Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OlaHaldor

RTX 2080 Ti

Recommended Posts

Just wanted to hop in here and tell you; RTX 2080 Ti works very well with X-Plane. 100% utilization, silky smooth frame rate at 45-60 fps in areas I'd never even think of getting such numbers. (tested with the C172 which I fly most of the time now), my monitor is 3440x1440 resolution. If I make the window 1920x1080 I get 70-80 fps.

  • Visual Effects: Maximum (HDR+SSAO)
  • Texture Quality: Maximum
  • AA: 4x SSAA
  • Number of World Objects: Maximum
  • Reflection: Minimal (saves a lot of frames)

The fact the GPU is at 100% utilization tells me X-plane is power hungry, and want a lot more!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 4:03 PM, OlaHaldor said:

Just wanted to hop in here and tell you; RTX 2080 Ti works very well with X-Plane. 100% utilization, silky smooth frame rate at 45-60 fps in areas I'd never even think of getting such numbers. (tested with the C172 which I fly most of the time now), my monitor is 3440x1440 resolution. If I make the window 1920x1080 I get 70-80 fps.

  • Visual Effects: Maximum (HDR+SSAO)
  • Texture Quality: Maximum
  • AA: 4x SSAA
  • Number of World Objects: Maximum
  • Reflection: Minimal (saves a lot of frames)

The fact the GPU is at 100% utilization tells me X-plane is power hungry, and want a lot more!

I recently just joined the X-Pilot Forums, so my apologies if my reply is late, so if you still check the forums here, allow me to add that recently, I upgraded my system to something much more current.  My current system contains an Intel i9-9900k w/nvidia GTX-2080 (not a Ti), but I can concur that the framerates are through the roof!  Since getting all of my X-Plane content moved over to a new drive and then the arduous task of ensuring the everything works right, I performed a couple of tests:

  • The first test conducted, positioned the default C172 at my home airport, which is a municipal airport (default X-Plane), with custom ortho (can't fly without it nowadays) and the combo of SMP/RWC/ASXP.  My framerates are stable on an average of 100fps.  I really never thought that possible. :)
  • The second test, was under the same conditions, with the exception of using a payware aircraft, the AFL C172, and the framerates were stable at an average 55fps
  • The third test was similar, only this time, positioning the aircraft at KSFO, utilizing MisterX6's freeware bundle, that included the airport and SF city, with ortho.  Running the same weather, with the AFL C172, my frames were stable at an average of 45fps

The long and the short of it, as a user introduces more complex items, like scenery and aircraft, the frames will come down, BUT with a higher-end system, the sim is still manageable with acceptable frames.

As for the sim settings, my sim is set up like this (which really hasn't changed at all, since XP11's infancy):

  • Visual effects at High (HDR with no SSAO, since that jump really doesn't make a difference on the visual side of things until LR refines it, but it will eat more frames)
  • Texture Quality is set to Maximum (but not to "no compression", as that too takes away performance without any real significant visual difference)
  • AA is set to 4XSSAA (never found the need to go higher, especially under GA conditions, as this performs similarly to the above two settings)
  • World Objects are set to high (setting to max will give a whole lot more 3D scenery objects, but will eat frames.  High seems to be the best compromise vs. performance)
  • Reflection I still keep at minimum.  I don't stream and not often ogle over the exterior of an aircraft, so this is personal preference in that regard.  I'm sure this setting will get an overhaul at some point by Laminar, and if anything, allow most everyone to bump it up without taking  a huge hit on frames.

My monitor resolution is based on a 1440 panel, so when I'm panning my camera around, it looks and feels like real life.  My previous system had a 4K panel and while that too looked great, my frames averaged at around half of normal (i.e. 50fps for a 1920x1080, 25fps for 4K, which had a 1080 powering it).  As for the rest of the system, it is housed with all SSD drives, with X-Plane being resident on an PCIe NVME M.2 drive and ortho being housed on an external 4tb HDD.

I think it is safe to assume that currently, with each new stable release of -Plane, we'll all benefit from performance boost, some larger than others, but as I have read that Ben and Austin do want to see stable 60's for fps all around, it may be an attainable goal, but also understand that is with a sim set to all default.  Every user is different in what they expect the sim to do, but they also have to understand that with their current systems, there also comes compromise.  It's like owning a Ford Fiesta and expecting to drive over 100mph all the time...it just isn't going to happen, and if it does, will significantly reduce the lifespan of the engine, and in our case, the cpu and gpu.

Now, the tradeoff with the 2080Ti, is of course, more vram (perhaps a slightly higher boost clock), which can come in handy for us.  Those with a lot of add-on scenery can benefit from that, but for those with 8gb and lower, it all comes down to compromise, and only loading what you need.  Replicating real-life isn't quite there yet, but we're getting close.  I will say that with the 20 series of nvidia cards, there is a significant performance shift from the 10 series cards, with respect to X-Plane only.  Gaming and high-end production applications are another matter. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×