Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Imma wait until that patch and then fly away, well probably over my house anyway.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Flight Simulator will receive a MASSIVE performance boost on July 27th
- Thread starter KyoZz
- Start date
CamHostage
Member
Interesting, yeah, they have the world map and they have the technology, so now, what more could they do with it?
You can look at previous Flight Sims as potential futures for the "MS FS Platform". (However, this is the first console release of MS Flight, unless you go all the way back to like C64 or Apple and call those console, so what comes to PC might be different from what comes to Xbox as far as expansions and 3rd Party addons?) I know Flight Sim X had like a Red Bull Air Race pack for slalom races and near-ground stunt challenges, and then there was a whole subset of Flight Sim called Combat Flight Sim that was based around military aircraft. I don't know if there'll be like Forza-type DLC where we get a LEGO Flight Sim DLC or whatever (although Top Gun might be a little like the Forza Horizon Fast&Furious pack?) but there's a future there.
BTW, as far as FS being a building block for other games, somebody mentioned this that the FozaTech Engine is used to build Flight Simulator. So, whether Flight Sim itself becomes a platform, the FT technology is already in the bloodstream of major Xbox titles in the works...
Last edited:
The lower you fly the faster it feels.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
It's fun in a different way. I really enjoy finding coordinates on Google then punching them into the FS2020 map and starting off somewhere interesting to explore. Could be the old city you lived in, Easter Island, Tokyo. It's cool in the same way that Planet Earth documentary is.
I did a flyover of Mexico City while using a separate screen with Google Maps to identify landmarks. Pretty amazing scope, can't wait to get that extra performance boost so I can turn up the settings and res.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I think that ForzaTech rumour was debunked and that Flight Sim is using Asobo's engine. Personally I wish they could revive for example Microsoft Train Simulator. Or made Truck Simulator.
Havoc2049
Member
It might be like the old school dog fight mode that used to be included in older versions of Flight Simulator. It took place in a generic map with a few mountains and an airfield. Maybe an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean and a few islands, with various types of missions to complete.
Hawking Radiation
Member
I'm getting a massive performance boost just thinking about it...
CamHostage
Member
Well, I don't know how it can be debunked what the CEO of the company said, but...
It kind of depends on what you mean by "Asobo's engine". It's not ALL ForzaTech that it's built on, it's not like they were just handed Turn 10's development suite and told to make a game with it. The case with this project sounds like Asobo took what they wanted and added to what they already had and kitbashed their different technology systems. (As is the case with a lot of games, that they use a hodgepodge of different plugins and services and modifications and middleware and layered-over "engines", so it's a hodgepodge even if most of of the hodge could be called like "Unreal Engine" or what have you.) It's not really clear what "percentage" of the project is this tech or that tech, there'd be little reason to clear it up (other than for Asobo to promote its technology for partnerships or titles.) Alls I'm saying is work that went into Forza over the years helped make Flight Sim excel, and now work that's been put into FS will help future games (if or if not Flight Sim becomes its own internal platform.)
Last edited:
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
While the Top Gun DLC comes in November, fighter jets are already available in MSFS. They really aren't as crazy as you would expect. I can (and do) already fly an F15 at full-throttle through the grand canyon, and it'll still an extremely slow-paced activity compared to say an FPS or even one of the more twitchy adventure games.
The reason is that even the fastest jet reach their highest speed only at high altitudes (where the sensation of speed is minimal), while they're relatively slow at low altitude, and even if you're flying very low, you're still high enough over terrain to dampen the sensation of speed. As a result, the sensation of speed will be less than say, Forza Motorsport.
Aerobatics aren't that different. They're done at very slow speed, so they're a relatively slow-paced exercise. The key is precision, not split-second twitchiness.
VR could be an exception, I hear it improves the sensation of speed (I haven't tried), but it won't be supported on Xbox, so that's moot.
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
Flight Simulators dcan be fun in a few different ways.
One is certainly exploration. You can have as much fun as a walking simulator offers if you enjoy that kind of thing, and you have the whole Earth at your disposal and you're flying.
The second (and possibly on the opposite side of the spectrum) is challenge. Flight Simulation can be extremely challenging if you take it seriously. Successfully flying some of the most complex aircraft and procedures is very challenging. On top of that, there are things that are challenging to do even on SIMPLE aircraft. For instance, landing at super-dangerous airports like Lukla is really fun even in a Piper, as you can see below.
With the Xbox version, Microsoft is going to add more challenges and targeted content for those who need specific things to do, but to enjoy flight simulators to their fullest one really needs to love the sandbox-type gameplay in which you set your own challenges and goals.
The flight above (from the beginning) is again an example. Flying from Kathmandu to Lukla in a small aircraft means having to overcome plenty of challenges beyond landing on a sloped postage stamp with no second chance, including avoiding icing conditions, climbing efficiently enough that you don't slam into a mountain, not getting lost, and so forth.
Last edited:
Gp1
Member
Last edited:
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
Yes and no. There are things you can do with fast jets in MSFS that you can't in DCS World due to the limited maps.
Flying the Mach Loop or the Star Wars Canyon is a good example. Having the whole world at your fingertips opens possibilities.
That being said, that video is nice because it shows exactly what I was trying to say before for
CamHostage
. Even in a super-tight and sweaty palms dogfight between fast jets (which can't be done in MSFS), it's all about slow, calm, and calculated tactical moves. Flight simulators really aren't twitchy games, no matter how fast you go.
Last edited:
nightmare-slain
Gold Member
Good! I have to lock it to 30fps (on a 165hz monitor) and even then it still dips to 20 something. I’d love to get 60fps but I feel that is too much to hope for.
what I really want is faster installs. I have fast internet but the game is so slow at decompression which makes even small downloads take forever to install.
what I really want is faster installs. I have fast internet but the game is so slow at decompression which makes even small downloads take forever to install.
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
It's called multithreading.
As a matter of fact, given the fix to the tree draw distance, it's also a massive visual upgrade.
Some people really love to abuse this "downgrade" fearmongering.
Last edited:
Kenpachii
Member
His cpu was already hitting 100%, it straight up reduced the cpu load by 2x. That's some serious shit optimization then if u can get that amount of gains.
Last edited:
balls of snow
Gold Member
Hype for that series x version. Gonna be my zen game.
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
That 100% doesn't show the full picture.
Here's what I'm seeing right now in a relatively uncomplicated area.
The current MSFS is really bad at multithreading. It can literally murder your first threads, and leave the rest inactive.
By offloading some of the load to other threads, and there's a LOT to offload, not only it uses your CPU more efficiently, but it also uses the GPU more efficiently as well.
You'll notice that while his CPU utilization dropped considerably, his GPU optimization increased just as considerably. So it's not like the system as a whole is less loaded. The load is just better distributed.
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
Yeah, the relatively small end performance difference between differently performing CPUs / GPUs was a bit weird.. Also, with some tweaking you could easily double your performance (hence why I'm able to run it in VR with a 1080 - with reduced render scale, but still..). So clearly there was room to manoeuvre for performance improvements. Good news.That 100% doesn't show the full picture.
Here's what I'm seeing right now in a relatively uncomplicated area.
The current MSFS is really bad at multithreading. It can literally murder your first threads, and leave the rest inactive.
By offloading some of the load to other threads, and there's a LOT to offload, not only it uses your CPU more efficiently, but it also uses the GPU more efficiently as well.
You'll notice that while his CPU utilization dropped considerably, his GPU optimization increased just as considerably. So it's not like the system as a whole is less loaded. The load is just better distributed.
Last edited:
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
Now they just need to implement this 
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Awesome. I can’t wait to jump back in. Still have yet to try it on my Index but I will for sure when this releases.
TitanNut88
Member
But, but... I want it now!!!
Really, this studio did (and keeps on doing) a marvelous work with this game!
Really, this studio did (and keeps on doing) a marvelous work with this game!
I'm guessing because they are CPU bound and wouldn't be able to hit 60fps on XSX even at 1080p.
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
I don't think that is the case. In the OP it is said that VRR supported TV's can be used to increase fps above the 30fps cap (up to 60 in some cases). I case its just a design decision not to have a performance mode.
The fact that it requires VRR TV to increase above 30fps "60fps in some cases" should tell you that it is an unstable 30fps+. If anything this confirms they couldn't do 60fps locked and need VRR for framerates anywhere above 30fps.
Edit: here you go
Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance and Benchmarks: Your PC May Need an Upgrade
Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding games currently available.
"The higher graphics settings continue to be CPU limited, so having a potent processor remains important — the RTX 2070 Super and GTX 1080 Ti are tied with GPUs that are supposed to be faster at around 65 fps. Only a few other GPUs we tested even manage to come close to 60 fps, and you'll basically need at least a $400 graphics card like the RTX 2060 Super or RX 5700 XT to get there. You'd probably have better luck with a Core i9-10900K as well.
None of the GPUs could break 60 fps at 1080p ultra and we still ran into a CPU bottleneck, but 1440p ultra finally sorts out the top of the GPU stack. The RTX 2080 Ti now sits in the pole position, though it's still only 8% faster than the 2080 Super. Ampere and Big Navi will probably end up around 50 fps again, unless you've got a heavily overclocked CPU. Or maybe you're reading this in 2025, in which case we'd love for you to travel back in time and give us some future tech so we can hit 60 fps."
Last edited:
Riky
$MSFT
It seems to hit 60fps but not a lock so the VRR implementation is a big deal for me and I think 30fps was expected especially at 4k on probably one of the most demanding PC games in history.
It's also a game that would probably benefit more from the 4k resolution than framerate due to the pace of it and it setting the console graphical bar.
Schmick
Member
Thank you for the insight.The fact that it requires VRR TV to increase above 30fps "60fps in some cases" should tell you that it is an unstable 30fps+. If anything this confirms they couldn't do 60fps locked and need VRR for framerates anywhere above 30fps.
Edit: here you go
Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance and Benchmarks: Your PC May Need an Upgrade
Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding games currently available.www.tomshardware.com
"The higher graphics settings continue to be CPU limited, so having a potent processor remains important — the RTX 2070 Super and GTX 1080 Ti are tied with GPUs that are supposed to be faster at around 65 fps. Only a few other GPUs we tested even manage to come close to 60 fps, and you'll basically need at least a $400 graphics card like the RTX 2060 Super or RX 5700 XT to get there. You'd probably have better luck with a Core i9-10900K as well.
None of the GPUs could break 60 fps at 1080p ultra and we still ran into a CPU bottleneck, but 1440p ultra finally sorts out the top of the GPU stack. The RTX 2080 Ti now sits in the pole position, though it's still only 8% faster than the 2080 Super. Ampere and Big Navi will probably end up around 50 fps again, unless you've got a heavily overclocked CPU. Or maybe you're reading this in 2025, in which case we'd love for you to travel back in time and give us some future tech so we can hit 60 fps."
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
Hitting 60 fps in some areas definitely doesn't equate with being able to lock 60 FPS everywhere, I can guarantee that.
PlayStaytion
Member
"All the cpu cores of the i7 9700k were maxed out"
I remember someone claiming it isn't a cpu intense game ..... dah! , I was right, the cpu is related to every part of the system, you can't just separate them to describe their functionality individually.
I remember someone claiming it isn't a cpu intense game ..... dah! , I was right, the cpu is related to every part of the system, you can't just separate them to describe their functionality individually.
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
I don't think I said that.
nightmare-slain
Gold Member
they are adding raytracing??? jeez it's bad enough already (in a good way). you have powerful systems running at 20-40fps and they want to give us raytracing? if i try enabling raytracing my PC will just be like nope i ain't doing that shit go fuck yourself.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Can not wait to fly over my house up to my work and ditch my plane into the side of my works building.
CuteFaceJay
Member
Would be nice.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Where did you read about RT being added in?
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
They talk about it in the Q&A. Sorry i dont have time stamp.
Nope. Xbox Series S/X is actually using DX12 but not PC, not yet.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Calm down, CIA.
Jaybe
Gold Member
Maybe for some people. I liked flying around my home city and some world sites for about 5 hours, then uninstalled. Amazing technically, but boring gameplay (to me).
nightmare-slain
Gold Member
with the DX12 update?
nightmare-slain
Gold Member
flight simulator can be a full on simulator but there are plenty of settings that make it casual. it's for everyone. you just play about with the settings and find the level of realism you want.
that said it depends on what you find fun. it can be incredibly fun/satisfying/relaxing or it can be incredibly boring/mind numbing/frustrating.
you gotta ask yourself if you like sitting for HOURS with not much changing. when you take off/land you'll find beautiful landscapes but you'll be too busy trying to fly. when you get up in the air you'll just be watching the ground slowly pass you by or staring at endless clouds/ocean while making sure you are keeping your speed/altitude and listening to ATC (air traffic control). i've found myself setting auto pilot and then going around the house doing stuff. if a flight in real life takes 10 hours then you're gonna be flying in game for a similar amount of time.
if you want you can just do short haul flights which are usually <2 hours. if you want more visual stimulation/excitement they'd be best for you. there are other things to do like landing challenges/bush trips.
it's been out on PC for a while now so i guess watch some gameplay?
Last edited by a moderator:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
30 fps is unacceptable.
MS needs to keep this one in the oven longer.
MS needs to keep this one in the oven longer.
Schmick
Member
30fps is perfectly fine for a flight simulator.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
No it's not.
TheMan
Member
It's what you make of it. Some people derive a lot of enjoyment out of learning the systems of each plane and adhering closely to real-world navigation, communication, and flying techniques. MSFS is decent for that kind of thing but there are better options (like xplane) for that.
Some people just like to hop in a plane and fly around. This is where MSFS shines. It has the best out of the box graphics of any flight sim ever. You need a lot of money and hard drive space to come close with xplane.
I'll say that most of the action happens during takeoff and landing. Otherwise sightseeing is cool but can get boring after like 30 minutes. Sometimes I'll just listen to a podcast while flying around. The base game does have some gamey elements like landing challenges but it often feels like there's little point, no real goal. 3rd party apps like neofly and Skypark have been created to add goals to flying so you feel like you're accomplishing something, but they're not fully integrated into the game. unfortunately if you're playing on console you won't have access to that shit.
Last edited: