Simmo W Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Hang on, low fps wasn't just XP9's specialty. FSX with UTX excelled too.Ok, I won't put a 580 on my credit card, I won't, I won't....But it looks like a PCIe 3.0 based PC purchase is on the cards in 2012, just don't tell the missus or my i7 920 (my 'other girlfriend'!) whose 3rd birthday will be this July.Plus I'm hearing some good fixes for xp10 will be coming out soon from Mr Sputnik (hehe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTIK Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I did additional very foggy CAT I tests for Austin... : / 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo W Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 They gotta get those cores working.Het, can you do one I'm busting to find out about - 25m visibility (weather settings), HDR On, versus 50, 75 and 100. 5 AI planes. So only variable is visibility. Maybe do it with HDR off as a comparo, 4* convential AA. At this stage I don't know who really has to have more than 5 or so AI planes. If you want to see landings, just film yourself :-) Anyone try Xtraffic yet???!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gjalp Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 My biggest question is...what about pushback? I held a 747 up yesterday just by sitting at the boarding gate, seems the fellow wasnt prepared to be pushed back and so waited until I had shifted him via the local map.Also, anyone else seen the acrobatic 747 that started at the boarding gate and then landed, after performing a loop I might add, back at the boarding gate? It was quite a site.....didnt wwant to try it myself Slainte.AndyNZCH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo W Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I'll pay for a video of that! Any way to replicate? Cntrl-sh-F8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woweezowee Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Thanks for investigating Mac Pro with the 5870, Arti. I am pretty much seeing what you see. I'm still on OSX 10.6.; wonder if 10.7. would be an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTIK Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 They gotta get those cores working. 25m visibility (weather settings), HDR On, versus 50, 75 and 100. 5 AI planes.9-10fps, 25-50-100sm, HDRon, no matter if texture resolution minimal or very high.the rest of rendering parameters like on my prev charts.XP10 is built around the HDR, so I would rather go back to working XP9 for typical AA.Good airplane flight model will work fine on XP9 (except ETL fix) and XP10.I've found I prefer good 0.2m/pix "garbage orthophoto" + OSM2XP than "first blades of grass upwards" of the newest autogen if it's working like this.regardsarti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlorianR Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) lol, this is pathetic: lowest settings possible, and 8 FPS, when I'm lucky!specs: MacBook ProProcessor: 2.26 HGz intel Core 2 DuoMemory: 4 GBNVIDIA GeForce 9400MVRAM: 256 MbI know laptops aren't the best choice for flight simming, but i certainly was not expecting this. Any advice?Cheers Edited November 28, 2011 by FlorianR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglewing7 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Try getting rid of the high res planet textures from orbit, and changing the objects to something lower than default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlorianR Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Try getting rid of the high res planet textures from orbit, and changing the objects to something lower than default.18 fps and everything looks ****** ...I guess I know what I'll be buying for christmas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglewing7 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 You've got a decent enough Macbook Pro, but the problem as usual is the video card, with only 256mb VRAM...As long as it isn't the old Macbook 256mb shared VRAM, yikes that was painful to fly with, and I was only using Version 8... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlaHaldor Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Flying X-Plane on a MacBook, I'd get one with at least i5 CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipper63 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I am on an iMac i7 quad 2,93, 1 GB Vram and 12 GB Ram, the top model of 2010, and it is painful!!!No AI planes, no HDR, no water effects and no clouds will get me up over 20 sitting at KSEA in the default 747 and over 40 in surrounding areas. Dans ERJ sucks up more frames than the 747 and I don't even want to try fooling with the CRJ200, it would porbably crawl at slideshow pace with that AC loaded. Not too exciting an outlook for the future, eh? I put ordering X-Plane 10 on a personal hold for now, even though I was so excited about it.From what Austin said at this meeting in Belgium, I expected X-Plane 10 to run about the same speed/ frames on my multicore Maschine than version 9 did. I wouldn't rant if it was a bit lower on performance, but like this, there is with similar settings a Grand Canyon between the performance of 10 and 9 on my computer.And I would also suggest that Laminar takes out all the crappy aircrafts out of the aircraft folder for version 10, because they are frightening to every switcher or x-plane greenhorn. Sometimes less is more and that certainly goes for the acs! There are enough well done payware and freeware aircrafts out there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xflyboy Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Guys,Remember this is a Beta" version, better things will come in due time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTIK Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Guys XP10 is NOT optimized... There's no reason to work like that on lowest settings! Laminar was saying XP10 is more efficient than XP9. I think everyone having such a problems on low/med settings should contact them directly (as I did)info@x-plane.com if you've found bug sent it:http://dev.x-plane.c.../bugreport.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpny Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Guys XP10 is NOT optimized... There's no reason to work like that on lowest settings! Laminar was saying XP10 is more efficient than XP9.Laminar said that XP10 would be faster than XP9 with the same settings. There are two problems with this so far. One, it's difficult to get exactly the same settings, as Laminar has changed them up. Two, I don't know if I believe that or not. I'm suspicious that instancing isn't working correctly on OS X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo W Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 And I would also suggest that Laminar takes out all the crappy aircrafts out of the aircraft folder for version 10, because they are frightening to every switcher or x-plane greenhorn. Sometimes less is more and that certainly goes for the acs! There are enough well done payware and freeware aircrafts out there.Very good suggestion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karingka Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Well, even on my machine, which is pretty good (i7 2600, 4 GB RAM, AMD HD6970 2GB VRAM) I can't run what I could in v9, which was very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTIK Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) I wonder why this all AMD stuff CPU/GPU works fine with XP10... ($120) AMD Phenom II X4 955/ ($240) AMD6950. I was shocked to see the just 4000 CPU in PassMark benchmark (e.g. i7 2600 has 9000 PassMark).The video with totally insane objects&roads, HDR, but of course no shadows, Fraps with frame rate I guess average + - 20fps, the home cockpit jet landing runs even smoother... I'm impressed. Edited November 28, 2011 by Andrzej Artymowicz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicola_M Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Plus I'm hearing some good fixes for xp10 will be coming out soon from Mr Sputnik (hehe).If his fix involves free pc's then I'm all ears...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo W Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 If his fix involves free pc's then I'm all ears......hehe, but I heard the fixes will allow those with Nintendo DS's to run it (but no HDR, yet).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woweezowee Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) found something that affects FPS on my sys way more than expected: Gritty textures.In my efforts to improve performance with HDR I just tried this: Not much difference with Gritty Textures on or off in outside views. But in the cockpit, I am going from 20 to 30 (yes, 10fps) when I turn them off.(Edit: oops; only in the Baron - lol; still woth a try, I think.)EDIT 2: False.After changing some more planes I went back to the Baron. Now it is constantly 30fps (without changing anything else in between) Edited December 1, 2011 by woweezowee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukasz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I tried both updates. No joy.~15fps on default settings at KSEA, ~20fps in the wilderness.I turned off or down all settings, which upped my count to 30fps, still nothing to write home about - less fps than XP9, while looking much worse than it.But what is really interesting, is that usually my CPU works at 55%, RAM is used in 75% and VRAM in 33%. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlaHaldor Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I found that my quad core i5 doesn't have more than about 80% load too, RAM isn't the bottleneck, nor is the GPU. hmm..I also found that if I lower the amount of objects, I get worse FPS than with "tons". Very, very weird, but I don't mind the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baber20 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I also found that if I lower the amount of objects, I get worse FPS than with "tons". Very, very weird, but I don't mind the details.Amazingly the same thing happened with me ! This is indeed very very weird... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.