Graphic improvement question.
-
@arkady86 thats prolly enough for the next 50 years
On a more serious topic: performance is something we take very serious. Yes, we will move up as hardware evolves and people get better equipment. But be sure that we will try to squeeze every bit of juice we can so that old HW is not so affected.
-
@MaxWaldorf That benchmark skin is beautiful… I love it, I need it in my Viper xD
-
@arkady86 said in Graphic improvement question.:
i7-13700KF, 64GBs of 3200mhz DDR4 and a 3060ti, how would you folks rate it as far as future-proofing at an affordable price?
in general, so much depends on how many monitors / what resolution / what target fps you want to achieve … and now of course, to VR or not
but regardless, yeah that rig should slap. cut the ram in half to 32GB (2x 16GB) unless you know you may sometimes exceed 32GB… use the ~$100 diff to step up to RTX 3070… or a nice quiet AIO cooler for the CPU /my2c
-
@MaxWaldorf The ground in that second screenshot looks very nice! I particularly like the realistic-looking coastline
-
@arkady86 said in Graphic improvement question.:
@Xeno Just to give everyone a baseline idea, my current rig is an i5-4670K with 16GB’s of 1866mhz DDR3 and an 8GB GTX 1070 and fps are absolutely enjoyable and more than playable, with visible dips only on the busiest phases of Rolling Fire day 1 and similar situations (never getting to unplayable states tho).
The bundled rainy day benchmark runs smoothly at all altitudes…
In fact, let me use this post to compliment all the devs, 4.37 performance is better and a lot smoother than 4.36.3, congrats and thank you very much!
I am planning to replace my current setup with an i7-13700KF, 64GBs of 3200mhz DDR4 and a 3060ti, how would you folks rate it as far as future-proofing at an affordable price?
The New Terrain was developed mostly by using a GTX-1060 3GB on FHD res. Performance was OK (High FPS were ~100 and lower could get to 45 in some cases). The new terrain will mostly be resolution bound, so the more pixels you need to crunch, the better GPU you should have.
-
@arkady86
Your new rig specs looks mighty fine for non-vr usage, my only note would be to wait 'till Ryzens 7xx0X3D benchmarks will e available and them make a purchase decision.
BMS as any other fligt sim loves fast CPU. R7 5800X3D cache brought ~20% extra performance over 5800X in BMS, so it might be worth to consider. 'tho no 3rd party reviews are available, but those chips can be spotted in Cinebench R23 database. There Ryzen 9 79000X3D looks very tasty, it got about 15% higher score than regular R9 7900X, where other 3D variants are about the same or slightly slower than regular counterparts. Also there’s a question of pricing, but if AMD won’t go crazy it might be damn good CPU. -
@Xeno said in Graphic improvement question.:
@arkady86
Your new rig specs looks mighty fine for non-vr usage, my only note would be to wait 'till Ryzens 7xx0X3D benchmarks will e available and them make a purchase decision.
BMS as any other fligt sim loves fast CPU. R7 5800X3D cache brought ~20% extra performance over 5800X in BMS, so it might be worth to consider. 'tho no 3rd party reviews are available, but those chips can be spotted in Cinebench R23 database. There Ryzen 9 79000X3D looks very tasty, it got about 15% higher score than regular R9 7900X, where other 3D variants are about the same or slightly slower than regular counterparts. Also there’s a question of pricing, but if AMD won’t go crazy it might be damn good CPU.I went from an i9-9900k to an i9-13900KF and even though it was fast before i’m getting 200-300 fps in Campaign (2D) and a solid 90fps in VR… I look forward to 4.38, likely will have a 4090 by then too!
-
@Icer
Yep 13th-gen Intels are damn fast, but Ryzen 7xx00X are about the same performance in tasks where those e-cores don’t matter (ie games/adobe software suite etc…). Looking on published benchmarks in worst case scenario Intel CPUs are about 11% faster, i9 13900K is at best 5% faster than i7 13700K. So my assumption is in worst case R9 7900X3D should be tiny bit faster than i9 13900K being cheaper.
But lets wait for real results.
4090 is a beast too, you gonna be well prepared for 4.38. -
@Xeno the AIO cooling was already planned, I’m using one now so no way I’m leaving that out
I’m planning on staying on a single 34" monitor, 2560x1080 (I’m using it right now) and MAYBE one day try a Reverb G2 or equivalent, but that’s a big maybe, I’d rather upgrade my pedals or stick for that money…
-
-
@Raiden-0 said in Graphic improvement question.:
OMFG!!!
Yes, the days of fuzzy tiles are almost behind us!
-
This is all so great and very exciting. Just need to get on with the slow study /practice routine to actually learn the sim
-
@arkady86 I upgraded to 3060 Ti just couple months ago… it is nicer than I expected. flying 4k at 60hz, it doesn’t stress the gpu enough for it to reach max clock speed – unless foul weather or a lot of nearby action – the cooling fans don’t even kick on, immediately. (4.38 will probably change that!)
-
Im ready for anything in VR. Bought 4090 and it is fantastic. Waiting for BMS update patiently.
-
@Tiger-0 - ditto. I’d rather have greater adherence to RW performance/operation over eye-candy.
-
It is always a trade-off between game performance and graphical quality. This is exactly the reason why I use BMS for years: for me, it is the best simulator I have ever played with. No simulator goes above BMS. I am using a laptop computer and I run at 30~40 fps with the game settings at their maximum.
-
@Raiden-0 are those 3d buildings in the second screenshot?
-
@b0bl00i said in Graphic improvement question.:
@Raiden-0 are those 3d buildings in the second screenshot?
No, 3D buildings autogen do not exist (yet) for BMS, including in Dev version. That is a topic that will require some work and planning, still not started and probably the initial 4.38 version will come without it.
-
@I-Hawk
Thanks for replying. Hope you succeed with this task. It will be a much welcomed addition -
Hi
X-plane, BMS, same battle?
Equivalent discussions took place when MSFS2020 and then X-plane 12 were released.
What are the priorities? graphics or flight models/systems management.
I fly with X-plane 12 and Falcon BMS because I like it when a simulator prioritizes flight and onboard systems.I’d welcome any environmental improvements that would make the mission even more realistic and complex (relief, vegetation, buildings, weather effects and visuals, etc.).
On the other hand, is it necessary to improve the overall terrain to the detriment of performance?
Does the TTBA pilot need to know if the wheat is ready to be harvested?