Playing MS Flight Simulator on an AMD FX 8350 - You might be shocked to hear this.

[Bender Blues]

As we all have since day one - waiting for this master piece to be released, but will it run on my rig here. My tame system is a 1070 oc / FX8350 / 16gb matched / 1080p and a 600Mb connection.

 

On launching the title for the first time, after it performed its system test and 'recommendation' setting, MS says, 'Based on your system hardware and (yadda yadda yadda), this is the recommended setting'. Which was ONE click under ultra. SAY WHAT?

 

I said to myself, this is gonna end in a dumpster fire when I'm sitting on the tarmac, looking at -20fps and the pc on its knees.

Taxiing down the runway, climbing to 1000 ft - its draw distance as far as I can see (NO pop-in), to my delighted surprise, HOLY SHIT. Settings near ultra, theres the beautiful city below at 42fps (yes, not mind blowing) and NO STUTTERS, micro stutters or hi-cups!

 

Changed all the weathers, still silky. Departed from NY at night, the big test. Again, SILKY!

So I'm happy to report that system requirements and website opinions of crushing your PC are overly exaggerated. But I think a lot of that lends to having a good internet connection (again, 600mb down here).

 

Now I guess I have to happily go and buy a quality yoke and pedals - because MS FS isn't a system killer after all, and more importantly - its simply beautiful and damn fun.

Thanks for reading if you got this far

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, Bender Blues said:

As we all have since day one - waiting for this master piece to be released, but will it run on my rig here. My tame system is a 1070 oc / FX8350 / 16gb matched / 1080p and a 600Mb connection.

 

On launching the title for the first time, after it performed its system test and 'recommendation' setting, MS says, 'Based on your system hardware and (yadda yadda yadda), this is the recommended setting'. Which was ONE click under ultra. SAY WHAT?

 

I said to myself, this is gonna end in a dumpster fire when I'm sitting on the tarmac, looking at -20fps and the pc on its knees.

Taxiing down the runway, climbing to 1000 ft - its draw distance as far as I can see (NO pop-in), to my delighted surprise, HOLY SHIT. Settings near ultra, theres the beautiful city below at 42fps (yes, not mind blowing) and NO STUTTERS, micro stutters or hi-cups!

 

Changed all the weathers, still silky. Departed from NY at night, the big test. Again, SILKY!

So I'm happy to report that system requirements and website opinions of crushing your PC are overly exaggerated. But I think a lot of that lends to having a good internet connection (again, 600mb down here).

 

Now I guess I have to happily go and buy a quality yoke and pedals - because MS FS isn't a system killer after all, and more importantly - its simply beautiful and damn fun.

Thanks for reading if you got this far

Yeah your gpu is doing the heavy lifting in the game here. 42fps isn't great and when you start lowering settings I wouldn't be too surprised if fps stop increasing quickly. It still is a fx after all.

[Bender Blues]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

Yeah your gpu is doing the heavy lifting in the game here. 42fps isn't great and when you start lowering settings I wouldn't be too surprised if fps stop increasing quickly. It still is a fx after all.

I know 42fps isn't stellar. But its damn good with near ultra and no stutters with an old FX 8350 and this title that's supposed bring everyones PCS to it's knees. Yes, the 1070's fans are at full tilt.

 

And why would I lower settings as you mentioned? Theres not a single reason to lower them. 

[jaslion]

9 minutes ago, Bender Blues said:

I know 42fps isn't stellar. But its damn good with near ultra and no stutters with an old FX 8350 and this title that's supposed bring everyones PCS to it's knees. Yes, the 1070's fans are at full tilt.

 

And why would I lower settings as you mentioned? Theres not a single reason to lower them. 

Just a personal preference to run at around 60fps. I get a headache and nausea when games stutter, get choppy or have a lot of framerate dips to around the 30's. A reason why I can't play a lot of console games :p.

[Arrogath]

24 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Just a personal preference to run at around 60fps. I get a headache and nausea when games stutter, get choppy or have a lot of framerate dips to around the 30's. A reason why I can't play a lot of console games :p.

It's looking like a stable 60 frames is going to be hard for everyone, at least close to the ground using active information, hopefully next gen hardware can live up to the engines expectations and we don't have another Crysis poor engine planning problem

[trag1c]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

Just a personal preference to run at around 60fps. I get a headache and nausea when games stutter, get choppy or have a lot of framerate dips to around the 30's. A reason why I can't play a lot of console games :p.

If you look at Jays2cents video in regards to FS2020 changing settings doesn't yield hardly any performance. And he is correct that its engine limitations if they left the engine architecture where they can easily scale and optimize then in some time hopefully performance can be improved further. I think you don't even need 60FPS though because in a lot of flight sim games you're scenery is mostly static and at extreme distance so you don't notice the relative motion as much as you would in a shooter where things are close and very apparent. This could be different in say a combat flight sim like DCS where you have the potential to be travelling very fast and very low to the ground where sense of motion is a lot greater so in that case high frame rates make sense. 

[Kilrah]

Depends on plane and livery as well. But yeah my 1070 runs 30-40fps in 1440p ultra with a couple of options slightly reduced.

I only get an extra 10-15fps with a 2080S in another machine at the same res, and about same fps at 4K.

[Bender Blues]

10 hours ago, jaslion said:

Just a personal preference to run at around 60fps. I get a headache and nausea when games stutter, get choppy or have a lot of framerate dips to around the 30's. A reason why I can't play a lot of console games :p.

Christ, yes I get it for the second time, yes I know 60 is preferred, good grief dude. You apparently let the subject matter fly right over your head. = OLD CPU smooth gameplay near ultra with a title, that is renowned to bring a PC to its knees.

 

Good God man. 

[Bender Blues]

5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Depends on plane and livery as well. But yeah my 1070 runs 30-40fps in 1440p ultra with a couple of options slightly reduced.

I only get an extra 10-15fps with a 2080S in another machine at the same res, and about same fps at 4K.

Nice. Don't let the dude in this thread know, he's gonna tell you 60 frames is the holy grail and 40 isn't ideal.(telling a gamer/builder for over four decades about ideal frame rates)  When theres vast reports of users with far better hardware struggling to get decent frame rates.

 

Funny thing is, from the "EXPERTS" I talked to in the MS dev side before it was released said, "8350? hahahaha Good luck with that, I hope you like playing at 10fps". Real experts there.

 

BTW: what graphic settings did you bump down? I'd love to give it a look.

[Bender Blues]

BTW - Nvidia driver update for MS FS improvements:

 

[SFFDesigns]

That’s great! 24-40 FPS is really good in flight sims.

 

Have fun!

[PlayStation 2]

Nice to hear that, might mean better news for my 1700X.

Unrelated note, but I love your location title lmfao

[DesolationGod]

5 hours ago, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

That’s great! 24-40 FPS is really good in flight sims.

 

Have fun!

Thats about what i get in most places in fs2020 except for new york... fps tanks there

[Dr. Bigglesworth]

Removed

[Bender Blues]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Bigglesworth said:

Interesting review. For some reason I had figured AMD's later FX processors wouldn't be up to snuff because I'd been reading some bad reviews of performance of 2500K processors struggling over at AVSim, a forum I don't recommend visiting unless you can stomach constant negativity. I've been playing Flight Simulator since the 98 edition when I was much younger. The thing about FS is that it was always a good game/sim series. FS2004 apart from FS2000 (Concorde Yo) was pretty memorable because it was a special edition due to its connection with the Wright flight. Anyway, it wasn't until summer/fall 2006 when FSX came out. FSX was generally smoother than FS9 at similar FPS, but FSX was a performance hog in its own right. At the time, the 8800GTX was the best card you could use unless you were one of the people who were fooled into buying a 8800 Ultra. As the years went on, it didn't improve too much. P3D in its many revisions certainly fixed a chunk of issues. Up until FS2020, it was almost unheard to see a sim with this much detail both in eyecandy and behind the scenes with reasonable performance, even with older and slower hardware. FS2020, titled as Flight Simulator, is supposed to be an ongoing project. While I dread the performance not improving due to the debacle that was FSX for many years, I suspect Asobo, Microsoft and the major graphic card companies (See: NVIdia and AMD) will work together to push the limits of hardware and make it more efficient in the process. I probably won't pick the game/sim up for at least 6 months to a year because I have a long backlog to go through. Hopefully it's as crisp and fresh then as it is now.

 

 

Hopefully someone makes a new Concord for FS. I'd love to see that in game coupled with the new graphics engine.

 

Nice post.

 

I'm 100% sure that performance is a simple triangle. Bandwidth - CPU - GPU. Because of the 600mb connection and running a 1070, that if either of those were cut / halved, it would be leaning right on the CPU side, which would be a slide show I'd think. So much is already being rendered in terms of terrain, buildings etc on the server side that the burden is cut way down on the GPU/CPU side.

 

cheers

[Dr. Bigglesworth]

Removed