Precision Simulator update 10.175 (29 May 2024) is now available.
Navburo update 13 (23 November 2022) is now available.
NG FMC and More is released.

Main Menu


Started by cagarini, Tue, 1 Oct 2019 06:06


The video clips are beautiful, of course. They are also completely stutter-free, which is a result I don't trust Microsoft to actually deliver.

I don't know what the top-of-the-line gaming specs are these days, but Microsoft Flight Sim 2020 will probably need something 500% better than what's available on the day it's released.

The popular boards (Avsim,, etc.) all used to have pinned threads about the 40,000 tweaks that were felt too be necessary in order to get performance that is still below what people expect with a high-end machine.

I exaggerate... Perhaps Microsoft will surprise us this time.
Will /Chicago /USA

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Although I am not at all on top of hardware developments these days, I have the impression that "progress" sort of slowed down, and has nearly halted in some areas. The limitations of physics make themselves apparent. Latest developments seem to focus on getting more cores onto a chip die, or on supporting edge processing such as more video blasting and CPU relief for other tasks that benefit from dedicated hardware. Away from the previous Intel-style "One CPU for us all and the rest can be done away with."

So we may not have that familiar 500% overbuilt software syndrome this time.

And I still want to see how much they put in their Azure blast furnaces and how much you actually get to install on your home cooker. Anti-piracy definitely has found its way in only streaming video encrypted for just your device or chipset, and no longer allowing downloads or installs.

One good thing: whereas old MSFS was notorious in not allowing multithreading, and so could not use any multicore CPU for real, the P3D modifications by its caretaker did enable these. It would be completely silly if the new MSFS would not use the same technology and actually make those cores work. Not the same code -- just the same approach. MS developers are not stupid; if management allows them to build quality software, they will do so.



I'm doubtful, but open-minded. If the result is good, they'll have my congratulations. And probably my money, too. :-)

I speculated about this a while back... but it seems to me that scenery generators like MSFS try to achieve smoothness by flashing multiple static images at as many FPS as the computer could generate. But this seems to have limitations when you're trying to display thousands of shapes on one frame.

So I wonder if a better approach would be to set the FPS forever at 24, the frame rate of motion pictures, and then create smoothness the same way film does, which is to blur motion between frames. If you freeze a film frame and look at it, what's moving will be blurry. But if you watch the film, the "motion" seems natural. Which makes me wonder if this technique could work for scenery generators, then there would be computing overhead left by capping the frame rate at 24.

Just thinking out loud. Sorry if this is too much of a hijack.
Will /Chicago /USA



FWIW I have capped my frame rate at 24 for years, and just a few months ago, in the pursuit of silk, dropped it to 20 where it has stayed.  My test is the default scenario with the F22 and if I can roll it and Spot pan without any pause or jerk, I'm good to go.  That is where I have stayed, and that is where I have been happy.

In the large jet transport aircraft I fly, the motion is indeed silk- and except for the occasional long frame with scenery loading around 20 miles out- I have no complaints.

I firmly believe that the lock gives the machine capacity to use processing for functions that are impacted without the frame lock.

Only one opinion, and I'm aware of what they say about opinions :)


PS- I'm beginning to think that Flight Simulator 2020 will move the goal posts for most
Carl Avari-Cooper, KTPA


The simfest team are excited for FS2020 so I'm fairly confident that there will be a PSX-FS2020 bridge solution at release, or very soon after.  ;)


I really do look forward to MSFS reinventing itself. If they come out with a product that's both beautiful and fluid, then they've excelled and they deserve the praise they'll get. I'm eager to see what the final product looks like.
Will /Chicago /USA


I think it's one of the unfortunate myths circulating the community that 20-24 Hz (or frames per second) is all you need. This is completely untrue, and I would say for an airliner you would need a minimum 50Hz for a decent experience that feels natural enough. Virtual Reality is yet another story and there I would say a good starting point is 80Hz.

Also, the MSFS and Prepar3d flight model runs at only 18Hz, and it shows. Hopefully things will be imporved in the new upcoming version. 


Quote from: Mark on Mon,  4 Nov 2019 14:04
The simfest team are excited for FS2020 so I'm fairly confident that there will be a PSX-FS2020 bridge solution at release, or very soon after.  ;)

Mark, thanks for the update. It goes without saying that your entire team's contribution to VATSIM, PSX, and FS is incredible and a lot of us are grateful to you for it.

I am certain that thank to you, the visual immersion of FS2020 with PSX will make for a great experience.


Old movies used to run at 16fps and I never remember seeing any individual frames. I'm also set at 20fps since my main PC is very low end and needs all the help it can get! I'm not entirely sure why 50 fps is _neccessary_ - desirable without a doubt, though.

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

1. Movies cheat: although the frames are at a certain rate, they flicker the lamp at double that rate with a shutter.
2. Movies cheat: when they expose a frame during filming, the exposure is not brief enough to freeze the motion. They blur fast-moving objects. This blur actually helps your eyes and brain to smoothen out the low frame rate.


Didn't realise that. Thanks Hoppie.


What Hoppie said in point two above is what I was alluding to with a new approach to flight sim graphics. You can guarantee buttery smooth motion without any jerkiness if you factor in motion blur.

Of course, without motion blur, the higher the FPS the more smooth, especially when the landscape that's depicted is changing rapidly (like if you're in a tail spin). Without motion blur, given a certain rate of change of what's being depicted, then more FPS means more smoothness.

But think about your favorite movie where things rush by really fast, say perhaps, the assault on the Death Star from Star Wars. You watch that in the theater and don't discern any jerkiness, despite watching it at 24 fps. The reason is that individual frames that contain motion are blurred.

How we could do this in a sim is to calculate frame A. Then calculate frame B. Then project frame 1, which is an interpolation of A towards B, blurring the things that move. (A dot that moves from one location on frame A to another location on frame B would look like a smear on frame 1.) Next, calculate frame C, then project frame 2, which is an interpolation of B towards C.

Repeat this ad infinitum, and you would get cinema-quality effects at only 24 fps, leaving, in theory, excess computer time to work on other things.
Will /Chicago /USA

Hardy Heinlin

By the way, I implemented this kind of motion blurr in PSX in the external traffic objects. Each of these aircraft consist of nav light dots. But PSX doesn't draw dots, it draws lines. Lines between the dots of two time frames. The lines get longer when they move faster, or when the frame rate decreases, or when the time acceleration increases. It's the most simple motion blurr method as they are just lines between dots :-)

It's not just a gimmick. If they were just dots you would hardly see any of these objects when their angular velocites are high, and they're always high when they are close.


Extreme demo: Load any cruise situation. Set night time, CAVOK. Engage HDG HOLD and ALT HOLD, and set time acceleration to x32. Go to Instructor > Situation > Human > Traffic and select "Start a semi-random preset". Hold the ALT key and click any Preset button. Watch the windshield ...


Motion blur might work in the movies or as an effect in some games, but for a simulator it really isn't much of use if your baseline is something like 20fps.

Just try it in real life, move your head from side to side and up and down, in a similar manner you would do if flying any civilian aircraft. Motion blur? :)

Motion blur in 3D engines is really just an effect, it is not something that should be added if trying to replicate a real-life situation. On top of that, you still have the judder from the low frame rate, even if the blur makes it a little less apparent.

Even in cinemas you can see that the frame rate is not completely "natural".

Or just compare PSX running at 72Hz to something like PMDG running at 18Hz. Everything in PSX feels a lot more smooth and "life-like", not just the displays but the whole flying experience. Of course there are many factors that make this difference happen, but one big thing in it is the much higher update rate of PSX.


Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Also, calculating motion blur is actually a heavy operation. Adding it as a kind of anti-aliasing will hit the frame rate even more if you are CPU-bound. Hardware assistance may work here.


Pierre Theillere

Hi All,

Here's a new MSFS2020 trailer:
It even features our beloved Queenie ... and also nice cities in 4K:
Pierre, LFPG



Quote from: Mark on Mon,  4 Nov 2019 14:04
The simfest team are excited for FS2020 so I'm fairly confident that there will be a PSX-FS2020 bridge solution at release, or very soon after.  ;)

That would be a real treat to have! Crossing fingers that it will happen!


Even better,

with the new Physics & Weather, if HH could create he's 744s as a native MFS add-on, that would look even better :-)

Hardy Heinlin

Quote from: jcomm on Sun, 15 Dec 2019 10:16
with the new Physics & Weather, if HH could create he's 744s as a native MFS add-on, that would look even better

Says the enthusiast without knowing the code, yet claiming a native MSFS 747 would be better.