![]() Some of the smaller planes even have the interior passenger seats modeled. The airframes and engines are gorgeous, with amazing details, almost down to the individual rivets, nuts, and bolts if you zoom in close enough. The image resolution of the instruments is much clearer than in FSX, and even the seat upholstery looks better. We all saw the advertising trailers last year, with the gorgeous scenery, and photo-realistic aircraft textures and cockpits. Visuals - here's where MSFS shines the brightest. So which sim is "best"? FSX or MSFS? I've broken down this question into a few functional areas:ġ. ![]() Surprisingly, my CPU doesn't seem to be an issue: I've never seen MSFS push it past 30% utilization it's the GPU that's the bottleneck, with utilization between 95 and 100 percent almost continuously, even at high altitudes. The RX 68 XT have both been back ordered for 9 months, and it's anyone's guess when the supply will be adequate to meet demand again. But thanks to COVID, and a huge surge - tens of millions of people world wide - buying new PC's for home offices (and gaming), there are no new high-end graphics cards to be had, at any price. It's painfully obvious that MSFS requires way, WAY more graphics processing power than my $215.00 RX 5500 XT can crank out, and I'd willingly spring for the RX 6800 XT at $650, if there any to be had. About 3 out of 5 approaches, the sim freezes, then does a CTD, somewhere between 2 feet altitude - right when the scenery is moving past the windows at the fastest rate of the flight. Trying to land a big airliner that's moving at 145 knots when the frame rate is below 15 FPS is a dicey proposition at best. It will deliver 30 FPS at 15,000 feet or above, but the lower the altitude, the worse the frame rate. On final approaches in dense urban scenery, the frame rate drops to as low as 8 FPS, and this is with the graphics settings at "Medium". I have two 1920 x 1080 monitors and one 4K monitor (the middle one), and I can set FSX up to show three view windows, and a couple of my custom instrument panels, all running at once, and still not crash the machine or reduce the frame rate below 24 FPS.Īs for MSFS? It barely runs on my GPU. Even in the densest scenery areas like the San Francisco Bay Area, it has no problem delivering 30 to 40 FPS, without running the CPU or the GPU utilization above 40%. The system handles FSX-SP2, with all the graphics settings at Ultra, without breaking a sweat, figuratively speaking. Memory is 64 gB of 3200 mhz DRAM (I know, this is overkill, but memory is cheap), and the GPU is an AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT with 8 gB of VRAM. The CPU is a Ryzen 5-3600, 6 cores, 12 logical processors, 4.2 ghZ. Just about a year ago, I built my first PC with adequate hardware performance for MSFS as one of the considerations: I knew that the game was going to be released in 3 or 4 months, and I wanted this computer to be ready for it. ![]() I can't even begin to enumerate how many hours I've spent messing around in FSX, designing my own custom instrument panels and airports, and tinkering with aircraft config files to soup up some of the planes with a bit more performance. I've been a flight sim enthusiast for at least 25 years, the last 15 of them in FSX.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |