![]() ![]() ![]() I found that setting the Render Scale to 90 was more than enough to make the game feel a lot smoother, for example, since 90% of 1920 × 1080 still equals 1728 × 972, which is more than settling for the following option down to 1600×900. This will render the game at a percentage of your target resolution (in this case 1920 × 1080), before scaling it back to that target, helping to relieve some of the strain on your GPU without having to settle for a lower resolution. The easiest way to increase those numbers on the GTX 970 is to reduce the render scale. That’s what you’ll probably get with the recommended PC spec if you stick to the default presets in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but you can always play around with the settings a bit more to help get the frame rate up a bit. Instead, it was only by pulling the preset graphics to the low end that I achieved a smooth 60fps, where it averaged around 65fps. When I tried to turn that up to High-end, the frame rate held steady at 35fps. Inside the cockpit, I saw an average frame rate of around 45fps while flying and looking from side to side, but this could quickly dip down to 30fps or less if you enabled free camera mode. To test the game, I used the first flight training mission as a makeshift, but repeatable benchmark to try and maintain the same conditions as much as possible. Using the components, I described above along with my GTX 970 I struggled to get the game will run smoothly even in 1920 × 1080 Medium. In that case, you probably won’t be able to see all those brilliant details unless you dial the resolution below 1920 × 1080. Suppose your PC just barely meets the recommended requirements for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Microsoft Flight Simulator PC performance Use Generic Plane Models (MULTIPLAYER) – Off. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |