liquid cooled
I can maintain a constant 60 frames in the training sessions of the game, I guess because not a lot is going on, and both the GPU and CPU hover around 60-64% usage. Haven't flown around many other locals yet, but Los Angeles and Toronto both see frame rates of 40-55 and even that fluctuates a bit. At least the PC stays nice and quiet though, lol.
i7 9700K
16GB ram
Liquid cooled
I can maintain a constant 60 frames in the training sessions of the game, I guess because not a lot is going on, and both the GPU and CPU hover around 60-64% usage. Haven't flown around many other locals yet, but Los Angeles and Toronto both see frame rates of 40-55 and even that fluctuates a bit. At least the PC stays nice and quiet though, lol.
This game revealed how old my CPU is. I get freezes that last a second or two, and the task manager is showing my CPU at 95%+ while my GPU is at 30% or so. I guess I need to upgrade. I may switch to AMD when that next generation comes out later this year.