**** Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Thread ****

mid_gen said:
I've emboldened the relevant text here to make sure no-one else is getting confused.

There are probably a lot of people running 4k monitors that are interested in running the game and want to know if there is a way to get satisfactory performance on a relatively modest GPU. The answer is yes, with the game set to native 4k, and render scaling turned down, it's very playable, and you still keep a nice sharp UI.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! The render scaling option is the answer for those running a 4K monitor. I'm running a 4K monitor and set the render scaling to 70. It's way better than changing the input resolution to the monitor. Graphics are not a blurry mess and the UI remains clean and crisp, frame rates of course are a lot better.

I believe setting this option to 50 when outputtinfg at 4K will result in a 1080p render resolution, 70 a little over 1440p.
 
Last edited:
2StepSteve said:
Totally agree! The render scaling option is the answer for those running a 4K monitor. I'm running a 4K monitor and set the render scaling to 70. It's way better than changing the input resolution to the monitor. Graphics are not a blurry mess and the UI remains clean and crisp, frame rates are a lot better.

I believe setting this option to 50 when set to 4K will result in a 1080p render resolution, 70 a little over 1440p.
Click to expand...

+1 for this

Have it at 4k and render scaling to 70, locked 30fps, which I set in the nvidia control panel, with a mixture of majority high and medium settings.

Still looks amazing!
 
2StepSteve said:
Totally agree! The render scaling option is the answer for those running a 4K monitor. I'm running a 4K monitor and set the render scaling to 70. It's way better than changing the input resolution to the monitor. Graphics are not a blurry mess and the UI remains clean and crisp, frame rates of course are a lot better.

I believe setting this option to 50 when outputtinfg at 4K will result in a 1080p render resolution, 70 a little over 1440p.
Click to expand...
ralv585 said:
+1 for this

Have it at 4k and render scaling to 70, locked 30fps, which I set in the nvidia control panel, with a mixture of majority high and medium settings.

Still looks amazing!
Click to expand...
I play it at 3440x1440 and have that render scaling thingy set to 160
So what resolution would that equal too ? :confused:
 
chaparral said:
I play it at 3440x1440 and have that render scaling thingy set to 160
So what resolution would that equal too ? :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe when you set it over 100 (100%), you are increasing the internal rendered resolution beyond that of what your output resolution is set to. I don't think there is much benefit to this at all, but you will be incurring fps penalties. You'll be better off leaving it at 100. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

This setting has stopped my desire for an upgrade on my 4470K (@ 4.2Ghz) 16GB & 980ti dead in its tracks!! For now I am very satisfied.
 
2StepSteve said:
I believe when you set it over 100 (100%), you are increasing the internal rendered resolution beyond that of what your output resolution is set to. I don't think there is much benefit to this at all, but you will be incurring fps penalties. You'll be better off leaving it at 100. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

This setting has stopped my desire for an upgrade on my 4470K (@ 4.2Ghz) 16GB & 980ti dead in its tracks!! For now I am very satisfied.
Click to expand...

Same, I have a 9700k, 16gb and 980ti, over the weekend spent an absolute age trying to get good performance, but I'm very content with the settings I've found.

It's mainly the airliners when parked up at an airport that brings the fps down to around 20-25fps depending on where you are, but if you're sightseeing in a propeller plane, it runs quite nicely :)

Also, is there a way to invert the camera controls when using the external view?

I'm using a PS4 controller, and when I fly external and look around, it always catches me out.
 
2StepSteve said:
I believe when you set it over 100 (100%), you are increasing the internal rendered resolution beyond that of what your output resolution is set to. I don't think there is much benefit to this at all, but you will be incurring fps penalties. You'll be better off leaving it at 100. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

If you have a monster GPU then setting it higher essentially gives you very high quality but very expensive anti aliasing. As this game is largely CPU limited, if your GPU is powerful enough then you could set the render resolution higher with no appreciable loss in framerate.
 
My brother in law has tried installing via game pass on his new gaming laptop and gets these errors when trying to run it.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/14YnEa0kYOZop1IsnSe6f4TVyhgWoaO4m/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Y5YyucImvwSHHzVKo1NJOGdNUQeMYsZ/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZUIH5XThDtMJbmLN-yTbSp-RlihAu0F/view?usp=drivesdk

Out of interest who has the steam version and have you had issues? Apparently there are loads of bad reviews on game pass, can't fault my steam install.

As for FPS I'm happy with my 30-50 depending on plane / airport. I've come from x-plane 11 which would tank to about 17fps on medium settings in thick cloud to this which runs solid. GTX 1080 and a 2 year old I7 and 32gb of ram on high end settings
 
Last edited:
What laptop is it? Those errors suggest that it predates DX11 (which would make the laptop very old), GPU driver not installed, or its not switching to dedicated GPU for the game.
 
SonicSW20 said:
If you have a monster GPU then setting it higher essentially gives you very high quality but very expensive anti aliasing. As this game is largely CPU limited, if your GPU is powerful enough then you could set the render resolution higher with no appreciable loss in framerate.
Click to expand...

Some people are having problems with CPU usage being high, but by and large it's GPUs taking a hammering more than CPUs and most of the benchmarking shows that to be true:

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,1.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6RIvvMPBTg

My Ryzen 5 3600 is typically around 30% load in game with a Vega 56 at 90+% load.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Some people are having problems with CPU usage being high, but by and large it's GPUs taking a hammering more than CPUs and most of the benchmarking shows that to be true:

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,1.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6RIvvMPBTg

My Ryzen 5 3600 is typically around 30% load in game with a Vega 56 at 90+% load.
Click to expand...

For Vega that doesn't surpise me, but for higher end GPU's what I said applies.
 
SonicSW20 said:
For Vega that doesn't surpise me, but for higher end GPU's what I said applies.
Click to expand...

The Guru3D article shows a Ryzen 7 3800XT at 40% (mostly on 4 cores only) with an RTX 2080 Ti at 59%, so obviously not. It also shows very little difference even at 4K going from 4C/8T to 8C/16T whilst at the same time it's gobbling up all the VRAM it can get. It's totally GPU limited. You wouldn't see such big drops in FPS between resolutions if it were just CPU limited.

FSX was the opposite - changing the resolution made little difference because there wasn't much going on graphically. A faster dual or quad core made all the difference and you didn't need an expensive GPU.
 
Last edited:
SonicSW20 said:
If you have a monster GPU then setting it higher essentially gives you very high quality but very expensive anti aliasing. As this game is largely CPU limited, if your GPU is powerful enough then you could set the render resolution higher with no appreciable loss in framerate.
Click to expand...

Interesting, cheers for clarifying. I guess especially when not running @ 4K this option can be useful to squeeze more quality out.

On the topic of CPU usage, my 4770K @ 4.2Ghz - I'm averaging 90% CPU usage in London in High End mode, I get spikes in to 100% usage every so often. An upgrade is on the cards, eventually. Once some high end 3rd party aircraft get thrown in, I can see the limit being felt hard for me.

Thought this sim is GPU bound, isn't it?
 
Im "playing" on my laptop. Most settings on low or medium and it's just about playable. Specs are i5 8300h and a 1060 6gb (mobile version) with 16gb of RAM. My GPU is working at 99% but CPU rarely above 40%.
 
I have an 8700 none k and it runs at less than 40% most of the time, my gpu is a 2080 and hits 100% sometimes, always very high.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
The Guru3D article shows a Ryzen 7 3800XT at 40% (mostly on 4 cores only) with an RTX 2080 Ti at 59%, so obviously not. It also shows very little difference even at 4K going from 4C/8T to 8C/16T whilst at the same time it's gobbling up all the VRAM it can get. It's totally GPU limited. You wouldn't see such big drops in FPS between resolutions if it were just CPU limited.

FSX was the opposite - changing the resolution made little difference because there wasn't much going on graphically. A faster dual or quad core made all the difference and you didn't need an expensive GPU.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is limited by only using 4 cores. If it was solely GPU limited then GPU usage would be sitting near 100%, which it isn't.
 
Something tells me that not meant to be there :p

L4Xep0w.jpg


2Oj5ExV.jpg


Xbs3RaJ.jpg
 
Still can't get it to reinstall, so many restarts, and initial downloads. Sick to death of clicking any key and then the it just hangs.

So frustrating after what was a perfect initial install and system that was running it absolutely fine (3900x, 32gb ram).

Oh well. I just resort to looking at the lovely pictures for now.
 
That sucks... there are definitely some issues happening for some people that appear outside of their control. They mentioned they are working on an update to fix some of the problems people are having, I hope you don’t have to wait too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom