By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Digital Foundry: Flight Simulator PC Hands-On

Tagged games:

SvennoJ on 30 July 2020
kirby007 said:
DonFerrari said:

And that is just for some of the data on the game.

its for the realtime weather and other plane locations yes

No, it downloads detailed terrain data while flying. The game uses up to 150 GB on your SSD/HDD but the world data is 2 peta bytes in total. Without internet connection you still get good results with procedural generation filling in the gaps, yet when connected it will stream higher quality terrain textures and accurate building data for where you are.

Realtime weather is no more data than checking the weather report, FSX did that already in 2006. Other plane locations is very little as well.



Around the Network
kirby007 on 30 July 2020
SvennoJ said:
Azzanation said:

That is a very long time ago, and to think the game was even older than that, believed the first game came out in 1982 on a IBM or something. The IP is more than 37 years old. Glad its coming back in a big way. Hopefully without any major issues.

It seems it still needs some optimizations

According to ARS there’s still some issues to be ironed out as it’s very CPU dependant and can tank in certain situations:

If you want to get this game up to a 60 fps refresh rate, even at 1080p resolution, you're in for a bumpier ride than the "recommended specs" might suggest. The issue boils down to CPU optimizations that still need ironing out in the game's prerelease period. Most of what you'll find in the "graphics" settings menu relates to GPU-bound toggles, with the exception of a few "density" sliders for elements like clouds and ground terrain.

But even turning these settings down sometimes failed to move the needle on my testing rig, an 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.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/ms-flight-simulator-our-yoke-on-look-at-new-features-gorgeous-flights/3/

My CPU is only 2.2 ghz, upto 4.1 ghz with boost (but will quickly heat up and get throttled) so I won't be aiming for 60 fps, 24 or 36 I'm guessing (display is 144hz)

That probably also means that a Series X version will have to wait a bit longer until they iron the dips out. It's mostly flying through the clouds that brings it down. FSX had the same issue, the more clouds, the worse the performance. Sunny skies to boost frame rate!

On another note, I wonder if I'll be able to get HDR to work when I connect my laptop to the tv. Is there a way to tell what version the hdmi port is? The laptop supports HDR videos with windows HD color (not true HDR) but not for games and apps.

isn't that visible in the product specification of the device online?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Baddman on 30 July 2020

My sister who isn't a gamer at all keeps asking me when this game and the new xbox is releasing. She was telling me how she finally found a game with planes she likes. I hope its a launch window game.



SvennoJ on 30 July 2020
kirby007 said:
SvennoJ said:

It seems it still needs some optimizations

According to ARS there’s still some issues to be ironed out as it’s very CPU dependant and can tank in certain situations:

If you want to get this game up to a 60 fps refresh rate, even at 1080p resolution, you're in for a bumpier ride than the "recommended specs" might suggest. The issue boils down to CPU optimizations that still need ironing out in the game's prerelease period. Most of what you'll find in the "graphics" settings menu relates to GPU-bound toggles, with the exception of a few "density" sliders for elements like clouds and ground terrain.

But even turning these settings down sometimes failed to move the needle on my testing rig, an 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.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/ms-flight-simulator-our-yoke-on-look-at-new-features-gorgeous-flights/3/

My CPU is only 2.2 ghz, upto 4.1 ghz with boost (but will quickly heat up and get throttled) so I won't be aiming for 60 fps, 24 or 36 I'm guessing (display is 144hz)

That probably also means that a Series X version will have to wait a bit longer until they iron the dips out. It's mostly flying through the clouds that brings it down. FSX had the same issue, the more clouds, the worse the performance. Sunny skies to boost frame rate!

On another note, I wonder if I'll be able to get HDR to work when I connect my laptop to the tv. Is there a way to tell what version the hdmi port is? The laptop supports HDR videos with windows HD color (not true HDR) but not for games and apps.

isn't that visible in the product specification of the device online?

You would think that would be important to add to the specs, but no. Anyway some digging (googling) confirmed that it should be able to output 4K60 with HDR. Whether Flight simulator will support that while upscaling from 1080p and whether my TV will accept it, guess I'll find out August 18th. The HDMI port does support 2.0

Hmm, a review of the laptop says it does not support HDR gaming but it does have HDMI 2.0 (but you need HDMI 2.0a for HDR) This is why I prefer console gaming lol. Can't get a single straight answer for anything PC related.



Leynos on 31 July 2020

Impressive tech but still a flight sim game so I'd fall asleep playing it. I wonder if the next version could include fluid dynamics with the clouds.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
vivster on 31 July 2020
Captain_Yuri said:

It is pretty damn impressive looking. Also probably the first great example of what the "cloud" can bring to gaming.

It shows how limited the application of it is.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Hynad on 31 July 2020

Regardless of its use (or not) of ray tracing, this is by far the most next gen title bar none.

Here’s hoping the XSX will be able to run the sim as good as what the trailers have shown so far.

I haven’t played a MS Flight Simulator since the 90s. But this one is among the reasons I’m getting a XSX in its first few months, if I can’t (for budget reasons) get one on launch day.

Last edited by Hynad - on 31 July 2020

Otter on 31 July 2020

One of the first real next gen showcases we've seen seen.



SvennoJ on 31 July 2020
Hynad said:

Regardless of its use (or not) of ray tracing, this is by far the most next gen title bar none.

Here’s hoping the XSX will be able to run the sim as good as what the trailers have shown so far.

I haven’t played a MS Flight Simulator since the 90s. But this one is among the reasons I’m getting a XSX in its first few months, if I can’t (for budget reasons) get one on launch day.

It's not running as good as the trailers have shown so far on monster PCs. It's not all that stable yet, fine for PC gaming yet on consoles you expect a lot more stability. Atm it can bring the best rigs down to barely above 30 fps.


https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-flight-simulator-preview-tech-analysis

However, a generational leap in fidelity obvious comes at a cost. On a Ryzen 9 3900X with an RTX 2080 Ti, ultra settings at 4K means frame-rates in 30-40fps territory for most of the time. Variability in frame-rate depends on how close to the ground you are, or how close to the clouds you get. 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.


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/ms-flight-simulator-our-yoke-on-look-at-new-features-gorgeous-flights/3/

I'll start with the worst news: If you want to get this game up to a 60 fps refresh rate, even at 1080p resolution, you're in for a bumpier ride than the "recommended specs" might suggest. The issue boils down to CPU optimizations that still need ironing out in the game's prerelease period. Most of what you'll find in the "graphics" settings menu relates to GPU-bound toggles, with the exception of a few "density" sliders for elements like clouds and ground terrain.

But even turning these settings down sometimes failed to move the needle on my testing rig, an 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. You'd expect a system like this to clear 60 fps at "low" settings, 1080p resolution, on something like a flight simulator, right? In fact, you might think this was the kind of machine you'd throw at a 4K display?

Unfortunately, depending on the part of the world I flew in, I ran into frame rates that could drop into the 10s, sometimes even before my plane took off, even after yanking settings down to sub-1080p resolution and "low" or "lowest" options across the board. (I rebooted my system and disabled all background apps and any monitoring apps like MSI Afterburner or RTSS, to make sure this wasn't the fault of something on my end.) 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.



I'll temper my expectations and be glad to even reach 24 fps in 1080p on my gaming laptop. (I7 8750h / GTX 1060). I wonder how MS is going to get this to run on the standard XBox One.



kirby007 on 31 July 2020
SvennoJ said:
Hynad said:

Regardless of its use (or not) of ray tracing, this is by far the most next gen title bar none.

Here’s hoping the XSX will be able to run the sim as good as what the trailers have shown so far.

I haven’t played a MS Flight Simulator since the 90s. But this one is among the reasons I’m getting a XSX in its first few months, if I can’t (for budget reasons) get one on launch day.

It's not running as good as the trailers have shown so far on monster PCs. It's not all that stable yet, fine for PC gaming yet on consoles you expect a lot more stability. Atm it can bring the best rigs down to barely above 30 fps.


https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-flight-simulator-preview-tech-analysis

However, a generational leap in fidelity obvious comes at a cost. On a Ryzen 9 3900X with an RTX 2080 Ti, ultra settings at 4K means frame-rates in 30-40fps territory for most of the time. Variability in frame-rate depends on how close to the ground you are, or how close to the clouds you get. 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.


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/ms-flight-simulator-our-yoke-on-look-at-new-features-gorgeous-flights/3/

I'll start with the worst news: If you want to get this game up to a 60 fps refresh rate, even at 1080p resolution, you're in for a bumpier ride than the "recommended specs" might suggest. The issue boils down to CPU optimizations that still need ironing out in the game's prerelease period. Most of what you'll find in the "graphics" settings menu relates to GPU-bound toggles, with the exception of a few "density" sliders for elements like clouds and ground terrain.

But even turning these settings down sometimes failed to move the needle on my testing rig, an 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. You'd expect a system like this to clear 60 fps at "low" settings, 1080p resolution, on something like a flight simulator, right? In fact, you might think this was the kind of machine you'd throw at a 4K display?

Unfortunately, depending on the part of the world I flew in, I ran into frame rates that could drop into the 10s, sometimes even before my plane took off, even after yanking settings down to sub-1080p resolution and "low" or "lowest" options across the board. (I rebooted my system and disabled all background apps and any monitoring apps like MSI Afterburner or RTSS, to make sure this wasn't the fault of something on my end.) 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.



I'll temper my expectations and be glad to even reach 24 fps in 1080p on my gaming laptop. (I7 8750h / GTX 1060). I wonder how MS is going to get this to run on the standard XBox One.

what i took from the video is that he called medium still very impressive, i hope i can run high



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.