NZFF

Here's a couple of screenshots in response to Jeffref's query about performance in high density areas.

Be aware though these shots were taken on the 'way back', so data had already loaded on the trip out. On the outward leg FPS were a bit lower, and although this was with my normal settings, I'd probably lower the resolution to fly in areas like this. I mainly fly in the boondocks....

This is Ultra settings at 4K, however with Render Scaling set to 80. This effectively lowers the resolution (from 4K) to 80% and upscales the result.





My system is brand-new, bought for MFS!

i7 10700 Comet Lake
RTX 2070 Super
32 GB RAM
MFS is on system NVMe SSD.

All in all, my mind is continually blown.

Just by way of comparison:













ATB, Mike

Thanks for those

Somehow I doubt my GT1650 and 8GB ram will match that, and my 4.0TB WD will not match a SSB. My CPU on the other hand is an I-7 9700 so is not that far off.

I may look at upgrading rather than buying new, possibly Xmas. In either case I would still need to update my internet. The FSX scenery objects and autogen are really showing their age now,.

emfrat wrote::D Just by way of comparison:

Yes AFS2 NYC immediately sprang to mind
Like every sim, there is stuff that you need to turn a blind eye to.
Not having real water is a showstopper for me, and it's startling to see the comparison above.
There's no way to ignore the tsunami that is MSFS.
To me this one is FS2004 revisited, which is to say: it looks like a solid base with a beautiful future.
And anyone not developing for it should consider trainspotting as an occupation.

Rob have you downloaded the latest Nvidia driver 452.06 which was released on 17th Aug? This driver is optimised for MSFS.

cowpatz wrote:This driver is optimised for MSFS.

Music to my ears - not using a sim that is 1% of a 1% lunatic fringe will seem strange indeed. Getting actual support will be bewildering, usually I have to fight off the latest Nvidia or whatever to avoid it ruining my custom install

Just some real screenshots for a real simulator anyone can use.

The Big Apple













And a bit closer to home

FS2002?

FS2002- never needed a patch and zero problems downloading!

Anyone can play this....

Jeffref wrote:Thanks for those

Somehow I doubt my GT1650 and 8GB ram will match that, and my 4.0TB WD will not match a SSB. My CPU on the other hand is an I-7 9700 so is not that far off.

I may look at upgrading rather than buying new, possibly Xmas. In either case I would still need to update my internet. The FSX scenery objects and autogen are really showing their age now,.

I will just reiterate that my original post was the result of wanting to see if I could get a good reliable experience at 4K. However for the alpha test I was using my old PC, which is 7 years old, and i5 with originally only 8GB RAM, although it does have a GTX 980, thank to a generous friend. Although I updated the RAM eventually to 16GB, the alpha ran perfectly well on medium to high settings at 1080p. So I wouldn't assume that you'll need to update until you've tried it out. Sure, a GPU upgrade and more RAM might be worthwhile, but it will probably work well as-is, unless you are addicted the FPS and need to fly at ultra settings.

Curious Rob, what was your processing speed? I'm running a 2.8 i7 on this and the alpha barely ran.

The old processor was Ivy Bridge i5 3570 3.4Ghz.

Yeah, I think that would perform better than what I've got here. 32gb RAM and a GTX1070 but the 2.8ghz processor lets me down.

I wonder how my 4770k at 4.3Ghz, 16 GB Ram and an old Titan X 6 GB GPU would hack it (I will be upgrading later). I hear MSFS is only utilising 4 cores at the moment.

I'm running an i7 3.2 Ghz with 16GB Ram and a GTX1070 and getting 30-40 fps around NZ with a drop to mid 20s in big city airports.
I have all settings on High and few higher. Bloody impressed actually.