Bleh, thanks. We were concerned about that. It’ll definitely still be in the next few days, but we were hoping it’d be out at the same time.
It took nearly another hour, but all World Updates updated. And that free Amsterdam airport, too. It’s crazy that download was almost as big as all the previous World Updates combined.
Still only 10GB of 40GB downloaded, guess I should download and play Ace Attorney while I wait. Really wish I’d preloaded last night like I meant to.
Anyone at their PC to check performance and visual quality?. I saw some grumbling on the MSFS forum about degradation of draw distance and LOD is that was made to accommodate the Xbox at the expense of the PC version. Of course it could be gamers being gamers who have an insatiable thirst to bitch about everything.
I’m getting a locked 60fps on the update screen…
I’ve gotten “online services are unreachable” twice now.
I preloaded and I still have 32GB of downloading going between the various World Updates and the Super-Premium Deluxe content, which apparently was not preloaded.
I meant Ace Attorney. Impossible to pre-load the Sim Update.
Don’t know about LOD complaints, but the FPS numbers I’m starting to see around the internet are very encouraging, even better than in the preview video in some cases. Still got 20GB of the Sim Update to go, grr.
Four hours later and I’ve got 50% of the update. The speed has slowed to below 1 Mbit/sec on occasion. All the while my GPU is at high usage, of course, because reasons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrosoftFlightSim/comments/osp85i/sim_update_5_performance_megathread/
Right before the update dropped I did a quick baseline. 3080FE, 9700k. 2560x1440 resolution. With detail sliders on 80 and then 125. Other settings on ultra. No mods. Spawn in with plane ready to take off. Used a savage cub and the A320 for simple/complex planes, and KCHO/KBOS for simple(r)/complex scenery. Will update later with post-update FPS.
these are the PRE-UPDATE FPS I measured
Savage: KBOS: 60/51
Savage: KCHO: 70/59
A320: KBOS: 40/40
A320: KCHO: 45/44
ok, here’s POST-UPDATE. HOLY SHIT!!
Savage: KBOS: 90/80
Savage: KCHO: 96/90
A320: KBOS: 81/74
A320: KCHO: 86/81
So with the Cub, it’s around a 50% increase, but with the A320, it’s around 100%!!! This update seems to narrow the performance gap between the simpler and more complex planes, which is indeed what we’d expect with better use of multiple cores. Denser scenery also carries less of a relative penalty. In all cases post-update, GPU utilization goes straight to 100% and stays there now; before it was more like 70% with the A320. Bravo, Asobo.
Yeah, that was one of the things I saw. There’s a PC performance thread on ResetERA too. In fact, a ton of MSFS threads have popped up over the last week or so, which is kind of remarkable given that forum’s leanings.
No proper numbers unfortunately.
After looking at that, I’m sad that they built a bunch of plain skyscrapers around The Gerkhin (the fabrige egg looking building in London).
Well, the Walkie Talkie is at least striking, but yeah, most London skyscrapers are boring boxes at best. The Leadenhall Building got a fun nickname too - The Cheesegrater.
That. And a good indicator why there are NDAs around testing – a transient issue that’s not evident in the released SU5.
Have it up and running on the Xbox. Never expected to see Duvall, WA on my Xbox.
Frame rate is superb. My LG TV does VRR so guessing I’m seeing well over 30 fps, but no frame rate counter to check…
Dangit, for some reason I can’t interact with anything in the cockpit with my mouse. I’m not sure where the conflict is coming from - I suppose I should empty my Community folder and go from there.
edit: I reset mouse controls to default and all is well.
Holy balls they added satellite scenery to the World Map! That is so cool. I just noticed the scenery in my neck of the woods is almost up to date. I’m guessing a year out of date or so whereas before it was 8 years out of date compared to what I saw on Bing.com and Google maps.
I’ll always wonder why MS limits download speed as much as they seem to; I’d assume they’d have as much if not more bandwidth than almost any company out there, but perhaps I’m wrong and so they have to carefully portion it out.
I don’t think it’s necessarily download speeds so much as the way the client downloads one file, stops, unpacks it, then downloads another file, etc. The reported speeds during the actual downloads seem OK.