Captain_Yuri said:
The weird thing about that is, Digital Foundry says otherwise when it comes to scaling in their video so it sounds like Ars is running into a bottleneck somewhere or something is weird about their config which could be a result of it still being in beta.
|
Ars also said when flying low to the ground or through clouds. Take off being a huge hit on performance and DF also said big hits while going through clouds. Those DF screenshots are in clear skies high above, flying over a texture far below.
The difference is, DF says it scales well, Ars says it doesn't.
Eurogamer:
The cloud system, for example, is very heavy on the GPU, while low altitude flying at ultra is more CPU-intensive, to say the least. But fear not, because Flight Simulator scales very well both on the GPU and CPU, based upon various graphics options they offer here.
Ars:
Adjusting those settings from highest to lowest would sometimes only recover 4-5 fps, which doesn't line up with how much fidelity is gained or lost when making those changes.
DF used
Ryzen 9 3900X with an RTX 2080 Ti
Ars:
i7-8700K CPU overclocked to 4.9GHz and an overclocked RTX 2080 Ti, both humming on an NVME SSD and 32GB of DDR4-3000 RAM.
Maybe the CPU makes a difference
And weird, at 540p, no visible difference between low and ultra. I would expect a bigger difference in frame rate as well between the two ends of the spectrum under optimal conditions (high in the air, far under the clouds)
Anyway this is what it looked like last time I played flight simulator at sub 18 fps in 2006
There is no way this is going to disappoint, I'm just not counting on stable or high frame rates, which I never have as you can see in those screenshots, 12.2 fps, 16.9 fps and 11.7 fps in order at 1280x1024
