Note to self: Set Building Quality to MEDIUM (edited: that's too short of an answer) (edited: Thanks for all the likes - never had that before. And thanks for all the super insightful replies!)
@@Redridge07 but if I can't see the difference? Guess, it's personal preference. I must say that that it performs pretty well in general with most stuff on ultra.
@@Redridge07 Yeah, that's fine. And I DON'T (edited) think that performance is an issue anyway. At least on my 1080ti. I just want the autopilot to work.
Why be pissed on playing medium? It means ur pc is about average. And if you can run medium on flight sim 2020, you have the least of problems. Learning how to optimize your games and not be so picky will save your wallet and get you bigger upgrades for the future. Not every game is meant to run on ultra.
recap: (prefered settings imo) building settings above medium have no effect (medium) tree settings above medium just adds more trees no change in tree quality (medium) grass settings just adds more grass (high) anti aliasing anything below taa is blurry mess (taa) terrain detail just adds more buildings and trees farther away (100 is fine) object level of detail just adds more defined shadows to objects but after 100 nothing changes (100) volumetric clouds settings just adds more detail to clouds (high) water waves make water resolution higher (high since doesnt effect fps) ambient occlusion gets darker every setting till high (medium) anisoptropic and supersampling make texture resolution higher further away (8x and 4x4) texture synthesis more defined textures again but doesnt really effect anything (low) shadow maps increase shadow accuracy (1024) terrain shadows (512) lens flare is cool (on) bloom (on) light shafts lights passing through clouds etc (med) windshield effects medium if you want performance ultra if you want the reflections of the cockpit as well contact shadows dont change anything (low) reflection creates more defined reflections (medium) depth of field just blurs everything and decreases fps (off) texture resolution (high)
Settings that I find that doesn't have a major difference/can live with low or medium settings based on observation: • Texture Synthesis (>/= Low) • Terrain Shadows (Off or 128) • Windshield effects (>/= Medium) • Contact shadows (>/= Low) • Depth of Field (Low, but depends on your preference, I think this can complement the Render Scaling setting) • Ambient Occlusion (>/= Medium or High if it won't impact performance) • Shadow Maps (>/= 768) • Buildings, Trees, and Bushes (>/= Medium) • Texture Resolution (>/= Medium) Settings that I find that makes a major difference/must live with at least high: • Anisoptropic (>/= 16x) • Texture Supersampling (>/= 8x8) • Reflections (>/= High) • Volumetric Fog (>/= High) • Water Waves (>/= High) • Terrain Level of Detail (>/= 175) • Object Level of Detail (>/= 100) I find that these settings really make a difference or they pop out, so I'm not taking PC specs into consideration here EDIT: Terrain Shadows do make a huge difference if you'll mostly be flying on terrain, but doesn't make much of a difference if you are flying on cities th-cam.com/video/qTI_QhykXSQ/w-d-xo.html
Not only is it an organized video, I know how much work it took, but it still released the used songs in an organized manner ... congratulations for the impeccable work
4 ปีที่แล้ว +786
So low is garbage Medium is fine and High and Ultra are just a waste of time.
Seán O'Nilbud wrong. In which resolution are you watching? You have to watch it at 4k to see the difference of course. I see it on my ipad at 480p and don‘t even see a difference between low and med. 😄
I really didn't think even "Low" was bad, and I struggled to see any real difference between "Medium" and "High", nor between "High" and "Ultra." Maybe it's just my present monitor is just OK and not the best but, with my current setup, looks to me like "Medium" settings are hardly distinguishable from "Ultra", so "Medium" looks like the way to go. Thanks for the excellent and very useful video!
Absolutely phenomenal job with this video! This is what I call a true Direct comparison between the different graphic settings. I can only imagine how much time it took you to record the scenery 4 different times in exactly the same position as well as doing all the editing after. I've seen some of your other videos and you always put a lot of work into them and you deserve a lot more subscribers and recognition, this is one of my favorite videos when it comes to doing comparisons in general. This is, in my mind, a perfectly done video, because its exactly how I would want to see it being compared, literally pixel for pixel where you can follow the line and clearly see any and all of the differences, both big and small. So again, outstanding job with this video as usual :)
Because there is no difference at close range from medium to ultra settings... Most people here like yourself are so focused on just the object itself and are missing that those settings also change the draw distance of the buildings from more far ranges. So if you choose high or ultra you will see objects at farther distances and with more detail.
Grass is getting more (not better, just more. :D) when going from Medium to High, water reflections are better when going to High and clouds even get better at Ultra. Most other settings are just fine at Medium indeed.
This video was awesome ❤️ I took notes of my findings watching it for what I would use; which I will leave below 🤓 Building quaity - med or high Tree quality - med or high Grass & bushes - med or high Anti-aliasing - TAA best Terrain level of detail (Mid & high height) - 125 to 200 (Diminishing returns after 125) Objects level of detail (low height) - 50 to 200 (diminishing returns after 50) Volumetric clouds - high or ultra Water waves (Low height) - high (High height) - medium or high Ambient Occlusion (Low height) - medium or high Anisoptropic - 4x min up to 16x (Diminishing returns after 4x) Texture supersampling - 4x4 min up to 8x8 (Diminishing returns after 4x4) Texture synthesis (High height) - Medium (Can't tell difference between low & high) Shadow Maps (Low height) - 1536 to 2048 Terrain Shadows - 1024 (Can barely notice any difference going from off - 2048) Lens flare - I prefer off Bloom - I prefer on Light shafts - medium (hard to tell difference from low to ultra) Windshield effects - medium to ultra (Ultra if you want dashboard reflections) Contact shadows - medium (Could barely tell difference from low to ultra) Reflections - Medium or high Depth of field - I prefer off Lens correction - I prefer on, but difference is super subtle Texture resolution - high
Very informative, the one thing I would have added to each one, is a frame rate counter, so we can tell the performance hit the different settings would cost. As we can see, many settings don't make a very big visual difference, but I bet some may hit frames pretty hard for little gain visually while others may gain visually but not cost much in frames.
30 years of desk flying, countless hours of tweaking. AT LAST I can reach nirvana in just one hour. You Sir... have strengthen my enjoyment of this addiction. You deserve high recognition for this. Hopefully somebody from the annual flightsim events around the world and manufacturers are reading this. He deserves an award!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome job ! Will help me in the fine tuning of my graphic settings (like medium building quality being very close to high & ultra so no need for more)
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan to do another video to cover a few other suggestions. I'll give this a try for the new video if it makes a difference.
Qubie, you got it right. I had to test this, and I might release a video on this since there have been a few people saying different things about draw distance and buildings. Ultimately you get to keep the finer building details from a further distance when increasing the level from medium to high and ultra. Essentially you will keep the roof shape and objects around the building for distances that are almost impossible to see unless you are zoomed in with the drone zoom. Some people have said that the entire building will pop up at a closer distance if you have this set lower, however this is not the case. That is controlled by a different setting. I also tested that theory.
Words can't express my gratitude for your time and effort into making this. It saved me hours by seeing what I can live without to get a constant 4K 60fps out of my rig. Im running a 3080 with a Ryzen 9 5900X, and technically could run every thing at Ultra but it averaged only around 40- 45 FPS..and it was choppy some when turning the camera.... but now im consistently at 60 fps and barely notice a difference in loss of detail cause of this video showing me where to cut corners that only I specifically cared about. Simply put this allowed me to tweek things even more to my personal liking. Even though optimizing by Nvidia is nice and they get it pretty close, this video let me perfect it. Thanks.
Great ! Thanks. Almost no noticeable difference between high and ultra in most aspects. Probably not worth it in regards to resources pulled. But the Rtx3080 I will have in 3 weeks vil chew through tings regardless. 👍👌
Thanks for your time to create this very useful settings comparison. I'm sure you're helping a lot of (future) simmers to get the best quality settings for their individual system.
Excellent work. Thank you. This will help all of us who are struggling obsessively for hours trying to get the best graphics versus frame rates. I’m off to try these settings now.
This is the best graphics comparison I’ve ever seen. It really helps me evaluate optimal visual tweaked vs performance. Thanks so much for taking the time to produce this!
After watching this video it seems clear and aligns with what I’ve been seeing - you don’t need more than medium for this sim to look great and your performance will thank you!
Beautiful video, I wish more reviewers did this with games. I could actually see the changes as the slider moved, and determine how much the LoD actually matters. (Since it's a flight sim, not a building sim, I'd easily choose Medium)
I'm one of the VR only Nut Jobs running a 2070 super Ryzen 3600x 16g Ram @3200mhz !This is an absolute gold mine of information . Thank you for your time and effort,
It's remarkable how good everything looks even at lower settings. The biggest change I noticed was in the quality of the clouds. On low, the clouds look awful .... but still better than we're used to seeing in previous simulators while on higher settings the clouds look nearly perfect.
Awesome sir! Although there was a huge delta between "off" and the next level up the difference between the higher levels were barely discernible. Currently have everything on "Ultra" - think I will go down to "High" to see if I can see any difference.
Thankyou for the effort you put into making this... it is greatly appreciated by the community! :) I've religiously always run my sims on ultra, it seems like such a waste to have a sim like this and not eek out every last detail we can... though it looks like there are some happy mediums we can reach here to balance frame rate/visual quality. I'm really pleased that this sim in general is beautifully optimised.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +5
The law of diminishing returns is strong in this one.
No words to describe how well made and helpful this video is ! You can fine tune your graphic settings to optimize the game for your computer and your own preferences. Amazing work !
Excellent, excellent, excellent. This video taught me more about how to set my sliders than all previous videos combined. Note to self: set defaults to MEDIUM.
This guy's the real MVP.. thanks so much for the comparison! Just proved that in this sim having most settings on medium still looks great visually. Especially important in VR where every inch of performance matters!
Ultra looks better for VFR flying more LOD in the distance.Clouds also look better on Ultra and SSAO shadows look more realistic in overcast conditions. Otherwise everything else looks identical on high and ultra.
If you look at just one setting then you are probably right, but when you combine all high vs all ultra then the final picture has noticeable quality gain.
Let me begin by saying WOW! after many years sifting thru so called "Guru" videos, I finally found the most legit, unbiased and most useful video ever. The holy grail of graphics settings. It literally took me 15 minutes to go from 25 FPS to now over 75! Just by adjusting my graphics settings using the comparisons in your video as a yardstick. Plain, simple, and without the annoying commentary many "Gurus" like to do in order to stretch their videos to meet YT guidelines to qualify for payment. I usually fly from KLAX and as many of you would know, its a nightmare. The stuttering, looks and overall experience is always been terrible to say the least. Now for the first time, I was able to take off, fly and land all without stuttering, buildings look awesome, and environment just have that "feel there" feeling. Flying the Jenny is equally as satisfying as flying the F-104, Hell, I flew the T-45C and I swear I thought I have my helmet on and forgot to put on my oxygen mask, That level of immersive sensation!. Thank you so much for bringing my MSFS back to life, and please keep doing the good work you do, Its been much appreciated...
Just to echo what others have said, that this is stellar work. I don"t bear to think how many hours this took! Great musical choice for background as well. Overall great vid. Well done....and thanks.
I told myself that I wasn't going to watch a 50 minute graphics comparison. However, I did finish it and found it interesting and even relaxing. I know that a lot of the edits were simple repetition. That being said, I think they were very well done and I appreciate the work that went into this. The music was a nice inclusion too. This is a great reference. Thanks for making it!
This video is incredible. Very very impressive work. Very informative and should be a landmark for anyone trying to improve performance in the sim. I take my hat off to you
Hi Jon, I completely agree with you and have actually went ahead to create a new video with lots of scenery shadows. If your interested in taking a look, here is the link. th-cam.com/video/qTI_QhykXSQ/w-d-xo.html. I appreciate the honest feedback. Helps me to improve.
Awesome video! I wish all graphics settings comparisons were structured like this! One suggestion though - do a highest/lowest comparison after each section. Would you mind doing the shadow maps, AO, and contact shadows from within the cockpit too?
I could do that with the cockpit. Regarding the highest vs lowest, I actually just created a video about Terrain shadows where I show lowest vs highest setting after showing the incremental changes. Thanks for the comment. Helps me improve my videos.
Very beautiful video. I've seen so many videos about MSFS 2020 settings, but none of them could really show what each setting does! Thank you for the effort and the valuable work.
This is absolutely the best flight sim video on all of TH-cam! I watched it twice -- the second time with paper and pen in hand to write down what settings I wanted to use in the sim. A huge THANK YOU from a new and very impressed subscriber!
Excellent video!!! Great work... this will help many simmers! I will be posting a link to this video on my channel! I’ve kept most of my settings on medium throughout my episodes. Thank you!
Just found your channel after a very frustrating 20+ hours on YT trying to get some decent VR headset quality, this is just the visual aid to demonstrate settings, fantastic, new subscriber here 👍
Thank you so much, this is exactly what I needed! And also thank you for listing all the songs you used, it's a major pet peeve when I hear a song I like in a video and they don't say what it is so I can find it.
WOW.....breathtaking images...and how more explicite can one be about the settings recommendations !!! This video should be put on the official website of fs2020 !
The two sliders terrain level of detail and object level of detail account for a sizeable chunk of framerate as they're both CPU/GPU heavy options. Lots of games use aggressive LODs to lighten the load on the system by rendering simplified geometry in the distance. This is equally important with a sim when details are rendered for miles, but at higher altitudes not really matter. Consider these sliders your biggest opportunity for a performance boost. Rendering geometry itself it's not the difficult / taxing part but it's actually shading it. Having LODs just means the hardware in your system wastes less time shading complex geometry in the distance when it's only a few pixels in size on your screen. This easily can account for like 15-30fps on your system between these settings so lower them as you feel necessary. Terrain to like 50 because distant buildings eventually will show when 2-3NM out. Noticed in the video object level or detail was showcasing a building up close. In the sim, object LOD is most noticable on aircraft. Shoot for 50-75, as that's a good spot where you can do formation flying with friends without their aircraft looking janky. Wouldn't recommend 25 or lower (unless totally necessary) because aircraft 1NM out will look terrible.
50 is a bit too low imo. Can see everything rendering it really noticeably! I've had had to go back to my normal 100. Your comments are spot on about performance. It did play considerably smoother but it was just too distracting.
Running a 10th Gen Intel with a 3060 gpu. I keep everything on High with frame rates limited to 30 and it's buttery smooth. Only think I might change is clouds to ultra. Best video I've seen to dial in these settings. Great work.
Actual Graphics Settings
- Low
- Medium
- Medium with Less FPS
- Medium with least FPS
YES!
the difference from medium to ultra is way less than i thought.
@@HollywoodSnob_ the clouds are obvious actually
TTT
the only exception to this is volumetric clouds
Wow this was brilliant. I can’t imagine the effort that went into this. It’ll help out so many of us. Thanks!
You would be surprised actually how easy this is, just very time consuming
Yeah the amount of detail that went into this was great. Thanks!
photoshop makes miracles ...
@@CH1EFBL1TZ it's easy when it's already been made obviously
@@CH1EFBL1TZ So, effort.
Note to self: Set Building Quality to MEDIUM
(edited: that's too short of an answer)
(edited: Thanks for all the likes - never had that before. And thanks for all the super insightful replies!)
And object detail
@Christopher Mangels ...... I doubt Ultra to Medium gains you any frame rate ... so leave it on Ultra.
@@Redridge07 but if I can't see the difference? Guess, it's personal preference.
I must say that that it performs pretty well in general with most stuff on ultra.
@@ChristopherMangels I get your logic. But my logic is if it doesn't impact frame rate then leave it on ultra.
@@Redridge07 Yeah, that's fine. And I DON'T (edited) think that performance is an issue anyway. At least on my 1080ti. I just want the autopilot to work.
Ok i was so pissed off about playing on medium but now i have achieved inner peace !!
Why be pissed on playing medium? It means ur pc is about average. And if you can run medium on flight sim 2020, you have the least of problems.
Learning how to optimize your games and not be so picky will save your wallet and get you bigger upgrades for the future. Not every game is meant to run on ultra.
@@user-fe5bi7ul4t I can run all ultra with only 120 FPS
@@disc3698 you are lying.
@@disc3698 stop lying
@@disc3698 Even a fucking 3090Ti can't run this game in 120fps
you want your buildings with air conditioning units?? better update that graphics card
Its about to be winter. That 1080ti will be worked for a couple more months. XD
3090 if you want extra a/c units on them.
You can't visually see the AC units way above at 10,000 feet but, damn it, you know they ain't there!
@@justinkidd4425 no bruh 1080tis are getting old especially my gtx 1050ti need to upgrade that to an rtx 2060 super or an rtz 2070 or an rtx 2080ti
@@Kpeters better upgrade cpu and gpu for no bottleneck
This is the best graphics comparison I've EVER seen. Good work sir!
Thank you. I'm glad you like it
Basically high and ultra are a waste of time lol
@@sergiosanchez6237 unless you have a nasa super computer
recap: (prefered settings imo)
building settings above medium have no effect (medium)
tree settings above medium just adds more trees no change in tree quality (medium)
grass settings just adds more grass (high)
anti aliasing anything below taa is blurry mess (taa)
terrain detail just adds more buildings and trees farther away (100 is fine)
object level of detail just adds more defined shadows to objects but after 100 nothing changes (100)
volumetric clouds settings just adds more detail to clouds (high)
water waves make water resolution higher (high since doesnt effect fps)
ambient occlusion gets darker every setting till high (medium)
anisoptropic and supersampling make texture resolution higher further away (8x and 4x4)
texture synthesis more defined textures again but doesnt really effect anything (low)
shadow maps increase shadow accuracy (1024)
terrain shadows (512)
lens flare is cool (on)
bloom (on)
light shafts lights passing through clouds etc (med)
windshield effects medium if you want performance ultra if you want the reflections of the cockpit as well
contact shadows dont change anything (low)
reflection creates more defined reflections (medium)
depth of field just blurs everything and decreases fps (off)
texture resolution (high)
What gpu do you have?
@@baileyploughe9361 1070ti
Thank you for this.
Replying to bookmark this comment
Great
Settings that I find that doesn't have a major difference/can live with low or medium settings based on observation:
• Texture Synthesis (>/= Low)
• Terrain Shadows (Off or 128)
• Windshield effects (>/= Medium)
• Contact shadows (>/= Low)
• Depth of Field (Low, but depends on your preference, I think this can complement the Render Scaling setting)
• Ambient Occlusion (>/= Medium or High if it won't impact performance)
• Shadow Maps (>/= 768)
• Buildings, Trees, and Bushes (>/= Medium)
• Texture Resolution (>/= Medium)
Settings that I find that makes a major difference/must live with at least high:
• Anisoptropic (>/= 16x)
• Texture Supersampling (>/= 8x8)
• Reflections (>/= High)
• Volumetric Fog (>/= High)
• Water Waves (>/= High)
• Terrain Level of Detail (>/= 175)
• Object Level of Detail (>/= 100)
I find that these settings really make a difference or they pop out, so I'm not taking PC specs into consideration here
EDIT:
Terrain Shadows do make a huge difference if you'll mostly be flying on terrain, but doesn't make much of a difference if you are flying on cities th-cam.com/video/qTI_QhykXSQ/w-d-xo.html
thanks for this.
Was thinking this. Thanks for the TLDR ;)
thank you so much
I'd be curious to know what it looks like and the perf you get with this configuration (and of course, your specs) :)
Did this and got 5-10 fps, now i have around 40, very nice
Me: WOW IS THIS ULTRA GRAPHICS
Co Pilot: pass out
Passenger:screaming
Me: wait this isnt simulation
Me: the computer burning 🔥.
Not only is it an organized video, I know how much work it took, but it still released the used songs in an organized manner ... congratulations for the impeccable work
So low is garbage Medium is fine and High and Ultra are just a waste of time.
Seán O'Nilbud wrong. In which resolution are you watching? You have to watch it at 4k to see the difference of course. I see it on my ipad at 480p and don‘t even see a difference between low and med. 😄
@@losmosquitos1108 uh. this video doesn't have 4k
cityuser that‘s why you can‘t see much difference, as I just wrote....
@@cityuser lol
@@losmosquitos1108 Sotiuqsom sol.
19:48 The reason why I have clouds on High, at all cost. A lot is quite decent at mid ranges, but clouds have to be high.
@@no_playback xD
@@no_playback Do clouds get the munchies, too?
Clouds are the biggest fps hit though. So if one is struggling knock em down a notch
water same
I found clouds at medium to be adequate, but yeah higher is nicer
I really didn't think even "Low" was bad, and I struggled to see any real difference between "Medium" and "High", nor between "High" and "Ultra." Maybe it's just my present monitor is just OK and not the best but, with my current setup, looks to me like "Medium" settings are hardly distinguishable from "Ultra", so "Medium" looks like the way to go. Thanks for the excellent and very useful video!
I agree with you. Everything on medium looks good to me too. Except volumetric clouds. I absolutely put them on ultra.
Absolutely phenomenal job with this video! This is what I call a true Direct comparison between the different graphic settings. I can only imagine how much time it took you to record the scenery 4 different times in exactly the same position as well as doing all the editing after. I've seen some of your other videos and you always put a lot of work into them and you deserve a lot more subscribers and recognition, this is one of my favorite videos when it comes to doing comparisons in general. This is, in my mind, a perfectly done video, because its exactly how I would want to see it being compared, literally pixel for pixel where you can follow the line and clearly see any and all of the differences, both big and small. So again, outstanding job with this video as usual :)
The difference from low to medium is crazy, after that you’d be hard press to tell the difference - even with a side by side comparison
Depends on which setting. Clouds look much better on ultra for example.
Because there is no difference at close range from medium to ultra settings... Most people here like yourself are so focused on just the object itself and are missing that those settings also change the draw distance of the buildings from more far ranges. So if you choose high or ultra you will see objects at farther distances and with more detail.
Grass is getting more (not better, just more. :D) when going from Medium to High, water reflections are better when going to High and clouds even get better at Ultra. Most other settings are just fine at Medium indeed.
@@bluemamba5317 Yeah, i mean clouds are like Fluffy in medium
I just want to say this one is the Bible of MSFS. Jesus, you did a great job! Thank you so much🙏🏻👍🏻😝
Thanks! Really glad you like the video.
This video was awesome ❤️
I took notes of my findings watching it for what I would use; which I will leave below 🤓
Building quaity - med or high
Tree quality - med or high
Grass & bushes - med or high
Anti-aliasing - TAA best
Terrain level of detail
(Mid & high height) - 125 to 200
(Diminishing returns after 125)
Objects level of detail
(low height) - 50 to 200
(diminishing returns after 50)
Volumetric clouds - high or ultra
Water waves
(Low height) - high
(High height) - medium or high
Ambient Occlusion
(Low height) - medium or high
Anisoptropic - 4x min up to 16x
(Diminishing returns after 4x)
Texture supersampling - 4x4 min up to 8x8
(Diminishing returns after 4x4)
Texture synthesis
(High height) - Medium
(Can't tell difference between low & high)
Shadow Maps
(Low height) - 1536 to 2048
Terrain Shadows - 1024
(Can barely notice any difference going from off - 2048)
Lens flare - I prefer off
Bloom - I prefer on
Light shafts - medium
(hard to tell difference from low to ultra)
Windshield effects - medium to ultra
(Ultra if you want dashboard reflections)
Contact shadows - medium
(Could barely tell difference from low to ultra)
Reflections - Medium or high
Depth of field - I prefer off
Lens correction - I prefer on, but difference is super subtle
Texture resolution - high
So as I see. At almost every options, the medium is the way, at least in 1080p res.
Very informative, the one thing I would have added to each one, is a frame rate counter, so we can tell the performance hit the different settings would cost. As we can see, many settings don't make a very big visual difference, but I bet some may hit frames pretty hard for little gain visually while others may gain visually but not cost much in frames.
I might create a second version of this in the near future where I add a frame rate benchmark to it. It's definitely a good idea.
@@VRFlightWorld Also, you could add the hardware configuration you have for the frame rates. Many of us are upgrading our machines soon for MSFS 2020.
@@VRFlightWorld Have you ever tried downloading the scenery manually with a high setting?
@@TheGbelcher The system specs are listed in the description.
That wouldn't necessarily make sense - you would still have all of the other settings to consider and they interact...
30 years of desk flying, countless hours of tweaking. AT LAST I can reach nirvana in just one hour. You Sir... have strengthen my enjoyment of this addiction. You deserve high recognition for this. Hopefully somebody from the annual flightsim events around the world and manufacturers are reading this. He deserves an award!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome job ! Will help me in the fine tuning of my graphic settings (like medium building quality being very close to high & ultra so no need for more)
Awesome. Glad it will help!
@@VRFlightWorld Not sure but the higher qualities of building settings are more for distance buildings. Might be an idea to get some wider shots.
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan to do another video to cover a few other suggestions. I'll give this a try for the new video if it makes a difference.
@@Qubie1 same with trees, forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-graphics-settings-and-performance-guide-8-18-2020/132407
Qubie, you got it right. I had to test this, and I might release a video on this since there have been a few people saying different things about draw distance and buildings. Ultimately you get to keep the finer building details from a further distance when increasing the level from medium to high and ultra. Essentially you will keep the roof shape and objects around the building for distances that are almost impossible to see unless you are zoomed in with the drone zoom. Some people have said that the entire building will pop up at a closer distance if you have this set lower, however this is not the case. That is controlled by a different setting. I also tested that theory.
Words can't express my gratitude for your time and effort into making this.
It saved me hours by seeing what I can live without to get a constant 4K 60fps out of my rig. Im running a 3080 with a Ryzen 9 5900X, and technically could run every thing at Ultra but it averaged only around 40- 45 FPS..and it was choppy some when turning the camera....
but now im consistently at 60 fps and barely notice a difference in loss of detail cause of this video showing me where to cut corners that only I specifically cared about.
Simply put this allowed me to tweek things even more to my personal liking.
Even though optimizing by Nvidia is nice and they get it pretty close, this video let me perfect it. Thanks.
This is exactly the graphics video I've been looking for. Thanks so much for making this!
No problem! Glad it helps.
Great ! Thanks. Almost no noticeable difference between high and ultra in most aspects. Probably not worth it in regards to resources pulled. But the Rtx3080 I will have in 3 weeks vil chew through tings regardless. 👍👌
The reason I play this sim at 20 FPS is because I’m in denial.
Well, at least it is playable at 20fps :)
There's ways of system optimization that you can get 10-15fps out of the sim. Jay's two cents has a video on it.
@@rkan2 787 cockpit: am I a joke to you?
@@milanwitham6360 With the cockpit screens refresh rate fix, 20fps should be more than possible :)
This doubled my fps: pop up the vfr/gps window and pop it out to make it a standalone window
Quite probably the best graphics comparison I've ever seen. Many thanks for the time and considerable effort in doing this!
Thanks!
Outstanding work. Truly a graphics fine-tuning reference for MSFS users.
Thanks. I appreciate the comment!
Thank you for this! Very useful and appreciated! I know this took tons of your time! The community high fives you in unison!
Thanks for your time to create this very useful settings comparison. I'm sure you're helping a lot of (future) simmers to get the best quality settings for their individual system.
Outstanding and incredibly helpful - thank you for this !
Excellent work. Thank you. This will help all of us who are struggling obsessively for hours trying to get the best graphics versus frame rates. I’m off to try these settings now.
0:20
Me: ...
*Cancels plans for new pc*
This is the best graphics comparison I’ve ever seen. It really helps me evaluate optimal visual tweaked vs performance. Thanks so much for taking the time to produce this!
Me: stares at my computer
My computer: Don't even think about it
After watching this video it seems clear and aligns with what I’ve been seeing - you don’t need more than medium for this sim to look great and your performance will thank you!
Beautiful video, I wish more reviewers did this with games. I could actually see the changes as the slider moved, and determine how much the LoD actually matters. (Since it's a flight sim, not a building sim, I'd easily choose Medium)
I didn't even start with FS2020 and find this very useful. Great!
Thanks, I'm glad it was helpful to you!
Amazing work mate, I I get anxious just thinking about it 🤣
I'm one of the VR only Nut Jobs running a 2070 super Ryzen 3600x 16g Ram @3200mhz !This is an absolute gold mine of information . Thank you for your time and effort,
It's remarkable how good everything looks even at lower settings. The biggest change I noticed was in the quality of the clouds. On low, the clouds look awful .... but still better than we're used to seeing in previous simulators while on higher settings the clouds look nearly perfect.
Agreed! The clouds being set on ultra actually was noticeable to me even over high.
I got 10 FPS back just from your video! Thanx again and keep up the Great work!
Awesome Job! This helps me a lot to Setup my FS. Thank you so much for this great work!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
This is the best and most comprehensive graphics comparison video I have ever seen. Outstanding! Thank you for the work put into this for all to see.
Thanks!
Note to myself. HAVE CLOUDS ON ULTRA
Supra
RaiD 😏
This is the sort of thing Asobo should have paid you to do! Truly amazing work.
Fascinating and very very useful. Thanks!!!
Glad you like it! Thanks.
The clouds are beautiful I never get tired of looking at them
I like how the second the video starts he gets right to it
Not all heroes wear capes. I have no doubt that this video has helped more people than you would ever know from the likes and views.
Awesome sir! Although there was a huge delta between "off" and the next level up the difference between the higher levels were barely discernible. Currently have everything on "Ultra" - think I will go down to "High" to see if I can see any difference.
Thanks! I'm glad my video could help you out.
Thankyou for the effort you put into making this... it is greatly appreciated by the community! :) I've religiously always run my sims on ultra, it seems like such a waste to have a sim like this and not eek out every last detail we can... though it looks like there are some happy mediums we can reach here to balance frame rate/visual quality. I'm really pleased that this sim in general is beautifully optimised.
The law of diminishing returns is strong in this one.
This is very true.
Draw distance!
@@VRFlightWorld not so much for the clouds, anything below high looks awful.
I know I’m late to the party but this is absolutely brilliant! Has helped tremendously! Thank you so much!
!!,,,
Thanks for the effort, great stuff!
This might be the most important MSFS video ever made.
I experienced water waves HIGH DOES affect fps extremely when there'S a lot of water. I had like 17 fps and when I changed it to medium it was 35.
Yep and you still get nice waves on medium
This is seriously the best graphics comparison video I’ve ever seen.
Thanks! Glad you like it.
“ULTRA LOW” yeah that’s my settings.
My PC would probably still not run it
I have played all of the flight simulators. I have a 3090, full set of accessories such as yoke, and I have an intel i9 10th generation ultra
@@royyark2896 wow thanks for flexing
@@jordzking6330 my old computer was an hewlett packard from 1998.there
@@royyark2896 me trying to know who asked
No words to describe how well made and helpful this video is ! You can fine tune your graphic settings to optimize the game for your computer and your own preferences. Amazing work !
To be honest, volumetric clouds and that effect of a rain on a windshield is why I bought this game.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. This video taught me more about how to set my sliders than all previous videos combined. Note to self: set defaults to MEDIUM.
amazing video dude. I've already seen the tremendous amount of support in the comments, so u must be used to it, but WOW.
Very precious! Thanks for taking the time to show all these settings.
Is this just real life ? Or is this just fantasy
wow !!..in my 20+ yrs of exp using SIMs, the best video I've ever seen to "explain" SIM Settings. Brilliant !!..
Thanks! That's an amazing comment. I really appreciate it.
Medium adds detail to buildings, high adds detail to cars on top and ultra just maxes out
Most usefull ever in the flight sim world. After 10 years of struggle, not understanding all this staff. Now i do. Thanks for this.
Don't even have my computer on and my GPU is sweating
This guy's the real MVP.. thanks so much for the comparison! Just proved that in this sim having most settings on medium still looks great visually. Especially important in VR where every inch of performance matters!
Is it just me that thinks "High" And "Ultra" look the same?
Ultra looks better for VFR flying more LOD in the distance.Clouds also look better on Ultra and SSAO shadows look more realistic in overcast conditions. Otherwise everything else looks identical on high and ultra.
If you look at just one setting then you are probably right, but when you combine all high vs all ultra then the final picture has noticeable quality gain.
Let me begin by saying WOW! after many years sifting thru so called "Guru" videos, I finally found the most legit, unbiased and most useful video ever. The holy grail of graphics settings. It literally took me 15 minutes to go from 25 FPS to now over 75! Just by adjusting my graphics settings using the comparisons in your video as a yardstick. Plain, simple, and without the annoying commentary many "Gurus" like to do in order to stretch their videos to meet YT guidelines to qualify for payment. I usually fly from KLAX and as many of you would know, its a nightmare. The stuttering, looks and overall experience is always been terrible to say the least. Now for the first time, I was able to take off, fly and land all without stuttering, buildings look awesome, and environment just have that "feel there" feeling. Flying the Jenny is equally as satisfying as flying the F-104, Hell, I flew the T-45C and I swear I thought I have my helmet on and forgot to put on my oxygen mask, That level of immersive sensation!. Thank you so much for bringing my MSFS back to life, and please keep doing the good work you do, Its been much appreciated...
There will come a day when we won't be able to decipher the difference between reality and what's artificial
Its called DMT
Honestly I started skimming this video just for the settings I wanted, but the music sucked me in and I chilled out to the whole thing. Well done!
My settings based on this video:
Building Wuality: medium
Tree Quality: low/med
Grasses and Bushes: low/med
Anti-Aliasing: TAA
Terrain LOD: 50/75
Object LOD: 0/50
Volumetric Clouds: med/high
Water Waves: low/med
Ambient Occlusion: low
Anisoptropic: 4x
Texture Supersampling: 4x4
Texture Synthesis: low
Shadow Maps: 768
Terrain Shadows: 128
Lens Flare: on (personal preference)
Bloom: on (personal preference)
Light Shafts: low/med
Windshield Effects: med/ultra (for realism)
Contact Shadows: low
Reflections: low
Depth of Field: low
Lens Correction: off
Texture Resolution: med
This doubled my fps: pop up the vfr/gps window and pop it out to make it a standalone window
Just to echo what others have said, that this is stellar work. I don"t bear to think how many hours this took! Great musical choice for background as well. Overall great vid. Well done....and thanks.
everyone really should appreciate how well optimized this game is
I told myself that I wasn't going to watch a 50 minute graphics comparison. However, I did finish it and found it interesting and even relaxing.
I know that a lot of the edits were simple repetition. That being said, I think they were very well done and I appreciate the work that went into this. The music was a nice inclusion too.
This is a great reference. Thanks for making it!
Thanks! Glad you liked it.
Play at 2x speed. 👌
This video is incredible. Very very impressive work. Very informative and should be a landmark for anyone trying to improve performance in the sim. I take my hat off to you
With terrain shadows, wouldn't it make more sense to set the time of day to some point where there actually are shadows caused by the terrain?
Hi Jon, I completely agree with you and have actually went ahead to create a new video with lots of scenery shadows. If your interested in taking a look, here is the link. th-cam.com/video/qTI_QhykXSQ/w-d-xo.html. I appreciate the honest feedback. Helps me to improve.
Awesome video! I wish all graphics settings comparisons were structured like this! One suggestion though - do a highest/lowest comparison after each section.
Would you mind doing the shadow maps, AO, and contact shadows from within the cockpit too?
I could do that with the cockpit. Regarding the highest vs lowest, I actually just created a video about Terrain shadows where I show lowest vs highest setting after showing the incremental changes.
Thanks for the comment. Helps me improve my videos.
@@VRFlightWorld I just saw the other video, thanks!
RIP to everyone that cant play on good graphics... yeah RIP to my self
Also CPU and RAM
Very beautiful video. I've seen so many videos about MSFS 2020 settings, but none of them could really show what each setting does! Thank you for the effort and the valuable work.
Lol I died when I saw the low quality clouds, I was like what duh.. r those supposed 2 b clouds?
This is absolutely the best flight sim video on all of TH-cam! I watched it twice -- the second time with paper and pen in hand to write down what settings I wanted to use in the sim. A huge THANK YOU from a new and very impressed subscriber!
That's great! Glad you liked it.
From my previous TH-cam experience, I know how hard is to make a graphics comparison video! You have done a great job...!
Thanks! I appreciate that.
Excellent video!!! Great work... this will help many simmers! I will be posting a link to this video on my channel! I’ve kept most of my settings on medium throughout my episodes. Thank you!
Just found your channel after a very frustrating 20+ hours on YT trying to get some decent VR headset quality, this is just the visual aid to demonstrate settings, fantastic, new subscriber here 👍
Thank you so much, this is exactly what I needed! And also thank you for listing all the songs you used, it's a major pet peeve when I hear a song I like in a video and they don't say what it is so I can find it.
Unbelievable work thank you buddy.
I have shared this on the forums, hope it brings a few subs your way. You got one here, thanks!
Thanks! I really appreciate that.
Thank you for taking the time to produce this!!! Very cool and informative. I know this took a ton of time to record.
WOW.....breathtaking images...and how more explicite can one be about the settings recommendations !!!
This video should be put on the official website of fs2020 !
not rlly breathtaking
The two sliders terrain level of detail and object level of detail account for a sizeable chunk of framerate as they're both CPU/GPU heavy options. Lots of games use aggressive LODs to lighten the load on the system by rendering simplified geometry in the distance. This is equally important with a sim when details are rendered for miles, but at higher altitudes not really matter. Consider these sliders your biggest opportunity for a performance boost.
Rendering geometry itself it's not the difficult / taxing part but it's actually shading it. Having LODs just means the hardware in your system wastes less time shading complex geometry in the distance when it's only a few pixels in size on your screen.
This easily can account for like 15-30fps on your system between these settings so lower them as you feel necessary. Terrain to like 50 because distant buildings eventually will show when 2-3NM out. Noticed in the video object level or detail was showcasing a building up close. In the sim, object LOD is most noticable on aircraft. Shoot for 50-75, as that's a good spot where you can do formation flying with friends without their aircraft looking janky. Wouldn't recommend 25 or lower (unless totally necessary) because aircraft 1NM out will look terrible.
Good grief slow down big guy not to mention the sim is using DX11 kind of a bottleneck too
50 is a bit too low imo. Can see everything rendering it really noticeably!
I've had had to go back to my normal 100.
Your comments are spot on about performance. It did play considerably smoother but it was just too distracting.
Saving this vid for the year 2050. So that I can tweak some settings in case the phone doesn't quite emulate the game at ultra settings.
You can pretty much play MFS 98 on your phone on ultra right now if you could play it.
Wow, thank you for making this video, really appreciate your efforts putting into this one.
Thank you very much for all the effort made to publish this. This is a very helpful video. Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the great comment. Glad it helps!
One of the most useful videos about MSFS settings that I've seen so far. Thank you !
Good comparisons. Looks like medium settings provide a good view scenery rendition.
Ya, it's true, medium seems to do a great job with most things.
Anyone with FS2020 needs to see this!
Running a 10th Gen Intel with a 3060 gpu. I keep everything on High with frame rates limited to 30 and it's buttery smooth. Only think I might change is clouds to ultra. Best video I've seen to dial in these settings. Great work.
Thanks a lot! We have now an idea of the differences between the presets.
You have do a great effort and It is rewarded with a sub!
Thanks!