efanton

The best series of tutorials I have seen are from a Scottish guy on Youtube Doofer911 He goes through literally everything you will every need to know about flying a light aircraft from actually taking off and flying a circuit to instruments and how to use them, navigation and using navigational aids such as VOR's, as well as using autopilots and planning routes. Explained simply but in detail, in fairly short and concise videos. Its an absolute gem for anyone starting out in flight sims.

You are absolutely right Bugdozer. People will have different CPU's, different chipsets on the motherboards, and different graphics cards. Each possible configuration would have to be evaluated individually. this is why I stated the best place to start is using TASK MANAGER to see if the OP can identify a bottleneck. No doubt adding 16GB of RAM would improve his systems performance, but without identifying the bottleneck first its just as likely that it will not address his particular problem of stutter or short freezes. If you have money to burn throw in the extra RAM hoping it will fix the problem but be prepared to spend more money addressing the real issue if that doesn't fix it. If you haven't got money to burn maybe trying to identifying the problem with the free tools provided with windows might be more sensible.

Start with the basics. Before you can fix a problem you need to understand what the problem is. Windows believe or not has the solution to this. Start up windows with nothing else running and then open up TASK MANAGER (right click your task bar and you will see it there). It will start up on the Processes tab and this will show you how much CPU, Memory, disk read/write, network, and GPU is being used be each program. What you are looking to do here is get a feel for how much of you PC's resources windows uses before you launch any other program. You can sort processes based on a particular resource usage to make it easier to identify what is chewing up the CPU, memory etc (you will see a down arrow above CPU, memory, disk etc.) Now click the PERFORMANCE tab and you will see the total usage for your different resources. Click back to you performance tab before going on to the next step Now launch FS 2020 and again look at you task manager. Again look to see what is using most CPU, memory disk or network. Now click the performance tab to see to total amounts of each resource being used. Now leave the task manager open and fly FS 2020 and as soon as you encounter a freeze or low performance switch to you task manager and look to see what is chewing up you resources. Dont forget to switch to your performance tab and look there too. It should be obvious what you problem is from what you can see in task manager. If your CPU is maxing out then additional ram is not going to help. What might help is closing programs that run in the background such as email, skype, discord or even you antivirus If your memory is above 85% then you do need additional memory.

I think I can safely say that you are not going to be able to run FS 2020 at that resolution (5120x1440) with ultra settings. Toms Hardware did a thorough benchmarking test of lots of video cards at various different video resolutions. A RTX 2080ti was totally and utterly crushed trying to run FS 2020 at 4k (3840x2160) with ultra settings peaking at only 35 fps and only giving a consistent 28 FPS. This is the only game that so far has managed to crush a RTX 2080ti at this resolution At 2560x1440 resolution with ultra settings the RTX 2080ti was getting 49 fps. You are proposing to run a resolution somewhere between these two, and suffice to say that unless you are using a 2080, 2080 super, or 2080 ti you are going to have to compromise and not run in ultra detail unless you are prepared to accept occasional stutter or low frame rates. To be honest its going to be hard for you to tell the difference between running FS 2020 at high detail and ultra detail because all images will be 'moving', so I dont think dropping down to high detail will result in a dramatic drop in image quality. The good new is running at high detail in 1080p every card equivalent or better than a RTX 2060 that was tested will give close to or above 50 FPS with many closer to 60 fps than the 50fps. Extrapolating from that then it would be reasonable to assume that these same cards will be giving at least 35 fps to 40fps at the 5120x1440 resolution you wish to use. This is more than adequate for FS 2020, its not a first person shooter. Read the full article here and it will give you an idea of what to expect. https://www.tomshardware.com/features/microsoft-flight-simulator-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements I agree with the above poster, I personally am waiting for the release of the new RTX30xx GPU's. I am looking to get a RTX 2070 super or its equivalent from the new range of cards when they are released. The rumour mill and leaks suggest that the RTX 30xx series will be released at these prices. 3060 card will retail at $400 (probably not release until January) 3070 " " " " $600 (leaks suggest this and all cards below will be released sometime in September) 3080 " " " " $800 3090 " " " " $1400 If those prices turn out to be true the its almost certain that existing stocks of RTX 20xx cards will be dramatically discounted. If they do release at those prices then I will grab a RTX 3070 at much the same price as you will currently pay for a 2070 super. .

Why even compromise? Seriously RAM is so cheap these days. A 16GB SODIMM memory module is going to cost you £50 to £75 extra. I am absolutely certain whoever you buy that laptop from will happily install the additional 16GB of RAM. Personally I would buy the laptop with the better processor and just upgrade the memory. Remember that FS 2020 is video intensive. What most people forget is that a GPU is useless without an equally matched CPU. The CPU draws the wire frame that the GPU then fills out. If you had a GTX 2080ti graphics card and a pentium processor the likelihood is that your video performance and experience would be abysmal even though the RTX 2080ti is the best video card that money can buy at the moment Think of it like drawing a picture. you have to draw the image first with a pencil (the CPU does this) and them colour it in or shade it with paints or colouring pens (the GPU does this). The GPU is totally incapable of drawing the outline or wire-frame. If drawing the picture takes forever then it really doesnt matter how good your video card is. Also bear in mind that with a laptop you are likely to be using the onboard GPU built into the CPU. Generally the better the CPU the better the onboard GPU in that processor will be. Putting 32GB of ram in a laptop for FS2020 is not going to make it any better if the CPU and GPU cant generate the video output fast enough. Extra RAM will not have any effect on this problem. Seriously think about this. Dont fall into the trap in thinking extra RAM is going to fix a PC or laptop that simply is not capable of handling the graphics demands of a game like FS 2020. If you cant afford the additional RAM now then just make sure when buying a laptop it has a free memory module slot available for an upgrade later. Buying the laptop with the better processor is my advice.

Thanks very much for responding stempski. Thats a awful lot of land area for only 11GB of cache. I did a calculation based on Ireland having a land area of about 85,000 km2 and the land surface of the entire world being about 150 million km2. Ireland is about 0.05% of the worlds land surface. If we are to believe MS use 2 petatbyte (2, million GB) to store the worlds entire land surface, then a simple calculation of 0.05% of 2 million would give me an approximations of how much storage I would need for all of Ireland. That works out to 100GB. But from what you are saying its likely that I will need less than the 100GB. I assume that that's probably down to cities and airports needing much more data to construct views than open countryside and the smaller towns and cities that Ireland has. This is great news. I was anticipating buying an additional 1 TB SSD to use solely as FS 2020 cache so that I could also cache UK and European routes. Looks like I might actually be able to reduce that considerably, possibly a 500GB drive instead.

I had anticipated this when designing the spec for my new PC. Unfortunately I was supplied a duff motherboard (Aorus Master) so will have to wait for the entire RMA process, which might take a few weeks, so no flying for me yet :( the Anyhow one of the first things I will do after installing window is MOVE my profile folder (C:USERS\username) to the second SSD before I install anything. That way all my documents, downloads, program data etc will not be clogging up my boot drive but instead go directly to the secondary SSD. Apparently you can alter the size of the cache that FS 2020 uses. With less than stellar broadband here in Ireland I was hoping to cache the map for the areas I fly most often in, and was guessing that 100GB would be appropriate. Out of curiosity stempki could you give us some indication of how much of the world map you have flown to use up 11GB of cache? Maybe the 100GB I was planning on reserving for FS 2020 cache is too excessive, or maybe I need to increase that amount.

All depends on the damage model that has been talked about I no doubt will fly all of them at some point. The real question is how many will I actually land :p But seriously, I would be interested in flying the Pipistrel Virus SW 121. I have promised myself if I ever win the lotto there are two things on my list. A small light aircraft, and a brand new fully loaded FJR1300 motorcycle. I have often looked at the Pipistrel Virus SW 121 and the Europa's thinking what would it be like to actually fly them. FS 2020 gives me the chance to actually fly one without having to win the lotto first. https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/cruising/virus-sw-121/

On paper it all looks good. They include a 512mb cache which a lot of the cheaper SSD's skimp on, 3D NAND technology, and if their claims of total writes are true then theses SSD's will last a long time. I find it very hard to believe that they could even come close to the performance of Samsung EVO SSD's for the very simply reason that Samsung SSD's come with a huge cache in comparison. 12 GB for 250 GB model, 22 GB for 500 GB model, 42 GB for 1 TB model and 78 GB for 2/4 TB. Compare the paltry 512mb offered by Addlink to the truly massive 42GB offered by Samsung and you can clearly see what Samsung EVO's are considered the best that money can buy, but obviously at a much more hefty cost. The flip side to that is how often will you be writing more than 512mb of data to your drive at any one time? Very rarely, except for the occasional software install. Having said that there are only two manufactures of the actual memory chips used by all SSD's on the market, Samsung and Hynix , both proven to be very reliable. The difference between the different brands of SSD's really comes down to three things, the amount of onboard cache, whether they are 3D NAND or not (3D NAND being better, cheaper budget SSD do not use it), and the level of support provided after sale. My reluctance to endorse the Addlink SSD would simply be down to after sales support, and the fact that they are a 'new kid on the block' and to a large extent an unknown quantity. Personally I had never heard of them before your post and I have been in the IT industry for decades. If their after sales is good then they look like a company that will do well with the performance they are offering. Personally I would go with a Sabrent Rocket SSD which I think you will find is cheaper both in the UK and US, has equal or better performance. has great after sales support, are a known brand that has been tried and tested and are a favourite of PC builder enthusiasts https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07LGF54XR?tag=pcp0f-21&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1 But given the specs of the SSD you posted a link for, you will not be disappointed by the performance of that SSD if you buy it.

I agree. A half decent processor is going to be just fine. What is more important is that you have a SSD, a decent graphics card, and a decent amount of RAM, 16GB I would say should be minimum with 32GB recommended. The good news is that the RAM and SSD are relatively cheap. The GPU though will be the most expensive component in your PC. If you can wait a month or two before upgrading a GPU I would do so. With NVIDIA about to release their RTX3000 series of cards, and AMD closely following behind with their Big NAVI cards its likely that graphic cards that are currently on the market will drop in price. If there ever was a chance of NVIDIA getting into a price war this is likely to be it.

Be careful with any specs issued by any software developer. Their minimum specs are literally for their software only, and they really are bare minimums, it does not include the operating system, or any other software that you might have running in the background (email client, discord/teamspeak, antivirus software, web browser etc etc). all these background tasks along with the Windows operating system could easily swallow up 10GB of your RAM before you even launch your flight sim software. At the present time having any Windows 10 PC with less than 16GB RAM is simply looking for trouble and poor performance especially when using a software package such as a flight sim that is processor and data intensive. The good new is the cost of RAM in the last year or so has dropped dramatically. I recently bought 32GB RAM that will run at 3600 mhz (probably the fastest you can get) with RGB lighting and it only cost me £180. you can pickup up RAM far cheaper than that. Currently Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB (2x16GB DIMMs) can be bought on Amazon for £110. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0196QNBU4?tag=pcp0f-21&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1 At that price you would have to be totally mad to skimp on memory.

To be honest not familiar with the Addlink brand. Samsung EVO are without doubt the best performing SSD out there at the moment but they come with a hefty price. I personally put a 250 GB Samsung EVO Plus in my build as a boot drive reserved for windows only and then added a Sabrent Rocket 1 TB SSD to install my other software. 1 TB should be more than enough storage unless you are going to be installing absolutely loads of games. Sabrent is my personal SSD of choice, recognised as top quality, great prices, and great performance too. Personally I usually go with the reviews on Partpicker https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/ All the reviews there are by ordinary customers who have actually bought and used these parts and are not being sponsored or making any money out of persuading you to buy a particular brand. If a part gets 4 or 5 stars you know you are buying a quality part. It is also a great website for finding deals. You simply go to create your custom PC select the parts you are looking for and it will give you best available prices for what you want. If you want to change which country it searches simply change the flag on the right in the options at top of the page. Something to be aware of. If your system board allows installation of a NVME SSD then use one of them. Far faster than a normal SSD that would connect to a normal SATA connections at not much more cost.

Do not buy a Hard Drive. Buy a SSD instead. 1 TB is more than enough. SSD's are far faster and FS 2020 will be downloading and writing to your drive as you fly. A normal hard drive might become a bottleneck and reduce your flight sim performance. You can buy a decent quality 1 TB SSD for about £100.

With a budget of £1800 you should be able to build an absolute monster of a PC Here is my build. Its totally over the top just for FS 2020 and does not have a graphics card yet, but it includes a keyboard, TWO SSD's, RGB components and case, so you could easily shave at least £150 of the cost which currently £1482.03. This PC will be easily capable of running FS 2020 at high settings and probably any game you can mention at reasonable high frame rates, even at 1440p. Add in a decent RTX 2070 graphics card remove one of the SSD's and the keyboard and you would be around or below you £1800 budget. https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/efanton/saved/#view=m9Vnt6 CPU Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor £429.99 CPU Cooler Cooler Master MasterLiquid ML240R RGB 66.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler £99.99 Thermal Compound Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut 1g 1 g Thermal Paste £5.57 Motherboard Gigabyte Z390 AORUS MASTER ATX LGA1151 Motherboard £239.99 Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory £192.66 Storage Samsung 970 Evo Plus 250 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive £65.98 (boot drive reserved for Windows only) Sabrent Rocket 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive £129.88 Case Cooler Master MasterBox MB530P ATX Mid Tower Case £109.99 Power Supply SeaSonic FOCUS PX 850 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply £169.99 Keyboard Kingston HyperX Alloy FPS RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard TOTAL COST FOR ABOVE £1482.03 I have not bought the graphics card yet as the RTX 3000 series will be released in September. Its likely that either NVIDIA will be in a price war with AMD or the current RTX 20XX cards will drop in price once they are released. I am looking to get a RTX 2070 Super or its RTX3000 series equivalent and that is likely to cost no more than £500. Your £1800 will build an absolute monster if you are prepared to build a PC yourself. All the parts I selected above are absolutely top quality so it is a PC that is likely to last years before requiring an upgrade.

I would agree about the waiting if the new RTX series was being release for early next year, as it is it appears these will be released in September. Got to be worth the 6 week wait if you are looking to buy a mid range to high end graphics card at the moment. Also with NVIDIA and AMD releasing their new graphic cards at more or less the same time and going head to head, if there ever was a time when NVIDIA would get into a price war this is it. Until now NVIDIA have always charged top price for their cards because they simply could. Big Navi potentially could change that if the card is as good as the leaked reports suggest. It might not compete with the replacement for the RTX 2080 TI but it definitely sounds as if it will be competing in the same space as the RTX2060 Super, RTX 2070 or the 2070 Super. You would be a fool not to wait the 6 weeks if you can, to see exactly what the prices are on release for these new cards and what impact they will have on the price of older stock.

If you have a hard drive rather than SSD that would be my number one upgrade. You can pick up a decent 1TB SSD now for about £100. MS 2020 is going to be downloading quite a bit of data and if you had a traditional hard drive that likely to be the biggest bottleneck If you already have a SSD already then I agree graphic card would be next on my list. I have almost finished my PC build and it doesn't have any graphics card. I will be using the onboard graphics on the I9 9900k for a month or two until the RTX 3000 series is released. I am looking to get something similar to the existing RTX 2070 super. I can see three different scenarios 1. the new 3000 series cards will be similarity priced in which case buying a new card now might be something I would regret. 2. depending on the price point of the new RTX 3000 series its possible that retailers will want to dump their existing stock of mid range to high end RTX 2000 cards. There might be bargains to be had for a new 2070 super. 3. they will be far more powerful than existing cards but also more expensive. In this scenario its likely that good second hand deals would be possible for existing mid range and high end RTX 2000 cards. If none of the above happens then I have lost nothing I can still buy a card at no additional cost, all it would mean is I waitied a a few months to find out.

I'm a lefty myself. You will find a few left handed joysticks but as far as I am aware there is no such thing as a left handed throttle unit (one you use with the right hand). For left handed joysticks, you could look at the VIRPIL, the new Thrustmaster TCA Officer Pack Airbus Edition HOTAS, or the Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS Hotas Joystick. All three provide true left handed joysticks but unfortunately none provide a true left handed throttle units. Of the three the throttle from the Thrustmaster TCA Officer Pack Airbus Edition is the one that is most likely to be most comfortable in the right hand but it is also the throttle unit with the least number of switches and controls. Possibly good enough for MS 2020 flying simple models, but next to useless if for instance you intended to use it with DCS. I'm afraid what ever you decide to do its going to involve compromises. If you want the buttons and controls that the VIRPIL or Warthog or Thrustmaster X56 HOTAS provide then I think you are going to simply have to accept that you buy a standard right handed HOTAS and learn to adapt. If you go the Thrustmaster TCA Officer Pack Airbus Edition even though its left handed you are likely to miss a lot of controls and functionality that might be required for anything other than a a very simple model in in MS 2020. It definitely is not going to be any good for you in the likes of DCS. I have searched everywhere, and even enquired as to whether I could get a 3D model for the Virpil throttle hand grips so that I could reverse them and get them 3D printed. Unfortunately there appears to be absolutely no hope of this. I think it would be absolutely pointless buying a left handed joystick and then having to use your throttle unit upside down unless you were also using the joystick for games that did not require a throttle unit. I will keep looking myself but I unless I see a true left handed HOTAS system, in a month or two when I buy myself a HOTAS system it will be the Thrustmaster X56 which in my opinion has all the controls you need to fly DCS and still be reasonably priced. I am just going to have to bite the bullet and learn to fly right handed, but it appears that this is not as hard as it appears and many have done this already. Up until now I have been using a SAITEK yoke and throttle, and with these you can avoid the left or right handed problem. This does of course limit what you can fly and what sims you can play. If you just intend to fly Cesna's and simple general aviation aircraft then this is the route you need to go.

I am eagerly awaiting a true VR experience in a flight sim. Not everyone has the money, space or ability to build a true replica cockpit that has the proper seat, all the instruments and monitors on all sides to give that true immersive experience. VR promises that for for less cost, less physical space required to dedicate to a flight sim environment , and far less computing and graphic card power required by a replica cockpit. However there is a serious fly in the ointment and it doesn't matter what the views look like once VR has been incorporated into FS2020 or indeed any other simulator or game. VR as a technology has one serious weakness that has not been anywhere near properly addressed. That is regarding the input and interaction with the computer itself. A mouse works perfectly with a computer as it it operating in a 2D environment, in a 3D environment a mouse is next to useless. Trying to operate a keyboard while using a VR headset is also next to impossible unless you happen to have touch typing skills and are somehow able to place the correct fingers on you home keys without removing your VR headset. 99% of people cannot do this. Until a virtual keyboard, or some sort of virtual interface has become a standard on all VR headsets VR will never become the virtual environment it promises to be. I doesn't matter how well a software developer tries to incorporate VR into their product with out a standard technology for interaction with the operating system that hosts the VR environment it simply will not be possible for a true 3D experience. There has been much progress with these technologies such are virtual keyboards and virtual drop down menus but none of them have actually truly cracked the problem as of yet and there is no clear standard that software developers can adopt or incorporate into their software. Some of us are old enough to remember personal computers before windows and the use of mice. Every bit of software had it own way of interacting with the computer, ranging from clunky and almost impossible to remember key stroke combinations, to various forms of menus that varied wildly between different software packages. Until Windows and Mac's both adopted the use of a mouse with standardised menus that were similar in all applications personal computers were a toy or restricted to the geeks that were prepared to learn a totally different way of interacting with their computer for every individual bit of software they had. VR is close to delivering that now, but its not there yet. Until there is a standardised way of interacting with a computer or software within VR it simply will not be the environment we need, especially in complex software packages such as flight simulators where there are a myriad of different controls and different functions. Personally I am going to wait until a true standard has been adopted to interact within the 3D computing environment that software packages need to make there environment a true 3D experience without the need to jump in and out of it to actually control the computer. It going to take few years still for that to happen. When i does finally happen, and it will, I will be straight down to the shops to buy a VR headset. Until then it doesn't matter what MS or Osobo do, what you will have is a 3D monitor not a 3D environment.

Three monitors is is the ideal set up, but not possible for a lot of people such as myself. What if you do not have the space to setup 3 different screens? What if you do not have a high end graphics card that will give reasonable frame rates to three different monitors? Not everyone can afford a high end graphics card. but they could run a single widescreen or a VR headset on a far lower spec card. I was hoping to do exactly what you have done but even if I used the smallest monitors I could find I am about 8 inches short of space. I will just have to settle for a single 34 inch curved monitor. I could potentially push that to a 43 inch curved monitor but I would have to put a permanent door stopper screwed to the floor to prevent the door opening more than half way to prevent it smashing into the monitor. I am going to have to settle for the 34 in monitor until such time as VR becomes affordable and the sims I use have the level of support required to make it worth the effort and expense.

I am not the one being close minded. Where did I state that VR is a must? In fact I made it pretty clear in my last paragraph that we should be encouraging any and all additional features, even though we might CHOOSE not use them. You argued a point, without understanding what you are talking about, and then actually have the audacity to accuse someone else of the very same thing. Let me simplify things for you. FS 2020 runs in windows. Windows allows multiple windows to be open at the same time. Although FS 2020 does not permit additional windows to be displayed on top of your screen view there is nothing to stop you from pressing ALT +TAB while in FS 2020 to temporarily switch to another window and then switching back again. This is a bit cumbersome but there is a way round it by using 'virual windows'. You could create 'virtual windows' so that a simply press of Windows+1 and Windows +2 would allow you to switch quickly between views. These two commands could easily be assigning to buttons on a controller. All you need to do then is before your flight is open up the digital versions of the documents you will need to refer to in you flight and assign that view to a virtual window. When you are flying you simply switch to that virtual window with a button click to view those documents, and switch back again to your sim view with another button click. More here https://www.howtogeek.com/198122/32-new-keyboard-shortcuts-in-the-windows-10-technical-preview/#:~:text=Pressing%20Alt%2BTab%20lets%20you,to%20select%20the%20current%20window. https://www.howtogeek.com/197625/how-to-use-virtual-desktops-in-windows-10/ So by simply creating a virtual window for you reference material, assigning two buttons to switch to and from that virtual window you can indeed do everything you do now in a 3D environment literally at the click of a button. With regards FOV, can you not zoom in and out while using ordinary screens? Why would the same functionality not be available for those using 3D?

Your setup is exactly what I am working towards, with exactly the same gauges and instruments. Can I ask where you got the surround from? I am looking for a similar surround that I can mount and dismount from my desk as and when I need it. Unfortunately I iwll not be in a potion to have a permanently mounted cockpit. The one you are using is exactly the right size for this.

I find it disheartening to see some people so vehemently against VR. For every small problem there usually is a solution if you put your mind to it. I have not got a VR headset yet, simply because I cannot afford on. Well that's not actually quite true, I could afford it if I saved as hard as I did to build my PC, but for the price they are I would sooner invest in a super wide screen monitor that will be useful outside of simming or games. As soon as they are capable of pushing out 1440p video at reasonable frames rates at a more reasonable price I will be getting one. The arguments that with VR you cant use a kneepad, or refer to documents I find to be a bit shallow. Why not assign a simple button on you controller or mouse to a macro that opens up your documents or notepad in another window. A very simple macro would do that easily. No need to take the headset off, or fumble for bits of paper, just a simple click and it there. You could even have it set up so that it only displays while the button is clicked as soon as you released the button you are back in your sim. Would that be any different to removing you focus form a screen to a piece of paper on you desk? Likewise with the tunnel vision argument. Simply assign you mouse wheel (or something on you hand controller) to zoom in or zoom out. PC's and software settings are extremely adaptable and I dare say with the right tinkering of setting, macro's or additional hardware such as button boxes, VR might actually be a far more flexible and realistic way of flying in sims than it first might appear. Many feature that we take for granted now in flight sims were not in there by design, but adapted or added by 3rd parties and enterprising users. TrackIR would be a good example. No doubt on it initial release it was though of a gimmick until people found ways to actually make it so useful that its now a must have for some simmers. One little feature that I intend to dabble with myself that I know might not be included is a simple voice to text feature. Why bother scribbling frantically on a kneepad trying to remember what ATC has said in a hurry if every thing ATC says can be automatically written to a simple text file. A simply button click to open that text file in a window on screen would be a perfect little addon whether you choose to use VR or not. I have some ideas on how to implement this but until I get my hands on FS 2020 and my PC build completed, they are only ideas. I am totally open to VR becoming more mainstream. But because its there does not mean it has to be used. Its all about choice, and surely having additional features or choices is something we should all be looking forward to even if it turns out we personally choose not to use them.

THank's for pointing that out. Something that I did not consider, but yes having the sim sound going through the speakers and the ATC through the headset was what I expected to happen. I never considered that would require a different soundcard or dongle. So I actually do need to go with a dongle headset that doesn't use Bluetooth. Well that narrows down the list considerably, but I'm glad I found that out now rather than after a regretted purchase. This is exactly why I posted a thread here, most of the reviewers on the interwebs are only interested in the mainstream games and would not come across the particular needs or issues those that fly sims might have. Thanks for posting.

Sorry, but I want something that I can listen to music on as well. That basically eliminates any headset below £80

I have looked at those. There have been some reviewers that have criticised the microphone which put me off slightly. Now as with all these reviewers is it that they are looking for something to criticise that most users would not notice, or do they have a genuine gripe. Its like the argument that some reviews make about graphics cards, ABC card only produce 89 FPS while XYZ card produces 98 FPS so the first GPU must be bad and the latter brilliant. The truth is I dont think there;s anyone on the planet that could tell the difference by simply looking at a screen without a FPS counter. Also the the Corsair Virtuoso RGB headset is currently selling for €186.58 on Amazon.co.uk which really is more than I would like to spend. I have already got my eyes on a Kingston HyperX Cloud Flight S 7.1 Channel Headset. Ticks all the boxes, wireless charging, rave reviews regarding sound quality and the microphone but at £149 it should be all those. That's a lot of pennies to drop on something that you only use to play games. Having said that if I cant see something that ticks all the boxes and is cheaper that the one I would probably go with. I would sooner spend a little more and be certain, than be stuck with something for years that I regret buying. I will definitely go looking for more reviews of the Corsair Virtuoso RGB headset though. There's always the occasional sale or discounted price to be had.