Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - Low vs Ultra GRAPHICS COMPARISON

[@ObsidianAnt]

PC Specs used in this video: i7 6700k, RTX 2080 S, 32gb RAM. Music: Skyburst 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

[@f-22raptor25]

Is cpu OC?

[@hourly7772]

i think you should upgrade youre cpu ://

[@slipknotmaggot777]

Skylake still going strong 4 years later!

[@zts3902]

You might want to replace that CPU

[@minater247]

Ahhh welp. Seems my basic build won’t cut it this time around!

[@Gr3ndal]

If I run this thing on ultra, I wouldn't need the game, I'd just hold on to my PC and take off from the spinning fans.

[@jasonstoikoff2111]

This comment didn't get the attention it deserves.

[@trickyz3609]

underrated

[@chadpollman7970]

Startup sequence engaged. Watching the CPU/GPU temps for hot start, 4K display for hung start... 😉

[@nurburgringkid]

don't forget the parachute buddy

[@tminusoftexas3224]

This comment is an instant classic needs to be pinned lol. Love it

[@alexszoludko548]

The first person to actually do this...well done

[@jameyg228]

i ended up watching it twice myself, and i can't say which amazed me more - the game, or how well this was put together

[@NavidIsANoob]

This dude makes some quality content.

[@NicOz42]

Digital Foundry did too

[@gryd3461]

actually, not the first person to do it

[@Dalwhat]

@@gryd3461 No but arguably the most useful so far.

[@oscargomez4970]

I don't think my machine could run it: - Not enough RAM - No SSD to install it - Low bandwidth internet connection - It's a PS4

[@rage2387]

I mean xbox one will get the game. Probably will look like a 360 game but still. lmao. Also rip

[@CeaerCeaer]

Rage The XB1 is getting it? I thought only the XSX is. God image the load times on the XB1...

[@mo.farag4471]

Ceaer Cear it’s not the Xbox one

[@rage2387]

@@mo.farag4471 It's coming on xbox

[@mo.farag4471]

Rage the Xbox series x not the Xbox one they changed it because the Xbox couldn’t handle it

[@showalk]

Me, watching in 360p: Ah, hmm, yes, I see.

[@amxlopez8082]

Roger London you have an s10 or a s20 for that quality but me i have an iphone 11 💀

[@SlipperySpelunky]

@@amxlopez8082 i have an s7 and it has the option for 1440p with no lag

[@rickym7380]

@@amxlopez8082 no 1440p is 4k so u could prob select. its when 2240p you need an s20 / s20+ / s20 ultra also the iphone 11 is only 90 hertz and the s20 / s20+ is 120 hertz and the 20 ultra is 144 hertz so you could watch this vid in higher frame rates if its 91+ fps

[@crotchet6439]

@@rickym7380 1440p isn't 4K and the 2240p option doesn't even exist at all. KZbin doesn't let you upload videos with a higher refresh rate than 60FPS so it doesn't matter what the refresh rate of your phone is.

[@Formula1st]

@@amxlopez8082 I don’t like you very much

[@davincifpv3983]

That NYC transition is definitely the best to see the differences. Highly recommend you keep using it. The other ones are quite tricky to see

[@jtvatsim1498]

Agreed. Was just about to comment the same. You could use the transition line to easily tell where the gaps were being filled.

[@dezerino5022]

that means they did a good jov

[@SlantAlphaAdventures]

Honestly, I think that's the point. There's little difference except further away from the user. Close in, it's almost indistinguishable.

[@81CrewChief]

I'm agree with you and I want to add that the pano move could be horizontal, from left to right or right to left then you could focusing in a single point and you'll see the differences of the configs.

[@pedrojuan8050]

The clouds too

[@adb012]

The 4 graphics level should be called: - Very good - Excellent - Freaking awesome! - Are you kidding me!?!?

[@ResurrectorRTX]

Nah, last one (Ultra) should be called "Is this real life?" 😅

[@Formula1st]

@@ResurrectorRTX there are going to be so many videos that don’t say it’s a game in the title with absolute chaos in the comments

[@samd7476]

@@ResurrectorRTX Or it could really just be fantasy.

[@kxmode]

Eggs Scramble Eggs Scramble Eggs with Bacon Scramble Eggs with Bacon and Sausage, along with a side of Blueberry Pancakes smothered with organic maple Syrup

[@rob_olmstead]

@@ResurrectorRTX actually, real life is lower than very good lol

[@erik1tennant]

The fact that “low” settings can look stunning is quite incredible.

[@gertjanvandermeij4265]

The fact that "all" settings can look like crap is expected.

[@erik1tennant]

@@gertjanvandermeij4265 That literally makes no sense, as gameplay videos are already up

[@BluD]

Looks as if render distance will be the biggest difference.

[@erik1tennant]

@@BluD Yeah seems like it, with some small texture differences too, especially with clouds it seems

[@adamrichter4113]

@@gertjanvandermeij4265 what?

[@BendySnowball]

From what it looks like, the biggest difference is low and medium settings. Low has highly untextured, old gen google earth buildings (the droppy looking ones), and lower draw distance and render distance, while medium has new gen google earth level buildings, higher draw distance and render distance, higher quality across the board. High basically increases the draw distances and the way trees look from a distance Ultra basically just increases the draw distances further and render distances.

[@DaveChimny]

It's Bing Maps data btw. 😉

[@starhopper4587]

another thing, the clouds also change a lot depending on the setting

[@am33x]

@@starhopper4587 Clouds change quite significantly, low-med is your average gaming sky, while high-ultra look real. With perfect weather conditions, it's more stunning than real life.

[@Samiuddin98]

High it is

[@Quasihamster]

FS20s' graphic modes: -Better than ever -Freakin gorgeous -Photorealistic -Why can't real life look like this?!

[@kxmode]

...and then I turned it up to MEDIUM settings 😎

[@brytonmassie]

Now try Ultra in VR.

[@JoeSmoe1]

"Low" is "high" on most games, and they wonder why 4K runs at 25fps lol

[@aletir6111]

@Ummer Farooq rdr2 is unplayable on any graphics card out rn except maybe the 2080ti. The 2060 is not a 4k card in the First place

[@jinx20001]

lol what, low looks terrible, low on here looks like something lowspecgamer would be playing, check out his channel. low is most certainly not high on most games. there are times in this video when it was at ultra when it didnt look good, i mean ''for a flying simulator'' sure it looks great, better than we have ever had before, but next to most games it does not look good. the impressive part is what they are allowing us to explore, this isnt a call of duty map, this is the whole world so im happy to forgive poor textures here and there even at ultra but saying low looks like high on most games is just lying to yourself and whoever liked your comment probably has a low end system and likes the cut of your jib lol ill be playing the game on a 9900k/2080ti/32gb 3733mhz system and im happy with what we are getting, not because its the best looking game ive ever seen but because of the sheer amount on the screen at one time and having access to the whole world makes it next level. i certainly wont be saying it looks great close up, because the reality is it does not, but thats ok, it dont need to be, its a flying sim, nothing more.

[@DerSnob]

@@jinx20001 you are comparing fruits with vegetables. It's not in a league like triple A-Games as GTA, RDR or CoD, for sure. But comare it with so many other genres, then joe smoe is right. And mostly, compare it with other simulations. FS2020 in low has same good surface scenery then X-Plane 11 or P3d v5 has on high settings, plus a lot more 3d-building.

[@JoeSmoe1]

I think you guys misunderstood my post. It was in reference to the many people that say the frame rate in this game is bad. Low in FS2020 looks like high/ultra from ghost recon wildlands. A game known for its heavy requirements for optimal fps. Low is STILL using AI generated, photo detail from online, just less of it and the draw distances are more restrictive. With that being said, its still a good 5-7 miles of visibility on low. The real test should be how it looks OFFLINE and how the weather effects are on low to be honest.

[@HoLDoN4Sec]

low is high? you must be completely blind boy, i'd say most modern games which are trying to go for a realistic graphical approach are more or less equivalent to the medium settings here when it comes to everything except for textures (obviously). but this game truly shines on the ultra settings - the sheer amount of detail in everything is incredible - even the clouds cast shadows on themselves too! insanity!!! but the textures obviously are not even close - which is mainly due to the textures being based on satellite photography rather than being made by graphical designers in image editors... however if you visit a "Premium" airport in ultra settings than for sure - it looks better than any modern game out there

[@swrpggm]

That is actually impressive that Low-Ultra doesn't change that drastically.

[@existentialselkath1264]

Yeah, there are some differences like reflections, lod distance, and cloud resolution but the overall image still looks pretty good. It's definitely still a lot better than fsx

[@infinite2246]

Clouds

[@fitrox4921]

@@existentialselkath1264 But you still need good Hardware to run this game on low settings right? I have a kind of low-low midrange PC (i7 940, 8gb ram, rx570 4gb) but still pre-ordered the game.

[@gdwnet]

Check out the rain on the side window from low to ultra - that's the biggest difference I could see.

[@Wreckemsaints]

侍FitroX i would for sure suggest upgrading your ram at least. It will only help you in the future.

[@Huddison]

Medium to Ultra all look fairly similar - hoping to run in medium-high

[@Stisse12]

Agree, looks more on the shadows and the trees in Ultra, othervice not so much differens.. On Low the buildings look more flat and pixelated...

[@infinite2246]

Clouds

[@infinite86realpilottutoria57]

I Think Medium Is Enough Because My Motherboard Starts To Burn After 20 Minutes With Ultra Settings. My Fire Extinguisher Is By The Way Always Ready For Such Cases Next To My Computer.

[@infinite2246]

Infinite86 REAL PILOT Tutorial 😂😂

[@Cheezdealer]

@Derp Inshmurtz Well I think some people expected a pretty big diference in lighting/shading, and plus he's just discussing the graphics on a video showcasing graphics... no need to be so condescending.

[@efegulboy]

always use the transition at 1:04, the other transitions just distract me

[@Heavenira]

Agreed. The other transitions are incredibly uninformative.

[@calebscott8555]

Page turning is useless. Circle just did nothing. And whatever was way too distracting, I agree

[@joshs7408]

Yeah I'm gonna be screenshotting them and flicking back and forwards in PowerPoint

[@Secretgeek2012]

Agreed. It's clearly the best way to see the changes.

[@VonSpud]

Agree

[@ctx4241]

Finally somebody who understands that not everybody has nuclear powered PC cooled by Virgin Mary's tears with afterburners bolted down just to not tip over when u fire it up.

[@Kenanhower]

Shit man, get on the nuclear train!

[@valdeslo]

😂😂😂

[@RobMancusoJr]

This must have taken a while to make...thank you for the effort Obsidian!!

[@Brisingr73]

You mean Asobo?

[@wewk584]

@@Brisingr73 He means Obsidian.. since mfs doesnt have replay mode, it was probably though lining these up (unless your being facetious)

[@Brisingr73]

@@wewk584 Nah my bad. I honestly wasn't paying enough attention. I'm not a regular here anyhow, so I didn't even pay attention to the channel name 😅

[@JP-wm1cc]

Obsidian made the best Fallout game 🙏

[@aborkeabor]

Asobo*

[@ConnorEllisMusic]

That paper transistion really hides the changes, try not using it in the future. Either hard cuts or slides.

[@lwaves]

I thought the same, it took your eyes off the landscape and onto the paper part of the cut. The slide one was really good though as it showed the whole scene.

[@TheMicj38]

@@lwaves I thought the only transitions that worked where the ones around the minute mark. The rest were just distractions. It became less a video about the gfx differences and more about the fancy transitions of his video software.

[@babo77z19]

Slow Slides are the best for comparison in my opinion.

[@lwaves]

@@TheMicj38 That's fair enough, each to their own and all that. :-)

[@kolavadae4592]

If its that difficult to notice anything even with the translations the graphics are amazing... no need to complain

[@inewulf3204]

Even low absolutely dunks on everything previously available in an out of the box experience. Said it before and I'll say it again for another 2 weeks. Cannot wait!

[@callumjames2943]

And it seems like it doesn't really take that much to run at a decent frame rate. Good for people like me with okay PC's! If they get that spot on, they have me sold.

[@bobert2755]

*cries in xbox edition probably wont available until thanksgiving*

[@espadon3567]

Perfect I'll be able to stand a bit in medium low with my laptop before building my desktop config

[@wout123100]

@@bobert2755 be glad(for me too) more bugs will have been solved then.

[@willmorrell488]

@@bobert2755 You really need a dedicated HOTAS to enjoy a flight sim. That's the problem with releasing it to gamers and simmers. They have to dum it down to get the attention of gamers.

[@bgm-1961]

Remember back in the day, when you could actually tell the difference between low and high settings?

[@khanmaheer1765]

Still with Ubisoft Games ....

[@lemphl]

render distance decreases a lot, imo that greatly affects the illusion of the game world

[@CikaStojca]

Low is always diffirent from high, big. High and medium is always same for me.

[@chubskii]

@@CikaStojca yeah, that’s the main problem i have with games, but flight sim will have a way to distact you from that Like, you know, the rest of the graphics

[@nosnitsab]

It's great to see that lowering your settings no longer means flying over an increasingly empty and lifeless world.

[@dangmang7524]

It also means you need to a better pc

[@null418]

@@dangmang7524 shh

[@ingogeelhoed8361]

Thx i just searched for this and its says 58 seconds ago

[@jakegoldsmith5922]

Me too haha!!

[@vikingberntsson9029]

48 minutes for me......

[@GeorgeFloyd2]

3:00 “low” me: is that real life?

[@pflegersven6574]

Low looks ok, you are right. But most will desire medium settings

[@lazyvideoproductions2979]

The game uses Google maps to fly everywhere. See that island over there? You can fly to it, see the artic? Yep, go ahead.

[@kxmode]

low = near-sighted vision

[@Gölgede_Ruh_Keşif]

Poor life

[@bikepilot]

Is this just fantasy?... All together now!

[@HelyoG]

Low quality looks like Google earth when u have low Internet connection.

[@drgonzo4909]

Thank you for this video. I've been waiting for someone to show us the settings from low to ultra. Glad its was you.

[@MoonRBXL]

*me and the boys waiting for car mods so we can drive around the world*

[@philipsk]

Things don't look good on ground level

[@rreece90]

Imagine running ETS2 on this thing.

[@geraldb.2245]

GTA VI incoming!

[@deceptiveanswer]

@eitra Test Drive Unlimited 3

[@Spidercowyboy]

imagine if forza did the same thing but for ground level in the next 20 years as data streaming becomes more amazing.

[@SebastienChedalBornu]

When you put all the versions on the same image, it would be easier to compare of each band shows the same part of the image and not the part on the side of it.

[@moshi5613]

Glad I’m not the only one who thought this.

[@vikingberntsson9029]

Yes totally

[@darknessofevil117]

Yea i hate when comparison videos do that its like show the same image so i can tell the true difference

[@ShinigamiGrin]

Definitely this. I wanted to post the same. Is so stupid to compare different bands, how are you supposed to tell the difference?!

[@jt8821]

Also the black border between them must go

[@Real28]

High looks fine. The details that show up on Ultra are too far out.

[@nuggetpug8923]

Isn't that what you want though when your thousands of feet in the sky?

[@Chargo.66]

@@nuggetpug8923 Nope, you can't see any detail besides clouds when you're up that high anyways.

[@OxKing]

The Mesh complexity is a pretty big step up on ultra, it also has a bigger object drawing distance. But i would be okay if my computer could handle high at 1080p.

[@nuggetpug8923]

@@OxKing, the recommended specs say a 970, i have a 1080 so hopefully that gets 1080 60 on max :p

[@MrWookLoaf]

@@nuggetpug8923 thats what im running too. Ill be more than happy if I get 60 fps on medium-high settings for this. The ultra looked great, but High looks pretty fantastic too.

[@adammargolis7785]

The eye doctor: “1 or 2, 1 ooorrr 2” Me: (They all look great!)

[@tds456]

That is some amazing editing and a great way to show the differences. Nicely done and thank you.

[@worldaviation4k]

Is this to do with WiFi connection speeds though? Would it be possible to show like 10mbps connection settings that they generate. Thank you ☺️

[@RajShekhar-jy2zi]

@PertinaxAmicus wonder how much would it take to store the your full country or even the earth lol

[@SilmarilS79]

@@RajShekhar-jy2zi Total Earth mapping is 2000 Tb

[@trippybruh1592]

Johnny give it 5 years and will have 128TB flash drives

[@SilmarilS79]

@@trippybruh1592 You still need 16 of those!

[@Seraphim190.]

@@RajShekhar-jy2zi2 petabytes

[@d_.smith1652]

You probably won’t see this comment but thank you so much for teaching me so much about flight sim! Keep up the good work !

[@kxmode]

Low actually looks decent. That's pretty amazing optimization work by the developers. 🙂

[@jekanyika]

I'm all about those custom graphics settings.

[@ThomasGrillo]

Amazing! With my low vision, I was only able to notice the differences in the way clouds are rendered. Thanks for sharing this.

[@pantoffelslippers]

Watch shadows on the water between low and medium

[@ThomasGrillo]

@@pantoffelslippers Will do, tomorrow. :)

[@johncarilloiii7828]

GREAT VIDEO! Been dieing to see a comparison between the modes. Excellent.

[@mr8I7]

3:41 - The pop in is horrendous on low. I’m hoping I’ll be able to run medium as that seems the first setting ‘worthy’ of this game.

[@P44man]

In fairness, even in medium and high the mesh replacements are visible and a little distracting. Would be nice if those could be blended/faded in

[@somsoc_]

Is it not possible to run on low but increase the draw distance to push the pop-in back? I hope they have a good page of options so people can tune it like FSX (albiet in that it was via notepad...).

[@Aki-xm7yl]

I like how even low totally kills P3d and Xplane :D

[@glidertastic5778]

What are you on about? Low looks like garbage.

[@feiti5879]

i'd say medium is already good, low is :/ up close and that will matter when flying VFR or while landing

[@Alirezarz62]

@@glidertastic5778 nah low looks good enough imo you can turn clouds or even textures high or ultra

[@marmaleg5309]

He's right, low looks better. But I don't think it's due to the textures. It's the lighting those games don't compete with. It looks like they really prioritized the lighting so that even low specs can experience it.

[@ShivamPatel-et4kk]

@@glidertastic5778 Compared to P3D and Xplane? Nah.

[@user-de4cq6uk6l]

1:58 nice i can see my house in the different graphics settings

[@barfy362]

Thanks. A few times I couldn't even tell the difference between low and ultra. The slow wipe transitions were most helpful in distinguishing the differences.

[@themrbobbykalman]

I always enjoy watching your videos. Keep up the good work man. Your voice is so soothing. Plus the content is good too.

[@SpecialEDy]

What kind of performance can I expect at 4k with a 1080ti?

[@mr_chickenpoop]

2 FPS

[@scottmcdonaldAAL211]

remember it boils down to math. The number of pixels that have to be manipulate in every frame draw ratchets way up when you fly in 4K (or on the upcoming HP Reverb-2 VR headset which will be 2K). 1080p is much less pixel count thus frames are MUCh higher in 1080p. You really only need 4K when you get the huge displays, because the distance between pixels is so large. IOW, a gaming monitor that is relatively small in size still looks great in 1080. That 50" 4K TV? not so much!

[@markomclane475]

Around 20 to 30 fps at ultra and maybe 40 or so at high settings

[@ROBOTOX_CZ]

1080 Ti is mainly FHD card so expect nothing much. Lower settings and 30 FPS is your goal. The only card that is truly capable of smooth 4K experience is 2080 Ti and even that one struggles to maintain rock solid 60 FPS in some games at highest settings.

[@黑色的白洞]

I wonder how about 2070super at 1440p, my goal is 60fps

[@DJGuppy321]

perhaps expectedly, the biggest difference in visual quality to my eyes is between low and medium. High is noticeable. Only significant improvement from ultra was reflections.

[@alain46]

Draw distance as well on ultra. You really notice it in New York.

[@Spineblade]

Ultra has noticeably higher cloud detail, see 5:14.

[@sebolsen7616]

Ultra is just High with ray tracing.

[@AdamLindgrenComposer]

@@sebolsen7616 no ray tracing yet in this sim

[@YTMikeGames]

Medium is the sweet spot for me with a 5 3600 and a geforce gtx 1660 super

[@GalacticAstroparticles]

Difficult to run on 'Ultra', but 'Medium' looks pretty good and 'High' looks amazing as well!

[@renecardoir7553]

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Really needed this comparison!!!

[@somsoc_]

If anyone is looking to gain some decent FPS, or even jump up from med>high on less powerful cards, don't be afraid of using a display with a lower native resolution (maybe you can upgrade later). The amount of processing overhead you save dropping down to 1080p or 900p (16x10 widescreen) is huge. You can gain ~10fps and go from jumpy to smooth framerate just by doing this, depending on how well optimised the game is, you can even try some ultra settings sometimes. Of course, it's best if you already own a second smaller display that you can switch to, rather than purchasing a new display. But a smaller display at 1080 or 900p will cost you less than buying a better CPU or GPU in most cases.

[@Fury2291]

Well done, very interesting and helpful, thx

[@fatalradius]

Now I understand why it took them a while to release this...Even Low settings look great

[@mobias7]

The clouds seem to be the biggest give away. There's a noticeable difference in quality with the higher settings. Everything else looked perfectly good on the lower settings and there didn't seem to be a huge difference between medium and high at any point. FPS will be the deciding factor for the lot of people though. I've got a GTX1080, i7 with 16GB of RAM. If I can get a solid 60fps with everything on medium then I'll be happy.

[@harleypriest6657]

bro you could probs get solid fps on high with them specs

[@poolhallshark]

Same here. We actually have the same specs, my I7 being a 10700 K. What gen is your I7 ? If OK with you, we can compare results after we have used the sim for a time.

[@VarietyGamerChannel]

2070 super here, im aiming for high 60fps, with clouds maybe on ultra we will see.

[@RuthwikRao]

volumetrics are some of the most expensive shit in rendering no wonder it's gimped at low settings. This is why most games don't even bother using actual volumetrics and just go with image planes in cleverly rotated collections to give the illusion of volume.

[@wout123100]

you wont get 60 fps with in cockpit views on the more complex planes.

[@robertrent5218]

Once again, a comparison that I have been wanting to see. Excellent presentation.

[@dividido3723]

You have by far the best and most informative videos about MSFS 2020. Keep up the amazing work!

[@narwhale632]

Damn. Low is looking like the higher settings on Xplane.

[@ChipChera]

True , I guess the fact that usage of new technologies like those 2 petabytes of info coming from Microsoft Asure and Bing Maps have got into some type of hybrid cloud gaming plus an effort by your own PC , I guess the specs are very affordable for lots of ppl tbh besides ultra in 4K which is crazy but I think there's some type of technology to make this crazy game run with very discrete hardware

[@csaviation9013]

But X-Plane will run on most PCs and is a 3 year old piece of software. This will need a beefy gaming rig to run at reasonable setting and with a usable FPS, and is a brand new piece of software

[@invinciblealex69]

@@csaviation9013 true...

[@FedoraSnatcher]

Are you joking? Low looks like ultra x2 on x plane

[@agustusx1]

@@csaviation9013 not really. you can use this on a 6 or 7 year old processor. stop lying.

[@SSK-ws2gl]

I'm pretty sure low is just fine after about ~2000 ft. The visuals barely change.

[@MadMarco]

So basically, Low looks trash, but when you pick medium, the higher ones don't look much better. So I guess medium it is

[@R2D2trashcan]

MadMarco I suggest some strong glasses. There is an evenly graduated increase in quality throughout the quality settings. Try watching again.

[@BubbaSatori]

@MadMarco I agree.

[@barfy362]

I just picked this up and was playing with high settings (recommended by the game during install) on a 1060 6GB. I can tell the frame rate is low, often dipping below 30, but it doesn't matter at all for this game. I have a new gpu coming in the mail and I will absolutely be bumping up to ultra afterwards because as long as you can stay reasonably around 30fps the enjoyment of the game is entirely about the view, not the fps.

[@janred94]

This video is incredible. Great work! The best comparision I have seen so far.

[@scotthays347]

Grateful for thoughtful, useful FS videos... info we can use!

[@phillipzx3754]

The "high" setting is where the clouds start looking decent. In the lowest two settings the edges are still blurry.

[@jaikieperry-sloan5712]

Yeah, I'd be quite happy playing with medium/low settings for everything else. The cloud detail and lighting seem to be the most affected by the different levels of quality. But those clouds are fantastic, best I've seen in a game

[@DiminishingAugmentation]

Ultra looks fantastic. They really pushed the draw distances up with that setting. Remember, this game is meant to last a long time, and not be simply maxed out on midrange hardware, otherwise it doesn't age well.

[@yatoakito2037]

I would just say keep the game on medium but buildings/clouds on high

[@vincenthuber9747]

Have you seen all his Videos

[@yatoakito2037]

most of them

[@Alirezarz62]

Everything medium except textures and clouds that would be enough

[@PaulsenPal]

Wonderful comparison. One of the best I've seen in any game. This really gave me the ability to compare.

[@xtek465]

Thank you for this great comparison. I now feel like I'll have a shot at getting decent graphics with my modest rig. Very informative.

[@kxmode]

I really can't see a difference on the ground between HIGH and ULTRA, but the difference is more profound for clouds. I'd imagine ULTRA is where you'll get those majestic sunrises/sunsets as you pilot your Boeing above and below a canopy of clouds. I'm so looking forward to this. I have an I7-8700, 2080 TI, 32 GB DDR4 RAM, an SSD drive, a 4K display, and a 1GB internet connection. 😍

[@ligitysplit197]

kxmode Nobody likes you

[@kxmode]

@@ligitysplit197 I like you. I think you're a wonderful person. 🙂

[@v1deonasty68]

The difference I noticed between High and Ultra is that Ultra stutters, so High is best IMO

[@FZNINERNINER]

This gives me confidence that I might be able to run this on my ancient hardware lol

[@Sim737Pilot]

As long as it meets the min spec, yes. There are a ton of individual graphic settings. That, combined with tweaking the settings in your graphics card (I have NVIDIA) will give you the best shot. I recommend buying the STD version on gamepass for $1. You can test for a month then cancel if your PC can't run it or buy it online if it does.

[@SuperGeronimo999]

I wonder if i could pull it off on low... downloading now.

[@asthalis]

"Low" level is already quite nice... For me, the more obvious change between graphics modes are how clouds look. Not sure "Ultra" brings much more than "High". Good news for average PCs !

[@rayselM]

Best. Video. Ever. Thanks for that wonderfully done comparison!!!!

[@mattorr77]

The video I’ve been waiting for

[@TacShooter]

I've never been so hyped for a non-combat flight sim.

[@UndoingRuin08]

samesies bro

[@AceMcCoolSD]

But maybe they can do a revamped Combat Flight Simulator 2

[@RuthwikRao]

@@AceMcCoolSD hopefully, mods! There's co-op confirmed, imagine going into a stormy region at night with the bois and doing all kinds of cinematic blockbuster shit lol, it'll be wild Plus this game is literally photo mode simulator through and through so I see it blowing tf up on Twitter.

[@kareemodeh2550]

Hey, How many frames do you get? And what is the resolution?

[@kiubekpl5863]

They may add potato graphic mode: graphic mode for patato pc who don't cares about graphic but want play. (Roblox graphic)

[@ted363636]

Yeah they will add it with Xbox One S version :)

[@puppa9365]

*potato

[@furrane]

fsx

[@broderp]

Right. Microsoft will invest for those with old outdated PC....keep dreaming.

[@Xackory]

Roblox graphics look good wym

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Very clever thumbnail sir!

[@kwclose]

Really great comparison video!

[@johntaylor4013]

Hey look it’s the city from Assassins Creed II

[@marianosassanelli6031]

Yeah is definitely Firenze

[@tamtom6094]

When i saw greece, Athens for the first time in this sim it really reminded me of ac odyseey

[@n1vca]

Thank you very much - that is one of the main things I was interested to know ... seems like the sim has a well done dynamic resource scaling ... I guess they have to, else how is that ever supposed to run on the latest Xbox, that has just a fracture of a simple PC's power and probably doesn't support multi-monitor, proper peripherals, VR ... whis is obviously designed for gaming and not simulation. For my personal taste "low" is a "no-go" but from medium on I think it is already at a very good level ... higher seems to mainly get more details from distant places ... ultra is definitely amazing but not a necessity. I am currently struggling of I should build a new machine now with a cheapy Radeon 5700XT for under 400€ or medium RTX 2070 Super for around 500€ or wait until October/November when AMD has released their new graphics we are eagerly waiting that is supposed to be groundbreaking and Nvidia is also releasing their new RTX 3000 series. So far I have never seen anyone running this sim on a 5700XT ... wonder how that works. One guy ran a Ryzen 5 with a RTX 2060 Super in Ultra on 4K and it worked surprisingly well.

[@SpookyCitrusHD]

Personally I'd wait until the new GPUs drop in September/October. If you had to get one now, the 5700XT is the better price to performance, it's an almost identical performer to the 2070 Super for $100 less. Also just an FYI the new consoles coming out are NOT comparable to a "simple PC". Everything I've seen spec wise and performance wise is equivalent to a higher end gaming PC, the CPU has the equivalent clocks and cores of a 3700x and the specs on paper for the GPU put it in 2080ti territory minus a couple GB of Vram which is shared with the system. If it is as good in person as it is on paper the new consoles will blow most PC users computers away.

[@TheLuckyluc555]

@@SpookyCitrusHD Yeah the specs look great but ive already heard some stories that the nee consoles are not gonna blow pc out of the water, so I wont get my hopes up

[@SpookyCitrusHD]

@@TheLuckyluc555 I'm not I already have a decent gaming PC, I've just been following the new tech specs for the consoles.

[@Bourinos02]

Damn, even on low it looks absolutely stunning...

[@Manbemanbe]

I think the clouds are the most obvious difference by far. A great video, thanks for making!

[@CarlosQuesadaR]

Well done, thanks. LOVE the music

[@karelvandesande9848]

me : "ultra on 1440*3550 please" my rx5700 : "no sweat, we'll do that on a cloudless day over the ocean with no waves"

[@Sim737Pilot]

Would like to see his FPS in an airliner with glass cockpit powered on at large airport like LAX with overcast/storm from cockpit view. If you can't fly in these conditions with an acceptable FPS, then you are limited to flying exterior view over the countryside like in his video.

[@karelvandesande9848]

@@Sim737Pilot Turns out it is better then I expected. I can fly over NY city at high end settings (not ultra) with no noticable stutter. frames high twenties but that seems enough to have a stable experience.

[@macobber]

karel vandesande what’s the frames like on high? I’ve got a 5760x1080p triple monitor display and I’m wondering if the game would be playable on it. Pc specs are good i9-9900KF Rtx 2080 super 32GB Ram But this game seems to make 2080 ti’ even struggle from what I’ve seen. Wish I could test the performance on my rig before spending the money for the sim.

[@karelvandesande9848]

@@macobber between 25 and 40 on my system with high end settings, terrain set to 150 iso 100. 3550*1440 AMD 5700 and rx3700 , 32 MB of ram 3200.

[@lgn700]

More like: Computer Crashing Computer Breaking Computer Flaming Computer Exploding

[@johnmarshallyt]

I don't need audio turned on for this game. If I run this on my PC it'll sound like a jet

[@ramuss158]

Wow! Even "Low" looks better than what we currently have! I'll be happy with high or even medium to maximize FPS! Well done video, very informative!!

[@ian22222]

Breathtaking. Absolutely breathtaking.

[@NeedingSleep]

Honestly I think high is the optimal setting cuz ultra just looks to me like increasing the chunk render distance in minecraft.

[@RuthwikRao]

I agree, high is the sweet spot but PC is all about custom settings, you can drag up that render distance and reduce shit you don't care as much about and get optimal performance!

[@Real-Yoda]

@@RuthwikRao yeah. Idgaf about ambient occlusion or if clouds cast shadows on other clouds. Give me that ultra clouds and high draw distance

[@NeedingSleep]

@@RuthwikRao I think we should use the high as the base and tweak the things that actually matters in ultra to ultra. Putting the unnecessary settings to ultra is like putting ur render chunks to 64 when you clearly already have 32.

[@worldaviation4k]

I'm 10mbps crew

[@newtriangel3605]

1mbps guy right here

[@abake9689]

200kbsp

[@danielridlon3198]

you know a game looks good when the lowest graphic setting is better than all of the other competing games currently out

[@raoul355]

which is not the case here xD lets be real.

[@JAYYVOO]

@@raoul355 you must be drunk. go home

[@paulofernando7858]

low settings looks amazing

[@raoul355]

@@JAYYVOO sry i didnt read the word "competing". makes sense now.

[@hairsiluet]

Thank you very much ObsidianAnt! Great job video! 💪🏻🤩

[@slapshot2k]

Great video. I can't wait for the 18th :)

[@revenger681]

Wow, even low looks ten times better than any other flight sim out there.

[@SuperGeronimo999]

Now, lets wait 10 years... we will be playing this in VR on Ultra.

[@MartusTube]

It really looks like all thats changing is the building draw distance and LOD distance. Edit: no night shots?

[@diro9655]

5:20 - Could literally hear his pc starting to cough as he switched to ultra

[@Lightbringer87]

The main difference seem to be in the clouds. They look a lot better on high and ultra. Will be happy if my PC will run it on medium... High would be amazing, but I doubt that. Great Video series ObsidianAnt. Guess the game has already brought you several thousand followers, me included. Totally deserved!

[@PauloCesar-ex1bu]

Awesome video. Congrats! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@rudlzavedno7279]

Medium looks still decent in my eyes and the difference in performance between ultra and medium is substantial (3900x/2080TI): 4K: Ultra = 30-47fps, high (+32%)= 40-62, medium (+61%)= 48-75, low (+144%)= 73-114fps,

[@moshi5613]

Are these your frames in the sim?

[@joshuarichards4930]

I use medium in the alpha/beta and it's really good. I did turn on high and ultra to see the differences but you really need to look hard to see anything major! Medium is definitely the sweet spot for most users I would imagine!

[@SpookyCitrusHD]

What resolution are these numbers? 4k?

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

Wondering what kind of framerates we'll see on the most common cards like gtx1060 and rx580 at 1080p and 1440p... Medium looks like the sweet spot in perf & visuals.

[@rudlzavedno7279]

@@SpookyCitrusHD yes

[@KakkoiSan]

I don't need 4k, just 1080p on ultra with 60 or above fps 🤩

[@jamesf6405]

What are your specs

[@badlands_tv]

Antitrust anonyme oh calm down lmao

[@glenith50]

For flying you don't need 60+fps, anything above 30 that's smooth is perfectly fine and doesn't affect the experience.

[@skippychurch2965]

@@glenith50 says you. PC gaming has brainwashed us into wanting 175hz... people cannot be surprised we just go back to 30 like everything is fine.

[@kiavartdudu]

@@skippychurch2965 well it makes a big difference in fast shooters etc. but in a relatively slow flight simulator 30 fps should be fine.

[@ChaosHamsterG]

I can’t wait to get my 1080 ti and have full ultra graphics!

[@chuck176]

I’m picking up my Asus Rog Zephyrus G14, AMD Ryzen 9, 16 gig memory, RTX 2060 Max-Q, 1 TB hard ssd, 6gig vram, do you think this will run great on this laptop!

[@maciejkarwacinski7966]

Will 1080Ti be enough ?

[@gynxor]

@@maciejkarwacinski7966 No it won't, if you watch Digital Foundry's video you can see that ultra on 4k will strain a 2080ti let alone a 1080ti.

[@HighOnYouDroneBoy]

Defo gonna upgrade my 1070 to the 1080ti too :)

[@chuck176]

Will J are you sure I’m about to pick it up tommorw I spent $1,300 on it but the specs seem amazing!

[@tzeffsmainchannel]

Footage of MSFS 2020 never stop impressing me! They are always so gorgeous! :)

[@LReis61]

We can really see the differences in this video. Thank you!

[@LazyGuyCoyote]

Even though it’s on low and there’s a lot of pop ins, it looks miles better than fsx lmao

[@user-yk3bd2ee5q]

That shit came out in like 2009, ofc it is.

[@SkinnierSteve]

@@user-yk3bd2ee5q fsx came out in 2006.

[@raindrop-galaxy]

I appreciate the effort, music and the content is amazing! However, those page flip effects make it harder to see the difference, and especially composition in low med high ultra splits are non informative. Anyway, thanks for such an amazing video! Cheers!

[@Geoweb35]

This game looks so real

[@denkt]

Really nice comparison, many thanks.

[@therealjuralumin3416]

I come in just above the recommended specs so i’m hoping i’ll be able to run on medium/high, but honestly even low looks pretty damn good, i’m impressed.