plainsman

Historically, MS has used the Flight Simulation platform to showcase new component capabilities. It will not surprise me if the download info and storage footprint is significantly lighter. At the same time, it will not surprise me if DDR5 memory is optimized, M.2 data transfer speed exploited more effectively, or even better use of new CPU technology (for example, large cache). How this develops for specific hardware requirements is still enigmatic at this point. I suspect most modern systems that run MSFS 2020 well, will still work in MSFS 2024, but will they find ways to use Arrow Lake or AMD 9000 CP:Us for optimization, we don't know?

Hi KiloWatt, I agree that based on CPU & GPU, his performance in MSFS would only be about 6% less than mine (based on MSFS in Howmanyframes site), I added the comment about not to expect smooth performance based on two things. The budget system motherboard won't allow him to run a M.2 drive. Based on UserBenchmark site the PNY CS900 with 480GB size will only be less than 20% of the WD SN750. I would expect that system to have some load lag and occasional stuttering from the data read off the storage device, Second, on another thread the OP stated he wanted to have scenery traffic, both aircraft and personnel and equipment active. I run with only minimal equipment and personnel, and moderate aircraft traffic with cars almost off. I have never run 1080p, I started out at the odd resolution of 1920x1200, which is about 133% greater than 1080p in pixels, and eventually went to 1440p. The program is also less demanding now than at release. I run my fps capped at 30fps in Nvidia and my system runs that without much drop in the area I usually fly. If however I go into St Louis, my fps does create some stuttering. Out at KFMZ, I run stutter free. I don't know what areas the OP will usually fly, but I wanted to suggest a caveat if he is going to use LA or NYC.,

This is about the minimum specs for a new computer that would run MSFS with acceptable results . This would not be smooth and you would probably need to run at a mix of low and medium settings. I notice in another thread, you are wanting to add equipment and workers and traffic. These will make even more demand on your system, Be careful not to fall for a system without enough storage capacity. The program requires rather large swap files, and a small drive at 80% capacity is probably going to result in problems!

I am going to address some hardware considerations for your system. If you are planning on getting a new computer for MSFS, these may be helpful. There are a number of user choice factors that really dramatically effect the hardware demand for this simulator. First, will you being running the sim on 1080p, 1440p or 4K? Second,, how much graphic setting compromise can you live with. Third, can you live with minimal traffic or do you plan to have lots of aircraft and personnel and equipment around the airport? The answer to those questions will have a major impact on hardware choice. If you choose 4K on all ultra settings, with lots of traffic, then even the very best available hardware will be below the task if you fly a lot over major cities like NYC or Paris. Some points you may not have thought about are case, memory timing, and storage. These can be an important element in running the sim without issue of crashes and stutters. MSFS runs in a way that will generate a lot of heat. Having a roomy case with lots of airflow will enable you to use cooling devices that dissipate a lot of heat. This is important. Second,, choosing memory that has low latency and good timing may gain significant advantage in smooth, stutter free performance. Right now, I am not sure you gain a lot from running DDR5 over DDR4. That may change quickly, but at the moment, running DDR4 at 3200 will probably be better than DDR5 at 4800. For storage, I strongly urge you to use a good NVME M.2, with plenty of excess capacity. Trying to run MSFS off a HDD is going to give you undesirable results. The reason I suggest the excess capacity, is two fold. First, the program will create significant swap files that will cause problems if your storage device is more that 75% full. Having extra storage space will make life much easier. Second, if you plan to add a lot of extra addon files, those can use up storage space quickly. Another reason to go with an M.2 storage device, is the update consideration. MSFS has frequent massive updates. If you have a slow storage device, this can add hours to the update. As to CPU, the program currently only uses about 6 cores. You won't see a lot of difference in an I5 13600K and a I9 14900K in performance. The I7 & I9 CPUs have a little more cache so there is some advantage, but it may not be worth the extra dollars and additional heat. Now if you plan to run 4K, I might change that, but I think the advice is true at 1440p or 1080p. Don't skimp on GPU memory. I would suggest a RTX 4060ti with 16gb of memory is the starting point on a new machine at 1080p. The sim will use a lot of VRAM.

Downloaded late Wednesday afternoon without any issues. Flew the Bonanza from KFMZ to KMCI. The screenshot is climbing over the old abandoned Bruning Army Airfield, off the left wing.

About to cross Interstate 80 on approach to KCBF

MSFS has always been a driver for more robust hardware. The story of my first computer and my introduction to MSFS illustrates this. It was in the Fall of 1985. The company I worked for had several 8088 machines with 10 MB hard drives. One economic evaluation program we ran frequently, took 52 minutes to run on one of those machines. I decided to buy my first computer, and splurged to get an 80286-10 machine with an added math chip. The economic program that took 52 minutes to run on the company machines, took just under 10 minutes to run on mine. My boss, an engineer, asked me to get the latest version of MSFS to test my 80286 machine. He reasoned that if it could run MSFS satisfactorily, it could run all the company engineering and economic software. BTW, that 80286 had a ridiculously gigantic 24 MB hard drive, which I was told repeatedly could NEVER be used, all that space would be a complete waste! In addition to MSFS, that machine ran SuperCalc 3, Lotus 123, EasyWriter, and a clunky database software I don't remember. About two months after I got my computer, the company owner purchased an 80286-12 machine for his office.

Fairmont State is an old B-24 training base. After the war, it was maintained as a state airfield. It is a substantial airport in the midst of farmland.

If I fly KDAY to KMCI, in the A320, MSFS incorrectly assumes all gates are small, and won't log a successful landing and flight.

KMCI to KDAY to Paterson AFB. After update.

First, you will need to upgrade to at least Windows 10, MSFS won't run under Windows 7. Second. you will need to add another SSD or M.2 drive. I suggest at least 1TB. Both the GPU and system memory are marginal, they will work, but not well (particularly if your monitor is 1440p or 4K, I doubt 4K fps would be sufficient).

If the above solved your loudness needs, then ignore this. If you want substantial increase in sound volume, you are probably limited by your computer sound system. There are ways around this, but you will need to spend a bit of money to get there. If you are in a typical office size room, and you are not trying to rattle the windows, then you can get a nice setup for about $150.00 total investment. Add a SMSL SA-50 amp (or similar), a pair of Micca MB42a speakers, some short speaker wire runs, and a connection cable, all about $150.00 total. If you are in a modest living room, you will need more amplifier power and speakers that can handle a little more power. A SMSL A300 amp and ELAC Debut 2.0 B6.2 Bookshelf Speakers would handle that for about $550.00 total. You can get nicer equipment, but I am assuming you want an economical solution. I run an 80 watt Fosi amp and an older pair of Elac 5 inch speakers, and I have been very happy. I previously had the SMSL SA-50 above with an even older speaker set, and it was fine in an office size room. If you want to do this in a barn, or a high school gym, reply back, it can be done, but you will need an expensive setup for that. If you want to use your headphones, you may need a dedicated headphone amp. The amp you would need will depend on the headphones you are using. Efficient low impedance headphones need a lot less power to drive loudly than a pair of 600 ohm headphones.

KFMZ to KOLU.

San Diego to Merced.

KBFL to KFAT.

Try this. Drop your monitor refresh rate to 33%, Anisotropic filtering to 8X, Texture supersampling to 4X4, and cubemap reflections to 128. You may not notice a quality difference but much less demand on system. If your monitor refresh rate is 144 or greater, you are still seeking 48 fps, more than enough.

As speed gets over Mach 0.9, drag increases enormously. Shock waves will begin to build on some parts of the aircraft. This can result in severe buffeting that could damage the aircraft. Read about Convair's experience in this Mach zone. If you are getting overspeed on descent, begin your descent farther from the airport, so that you can maintain a controlled rate of descent.

I strongly suggest you obtain the sim from either Microsoft Store or Steam. Unlike previous sims, the vast majority of the program resides in The Cloud. Only a tiny fraction is on his computer. Rather than a key code, every time you open the program, it checks that the program is legit, is up to date and that Windows is the latest version and matches against a legit version. It would take over 400 4TB SSDs to hold the entire program.

I can't answer in your language, but feel free to translate online. I think your most significant possible problem will be your CPU. The minimum specs call for a 4th generation processor. I don't know if any needed code is missing in 1st generation I7s? The 980 is a pretty powerful CPU so if the code is compatible, it should be fine. The GTX 1060 is a pretty close match to the "recommended" GIX 970. You have ample memory.

Go to options, general misc

There is no standard in how these files are compiled. Make sure the folder is not beneath another folder. When you open it, it should look something like this, but probably with more livery entries. Another potential problem could be a mismatch of file calls in the aircraft.config, and the sound and panel installed. If your panel or sound is named, then the aircraft.config must match those names. For example, if the panel folder is named panel.J94, then then the aircraft.config should have a line, panel=J94.

To add to What Larry said. I like to extract the files to an "unzipped" folder before putting them in FSX or FS2002 or X-Plane. This serves three purposes. First, it allows you to check that all the needed files are present. The file may need a specific panel or sound file or alias that is not present. You can look at the aircraft.config and make sure the files match and are available. Second, not all files are compiled the same way. By extracting to an unzipped folder I can make sure the correct folder is moved into the sim. It also lets me check for any obvious glitches that might be present, these are free files and not all uploaders are comprehensive. Finally, this gives me the opportunity to edit the file if I want to add any improved flight dynamics or a better panel.

Why not acquire both. I have MSFS, X-Plane 11.5, FSX, and FS2002. all on this computer. I use some a lot more than others, but each has a place as I use them.

Two Flights, KCPR to CYQR and KCPR to KWRL.