plainsman

Actually, the processor vs GPU load shifts dramatically depending on what resolution you are running according to the video doing testing of different settings, resolutions and processors/GPUs.

Here is a video with a guy running a RTX2060 super and a mid range AMD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-I_9v-PMc Another video tested a GTX 1060 with I5-8400 running high (not ultra) settings at 1080p getting ~35 fps.

I think the problem in assessing your situation, is that there are so many variables in determining satisfactory performance. For example, you could have a processor and video card that would run the program successfully, but not have sufficient memory or lack a good internet speed?? If you are slightly above the minimum specs, you will need to try it with what you have, then decide if you are needing to upgrade right away.

If you are still looking for a system builder, I have used AVA Direct on the last three rigs and I have always been very impressed with the build, the choice of components, and the pricing. The selection is so vast, you will need to do a bit of research to determine just what you need. For example, do you need a Z490 board or will a less expandable board work? The new I7-10700K chips are pricey and a RTX 2080 is pricey and takes a lot of space. You will need components of that nature to really exploit FS2020. BTW, I advise to stay away from units at the big box stores or Best Buy. Those usually have shortcuts that limit build quality and they are often 6 months to a year behind in technology.

I am afraid i totally disagree with both the tone and the import of this post! First, I suspect some of you may have flown in a payware aircraft that had an .air file I constructed, but for which I was deliberately not credited. I got no compensation for that work, although one very appreciative designer sent me a joystick as a Christmas present one year. On the train simulation side, I can assure you that almost everything for MSTS and much of Open Rails, uses work which I spent many hundreds of hours to create and research, none of which was compensated save a few designers giving me a free copy of their beautiful artisanship. I freely released all that work to encourage the community to develop new and innovative models and products that benefit us all! I did it because I was passionate about creating more realistic behavior in the models using my math and science input, as I have no artistic skill at all! It was a way to CONTRIBUTE to the community to encourage this hobby remains healthy and vigourous! Very few payware developers get wealthy from their efforts. Most do it to foster a healthy community with products we can all enjoy, they barely break even. I am always more than happy to test and work with developers to create an optimum product, it is good for everyone! Once you create momentum for more accurate development, everyone becomes more energized to try and use a more accurate design and physics. I am in my early seventies, and keyboarding large volumes of data is no longer quite as easy. That said, I am still always eager to test and tune products for developers if the product will benefit the greater community. BTW, in a broader context, you seem very unhappy about the concept of stockholders and profits. While you may see those as unfair, I can assure you that those living under that system enjoy a lifestyle that is the envy of those under the other systems. Socialism is fair, everyone is impoverished, save a handful of political elites. I don't malign profits, to the contrary, as long as the profit was generated in a legal and reputable fashion, I am happy the company, and my IRA or 401K are thriving. We all benefit from a profitable industry! Nonprofits don't foster innovation and advancement!

You are most welcome!

Meanwhile, no one will confirm where this shot was taken, but from the image quality, it might be a long telephoto shot??

Along the flight path. A shot somewhere over a Nevada airfield at 5:00 in the morning. Dawn breaks at KRKS. Note, all lights are off on both aircraft??

OK, there is your challenge everyone, finish out this story in screen shots!

A mysterious cargo flight leaves Cleveland for Area 51 in FS2002 and another more mundane cargo flight leaves Dayton in FSX.

I think there is a difference in just driving a 27" monitor, and the performance he will need to enjoy this program on a high refresh rate 27" monitor. Just to compare, the GTX1660 has a memory speed of 8GB/Sec, a bandwidth of 192GB/Sec, 1408 cores, and no hardware acceleration. The RTX2060 has a memory speed of 14GB/Sec, a bandwidth of 336GB/Sec, 1920 cores, and includes hardware acceleration. That is a big performance difference.

A lot of that depends on the user's implementation and expectations. I assume the minimum specs won't satisfy many on this forum, probably most settings would end up looking like FS2004, with all the detail and new technology detuned. If you have a good internet connection, I would expect you could enjoy the sim, particularly since the original poster is going with a 1080P monitor, with the recommended specs, but I would expect these might not be desirable if you often fly in the big city airports and want to implement all the features discussed thus far. With a long expected life, they must be planning to update and add features with time. Will specs change over time, probably, but if you wait for a point of certainty to jump in, you may miss much of the fun. If the original poster does not have some of the minimum spec equipment, he could not run the program at all. While a GTX 560 might have run FSX acceptably, it won't run the new sim at all.

Here is equal time for the small members of the stables. An A318 leaving the South of France. A 737-600 climbing out of Saskatoon. Both on early morning flights headed for the city.

I think that video card might be a little weak for the monitor you show. I would think this might be a better choice. Asus PHOENIX RTX2060 GeForce especially with an Asus MB and Asus monitor. You didn't mention memory, but at least 16gb of ram would be needed on MB.

I don't think you get any real advantage in waiting. This product is likely to be patched and with the online nature, patches will be almost unnoticeable. I am more concerned about a product that has been around a while, and still has major unpatched bugs. For example, a competitor has a bug that makes the autopilot malfunction if you fly a different aircraft in the same session. The nice thing about MSFS, it is likely to so widely adopted that the community will quickly note any operational bugs and either create a solution or influence the developer to fix the issues. I can point to a 747 in FSX, that while a beautiful aircraft, without a major overhaul, can't climb above 36,000 feet. Even after years of knowledge, not everyone is meticulous. Enjoy the new product, and contribute to it's improvement.

I think you misunderstood my comment. With MSFS2020 coming out, I don't want to mess with my registry at this point. I did install FSX to the correct folder and to the drive with the operating system. Now with X-Plane, the problems are not install related, the program has a lot of quirky operative systems. The autopilot not only works very differently than in FSX or FS9 or FS2002, but also just does not work at all on some freeware planes, in that you just keep climbing inspite of VS or altitude settings. The VNAV function on the default 737-800 does not seem to follow descent. The default King Air has the autopilot controls down by the seat. The scenery is a big improvement over FSX, but the freeware aircraft don't seem to consistently function as expected, when a 747 won't climb past 19,000 feet, that isn't functional. Some of the GA aircraft in X-Plane are fun to fly. It has good points, but a lot of things just are sufficiently imperfect that it becomes vexing.

Keep in mind your performance will depend greatly on other factors, such as the monitor you are running. If you are running a single 21 inch 1080P monitor, your system will likely perform just fine. If you are running a 55 inch 4K resolution monitor, you will likely be disappointed. Also, how many enhancements you add to embellish scenery will likely be a big factor. If you run the program stock out of the download, you may be just fine. If you add a bunch of detailed large airports to your scenery, you will probably be unhappy. Each person has different ways they choose to run the program, and all those choices make a huge difference. If you fly a C172 out in western Kansas, you won't need nearly as much system performance as a person flying the 787 out of Chicago.

I am not sure i have an excuse. I think it was just fatigue from little in the way of new program development. I finally tried X-Plane, but I am still not satisfied, as so little community work has supported it. The autopilot is at best, vexing and unpredictable in many aircraft. Controls and windows are not placed with user access in mind, looking down beside the seat is quite different on a PC than in a real aircraft (King Air Autopilot). I just got weary.

I suspect Aspen was chosen because of the precarious approach and difficult terrain with steep mountains on all sides. It is a challenging airport to fly into. And yes, I could put it on a map, even though it isn't part of the Great Plains where I most often traverse. I do agree, I am very surprised Atlanta didn't make the list as well as DFW.

Even though those those aircraft are not going to be in the initial release, I suspect the community will see that those aircraft are available in short order. There is a lot of pent up energy in the community, and I suspect people will be eager to populate a new simulator with updated content! It may take a while to get to a Fairchild 428jet(prototype only), but DC-9s and 727s will probably appear quickly!

Hello! I have been dormant for some time as well! I was "biguglyguy" on the forum years ago. Bob Boudoin

Only speculation, but maybe those will be developed by third party affiliates as payware addons?

I am not sure the name Microsoft Flight Simulator reduces confusion. Some of us are old enough to remember that name associated with software from the 1980s, software originally used as an unofficial compatibility test for PCs built on various 8088, 8086, 80186 (very few), 80286, and 80386 machines. Those versions were sometimes more specifically known as Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0 or MSFS 3.0. But for many in the community, MSFS is a generic catchall to include every version through Flight Simulator 2004 and FSX. Thus FS2020 differentiates the new sim from older versions in the minds of the community that has evolved around various iterations of Flight Simulator in the past, less confusion actually for many of us! I go back to many iterations ago, when Felix Rodriguez was a moderator on the forum, and my forum participation started with version FS95, then known as biguglyguy on the forum, with a few tweaks of the .air file for that version posted in the forum. Dave Eckert asked me to do a few .air files for some of his projects, and I began to offer flight dynamic tweaks for FS2000 in the library. Nels eventually changed my forum name to plainsman, to consolidate with works I did for Microsoft Train Simulator under that name.

The Cessna autopilot works somewhat differently in X-Plane. Lets say you are at KFET on runway 130. You want to fly east at 96 degrees at an altitude of 3,000 feet. Take off and establish a desired climb. Set your heading bug (above the yoke) to 96 degrees. Press the hdg button at the base of the radio stack. Now press the vs button. This will establish the climb you instigated. The knob to the right lets you adjust the climb rate, so if you want to climb at 400 fpm, turn the knob to +4. You climb until you reach 3,000 feet. Then press alt button to the left of vs button and the plane will level off at 3,000 feet. There is no flight director involved.

UCFM (UAFM), the primary airport serving Kyrgyzstan, Manas International has plenty of runway for a 747, over 13,000 feet. The X-Plane 747 isn't my favorite, the MD-80 seems to be a much better model. The same airport is shown in FSX and FS2002 for comparison. The airport is a much better rendition in X-Plane 11.41. X-Plane does create a distant haze which obscures the mountains in the distance.