Caporegime
At 4K which what I game at it might well be. We will see. Still alpha.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Why are GPUs so expensive?
- Thread starter Guest2
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
No chance
Flight simulator is just scenery there isn't a lot going on. Plus it is only really you.
In grand theft auto there are moving cars, billboards, people walking around. Bullets flying.
In battlefield you have helicopters, tanks, buildings being blown up.
We are very far away from life like graphics in proper games. Open world with lots of stuff going on. Rather than just Google maps.
I bet if Google maps made a flight sim game it would be even better than the videos above.
weather especially clouds
Scenery
Systems
Physics
Lighting
ground Traffic
Air traffic and control
Long view distance
I think you’re underestimating how taxing flight sims are and I would bet decent money that the google maps team wouldn’t even be able to make a flight sim.
Caporegime
As above, complex simulation of flight control systems, even running P3D with ORBX / weather / airports / realtime weather and PMDG aircraft is taxing, i wonder why many home simulators need 6+ machines to run on....
As for only you, erm no go play on VATSIM.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
It's only taxing because they have upped the graphics. Because they can because it's not a complicated game.
Can you do a 360 in a plane in half a second?
Look at war thunder. Its a dogfighting game and it's graphics are nowhere near the same because there is a lot more going on.
So they can focus on all this scenery and the minor details because not much else is happening.
Any game is taxing if you use very large textures and high detail lighting+shadows. Try RDR2 with everything cranked up.
In a flight sim the environment itself isn't that demanding. The objects are only a few polygons each so you can have millions of them on a modern PC and it won't care.
In a flight sim the environment itself isn't that demanding. The objects are only a few polygons each so you can have millions of them on a modern PC and it won't care.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 2,795
ArmA 3 can ran badly even at higher resolutions, in that case, the limit is not the GPU, but the CPU/RAM.
But, since it runs ok now, should be ok when it launches as well.
I did say closer and not photo-realism, or at least not all the time in all the angles and shots. But to be honest, I don't think it has to go that far. If you look at demos such as Book of the Dead, The Heretic and even older ones such as Adam or The Blacksmith (which is like 5 years old now), they do come closer to pre rendered scenes. The Heretic from 2019, was "a real-time cinematic running at 30 fps at 1440p on a consumer-class desktop PC."
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 2,795
War Thunder is made to run well on current gen consoles, plus low end PCs, that's why is not the next Crysis. Some players even use low settings to gain an advantage (see the enemy easier) in GF. There isn't really a performance issue with the planes (performance is great there), but is significantly more demanding on the Ground Forces side.
Traditionally the performance issues in games such as those comes from the CPU/RAM and not the GPU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,071
War Thunder was made for PC only originally so you can't have the console excuse imo. Think it took around 2 years to arrive on the ps4. I have not played for over a year so don't know if the console or pc player base is where they are at. Turning the settings down has always been a ploy from those that must win at all costs like i used to when playing any kind of game where detail is an issue. Now that i would rather enjoy everything over the winning mentality i just whack up the details to get the whole experience. I usually turn anything off that blurs a game though. With War thunder it's decent looking but definitely not the pinnacle.
The Microsoft flight simulator video that grim posted above is way superior to WT but nothing is really happening in comparison to WT. War thunder is fast paced when it kicks off in the air so no real time to focus on the ground.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 55
The ULQ shenanigans is why I quit Warthunder years ago.
Fully modelled clouds that you can end up IN, in bad weather.
What about the scenery mesh and the fact it needs to look amazing around you in the sky and down below.
Any land traffic at night will have its own lights.
the view distance will be huge too.
Even BMS Falcon can make my 1070 suffer at 1440p in the right weather.
I believe DCS is a bit of a GPU hog too.
When I build a pc it’s always around the most demanding flight sim I will play as everything else will be fine.
I’ll be upgrading around MSFS this time too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 2,795
Yes, it was quite good for those times, but lately not much was added. I think they've had their first pass at RT, but nothing groundbreaking. For the Air Battles performance is very good and the FPS, from what I've played so far, drops a bit when closer to the ground in maps such as Smolensk, but I'm still getting 100fps +/- (a dip here and there) and way beyond that high up on other maps.
The problem is with GF (same conditions, I get lows of 60fps +) where they didn't had the courage to lock high settings (grass, shadows, AO) to Realistic and Sim, even in binocular and sniper view (without grass it goes towards 90-100fps as well). It can make a difference there. They could have kept the lower end stuff to Arcade mode.