Leaderboard

Hi Guys, I'm real world flight instructor, an airplane owner, and flight sim enthusiast for many years. I've been dreaming for a long time for developers to take on depth of real life systems, environmental factors and cost driven maintenance aspects. TBM 900 surprisingly have exceeded any my expectation in this regard! Basically your product draws many simple "eye candy" addon aircraft I own obsolete and uninteresting. 900 is both: educational and challenging to fly (properly), which gives a great purpose of flight simming. Even with some expected bugs during initial release TDM provides an impressive display of addon craftsmanship, and set benchmark for other serious developers. . Keep up a great job and thank you for the excellent product!

and i'm loving every minute. The plane and its craftsmanship, both 3D modelling and programming are seriously on another level. This has set the new standard right across flight simulation...

Hello everyone, May I suggest an option to load the aircraft in a "cold and dark" state? That way if you neglect to shut down the aircraft or exit the sim midflight it won't be fully powered up the next time you load it up in the sim?

In theory, it's definitely the poly count causing the fps hit. more polys equals more processing power needed from the CPU. It is definitely a high poly count, but I was modelling according to what I observed with the testers, streamers, and also Saso's specs. I saw good fps, so I kept going with the details and adding more mesh. I'm going to test it in stages of 100 000 polys. 50fps is my minimum benchmark (on a 6700K 980ti). Once I hit that, anything else I can shave off will be a bonus.

Gentlemen, I spent the last couple of days running some fps tests, to determine what I have to change. I was convinced the textures were the cause, but after downsizing every single texture, I got little to no performance increase. So I started optimizing the mesh. I'll run some more tests after I'm done. The fps issue will be resolved within the next 1 or 2 updates. I'll try to squeeze as much performance out of it as I can.

I just made a touch and go with this setup. FOV set at 123 x 38.75. It was nice. I'll keep this setup when flying this aircraft until there's a fix and revert to multiple viewports when flying others. The distortion effect makes me a little dizzy, especially on sharp turns but I guess it's only a matter of getting used to it. Thanks again for your help. It's greatly appreciated. Cheers!

I think that Toto wanted people to learn how to operate an aircraft properly instead of just neglecting it, that's why all the maintenance stuff is not optional. If you are not into that your best bet would probably be just to create a new airframe each time.

Not all devs are running multiple displays. Those that are probably aren't testing for every possible layout of them. Primary left might work. Primary right might not. etc. I know for a fact that I have multi monitor bugs to work on but haven't had time to setup a dual head display and mess around with it yet.

I've confirmed that X-Plane Joystick Settings.prf is the offending preferences file. I restored everything besides that one from backup and the issue remains fixed. I will keep analyzing to find out more because as a developer myself I also know the frustration of being on the other side of these kinds of things.

We are hard at work on a poly-reduced version of the model, so users with lower-specced GPUs can run the model without issues. We're also analyzing why seemingly very fast GPUs (GTX970 and up) are having trouble. We suspect either a driver tuning issue, or some sort of software incompatibility, as other users with similar setups report no framerate issues.

@skiselkov i will do it once i get the chance to, but i updated my graphics card a few days ago. An optional lower resolution version would be really great and im sure a lot of others would appericate it too