Does xp10 live up to the claims yet?

[Nicola_M]

Is xp10 truly set up enough now that it is less gpu and memory-draining on pc's than v9xx was, as Austin claimed?

I ask, as yet another developer decides to drop making his wares available for v9 and v10 in favour of v10 only, alienating those of us who are stuck with v9. Stuck with v9 because the hardware to run xp10 is still several £$.

[Mike Hotel]

Yes and no.

From my point of view (user), I can max out and rely on XP9 when simming commercial flights on online networks (IVAO).

XP10 is nice to look at, but needs constant testing and tinkering. With settings I like, my top of the line iMac always crashes to the desktop when flying.

When flying at home on my 4yo MacBook I have to use XP9. Period. And thats rock solid again. If I wouldn't run a virtual airline, I would not buy XP10 aircraft at this point.

If I were a developer I would do XP10 only, because that will be the future market.

I still do not understand why XP10 is still so behind its "expectations". Yeah, I know how things are in dev land. But I would still consider it a beta, even it may be a late one.

Well, wait and see. Maybe XP10.6 will run on my MacBook. Who knows?

Edited June 10, 2012 by Mike Hotel

[larjeet]

When are people going to realize that Imacs and macs in general are not gaming computers and lets face it each new version of any game tends to push the threshold of Hardware . For the price you payed for your Imac You could have bought a couple of High performance PC,s that would offer way more upgrade possibilities . I would compare it to complaning that your smart car couldnt beat a Camaro off the line . Well I guess I have just picked a fight with a bunch of Macaholics but thats the way I see it and I personally am glad that they haven't dumbed down Xplane 10 just so it will be playable on an IMac or Macbook

[eaglewing7]

I take offence at your anti-Macintosh comments...

As a Mac user, I can tell you that you certainly get what you paid for, which is a highly stable operating system. Your not paying for something that is highly upgradeable by any end user. If you want something highly upgradeable, buy a Mac Pro, but wait until the next version comes out, which should be fairly soon.

As for running X-Plane 10 on an iMac, you shouldn't have any problems doing so, if you've got a decent set of hardware behind the case. If your running a four year old iMac, with 4 GB of RAM and a 512MB video card, your obsolete. Move on, and upgrade if you can afford it.

As for running X-Plane on any laptop, you've got to be kidding me right? You shouldn't run Version 8 on a laptop, let alone 9, 10 is a sure bet that it will melt your laptop just starting up. Laptops are just not designed like desktop computers, and lets face it, most serious gamers will use a desktop because it can be upgraded easily, and also, because it gives you plenty of options to upgrade and customize your system.

Edit: As for bitching about crashes with settings that you like, lets face it, X-Plane 10 is a resource hog at this point, and it certainly isn't like Version 9, where you could crank up your settings and not crash it. Wait until it goes 64 bit, then you'll be able to crank up the settings, and take advantage of your systems full resources.

Edited June 10, 2012 by eaglewing7

[larjeet]

Mike Hotel have you tried updating your graphics Card may be try a AMD hd6800 series or higher. My processor is an AMD 3.2 gig PhenomIIx6 with a amd 6790 GRAPHICS CARD and 16 gigs of ram . I know that amount of Ram is irrelevent because of the 32 bit 3 gig limit But I have alot of my settings set up including textures set to ultra and have never had it crash

Edited June 10, 2012 by larjeet

[Warmbrak]

Best way would be to give the demo a go and test it for yourself - performance is still better on Macs compared to PC's if I'm not mistaken, and it is not because Macs are better

[chris k]

Alll depends on the Syststem/Driver/Card combination.

Yes, a MacPro w/a 5870 will outperform a Dell Latitude Laptop with an Intel GMA Chip.

Yes, a PC tower with a GTX 580 will outperform a Macbook with an nVidia 9400M Chip.

in a 1:1 scenario, the PC's are generally quicker due to better driver optimization on the PC side of things, given the same hardware. However, due to bugs in some drivers the OSX drivers may be quicker. As mentioned by Warmbrak -> Download the Demo to see how it stacks up on your system.

- CK.

[Mike Hotel]

Mike Hotel have you tried updating your graphics Card may be try a AMD hd6800 series or higher. My processor is an AMD 3.2 gig PhenomIIx6 with a amd 6790 GRAPHICS CARD and 16 gigs of ram . I know that amount of Ram is irrelevent because of the 32 bit 3 gig limit But I have alot of my settings set up including textures set to ultra and have never had it crash

Since you did not bother to lookup the iMac hardware, here they are:

i7 Quard 3,4 with 6970 1GB VRAM and 4 GB RAM.

Sorry to be a dumb Mac user. No, I won't change that.

XP10 crashing in version 10 is not acceptable - which program of yours does that? Mac or Win? None on my Mac.

The XP10 eye-candy is great (esp. HDR). But is it worth the ride compared to XP9 at the moment?

We could start the discussion about serious simming a flight or the game-play attitude of having eye-candy first. I don't want to do that.

The reality for me is that I will continue to use XP9 on my home machine (on my old MacBook Pro). And I will refrain from buying XP10 only stuff for a while, too. Sad, but thats my perspective on things.

Do I feel left behind? No. You gotta go with the times sometime.

[Spacedust]

Is xp10 truly set up enough now that it is less gpu and memory-draining on pc's than v9xx was, as Austin claimed?

No, in contrary. With low spec machines, like my 2008 MacBookPro, the later versions of XP10 runs slower than the first ones. But it runs and it runs fine if you don't use a lot of third party scenery and high-end aircraft. I use XP10 to enjoy the look of the mountains and the accurate shoreline. But when I want to fly from city to city, with good sceneries around, I still use XP9. For half a year I spend almost equal time on both sims. When more aircraft and scenery will be converted to the XP10 standard, I reckon I will use 10 more and more. But for good results I need new hardware for that.

[dpny]

No: missing art assets, 32-bit memory limits, ATC/AI planes still doing crazy things. v10 isn't there yet.

[Charlie]

As for running X-Plane 10 on an iMac, you shouldn't have any problems doing so, if you've got a decent set of hardware behind the case. If your running a four year old iMac, with 4 GB of RAM and a 512MB video card, your obsolete. Move on, and upgrade if you can afford it.

I would just like to put it out there that I can run xp 9 at 40fps with detailed addons and decent rendering options on my 2009 mac with 2GB of RAM and 256MB video card. XP 10 also looks decent on my computer as well. I defiantly wouldn't consider it obsolete.

[eaglewing7]

I would just like to put it out there that I can run xp 9 at 40fps with detailed addons and decent rendering options on my 2009 mac with 2GB of RAM and 256MB video card. XP 10 also looks decent on my computer as well. I defiantly wouldn't consider it obsolete.

For X-Plane 9 an older iMac is fine, but it certainly is not fine for 10.

I had an older iMac and used it for version 9, now I have a new one, and still only have 9, because there is no point in my upgrading to 10, when it will crash frequently, and still cannot take advantage of my full system potential.

[larjeet]

strange crashes on mac runs fine on PC

[eaglewing7]

Well I say it will crash frequently, because from what I've read, because if you try and increase your settings too high you get memory errors.

I'll probably get Version 10 shortly after it becomes 64 bit, at least then, in my humble opinion, it will be worth both the price, and then it should be able to really give Version 9 a run for it's money.

[OlaHaldor]

All this Mac talk makes me wanna install XP10 on my Mac Pro at work.

It's currently running Mac OS X Lion (10.7.4)

Two 2.26GHz Xeon with 4 cores each, a total of 8 cores, and 16 streams (because of hyper threading)

16GB RAM

GeForce GTX 570 2.5GB

GeForce GT120

I really wish Laminar would implement CUDA processing. It would make the sim more fluid than anything else. Really! That's why I have that GPU installed in the first place. CUDA processing power for my work.

Having the CPU crunch pixels in video for 5 hours, will take only minutes utilizing the GPU for the same task. It's insane no games (as far as I know) enable this, like they have enabled PhysX in some games.

Anyway, when I get time, I'll install XP10 and compare it to my computer at home, in regards of performance vs. visual quality.

The PC at home is mentioned in my signature.

[Ben Russell]

Cuda isn't free. The cycles on the gpu can be used by shaders etc.. It's just another processor. Try some intense GL work next time you're rendering video on the gpu..

[PhM]

Cuda isn't free. The cycles on the gpu can be used by shaders etc.. It's just another processor. Try some intense GL work next time you're rendering video on the gpu..

Indeed, you only have that many PUs in your computer whether C or G, and each can do no more than a given amount of work in a given amount of time. It's more about balancing work across your PUs and making sure no one is idle waiting for data. Considering the GPU it is the only PU in your computer than can do graphic stuff efficiently, it is therefore better to use it for graphics first even if it can do other things, using CUDA or anything else for this purpose.

PhM