StefanH75

Not really for me. I just ignore the fact that IXEG has announced that they have finished the update and the game is now at XA. Sometimes a little less information is better, even or let's say especially when the community is very impatient. I'm sure XA is working hard on the release, for whatever reason it takes some weeks. So let's keep calm and patient. Get out of the simulator cave and enjoy the summer. The update will come.

Ok. I missed that. Thanks for clarification. Gesendet von meinem SM-G900F mit Tapatalk

Very good. Hopefully the rant is now history.

I see no VNAV calculation improvements are mentioned. Hasn't this been considered for the update or is it just not in the list? However I'm looking forward to the update.

Thank you for this improvement.

Wonderful, looking forward to it.

Can we expect a texture improvement? Yes, I need more eye candy ;-)

Remember, X-Plane is using only one core, so single core performance is relevant. Your CPU utilisation monitor is displaying the overall usage. I made exactly the same experience like you, not with an I5-4460, but an AMD. Also the Radeon is not the best choice for X-Plane, due to worse OpenGL drivers compared to NVidia. Gesendet von meinem SM-G900F mit Tapatalk

I also recognized getting lower FPS with Carenado's planes compared to others. In your case I hardly guess your CPU is the bottleneck. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Same here. Route is EHAM BERG2R EH022 DIRECT BERGI L602 SUPUR UL60 OTBED DIRECT MONTY KEGU1D REXAM DIRECT REXAM APPR TRANS ILV75 ILS09 RW09 MISSED APPR LPLNB EGGP. LNAV is leaving route after passing waypoint OTBED. Is there a solution for this? IXEG_FMS_debug.txt

Glad to see, that some one had an idea that goes to the same direction as mine: Unfortunately I can't test it until the weekend, as I am on a business trip :-(

Hi Frank, This makes sense. I didn't know that, as I am no meteorology expert. Thanks for clarification. Since there is no comment to my other complaint, I assume that I'm facing software limitations, possibly intentional to avoid performance issues. What do you think about creating those wonderful fluffy puffy clouds in a more limited coverage area, for example adjustable to max. 20000 sq. km. Then with a soft transistion creating clouds with less details up to the coverage area as X-Plane does by default. Shouldn't the result be a more realistic coverage area as you can see on the screenshots? At the same time the performance shouldn't be affected that much. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

Tonight I was able to do another comparison. I hope I made it in a right way this time. The aircraft I used was Aerobask Victory v1.1.3. The reason for this choice was, that I wanted to have a practical user perspective. I believe stock aircraft do not represent the majoritarian usage of X-Plane. This payware aircraft is not very performance consuming like others, but still a decent plugin based aircraft. The altitude of the Aircraft was 26000ft. I've set the weather manually, any real weather plugin was switched off. One cloud layer was set between 10000ft and 12000ft, the 2nd cloud layer between 25000ft and 27000ft (all cumulus bkn). SMP was set to max. cloud area coverage of 40000 sq. km. The fps is at ~43, quite good and the clouds are looking close to real clouds. Very beautiful. I have expected a higher density of the clouds, but like this it is ok as well. What I don't like is, you can still see the end of the cloud coverage area. I have then switched off SMP with the plugin manager. X-Plane is loading default clouds then. If you now compare with X-Plane default clouds (tweaked with UWX textures), the second cloud layer I've set before has appeared. So the plane is flying in the middle of the cumulus clouds, as it should be. The fps are higher, almost 50, which corresponds to 14%. As a second test I have increased the altitude of the second cloud layer between 31000ft and 33000ft. But still no second cumulus cloud layer with SMP. Back to default clouds, the second cloud layer appeared and also the end of the cloud coverage area is hardly or even not possible to catch. Also the density is higher and I think it is quite good corresponding to the weather datarefs of X-Plane. What I have recognized regarding the missing 2nd cloudlayer with SMP, this will appear when the clouds are set to cumulus ocast. Maybe there is a bug. So, if there is something wrong in my SMP setup, please let me know. I really eagerly want to use SMP, but my priority for clouds is not for the most beautiful shape, but more real appearance regarding density, different cloud layers and coverage area.

I would be glad if you can point me to the right direction. I really like SMP, but until now not at high altitudes. I'll do the settings as you have suggested only later. Need to sleep now ;-)

Unfortunately there are no noticable improvements for me in terms of cloud coverage vs. performance. If I go for max. coverage, the clouds are still ending far away from the horizon and the performance drops significantly. If I reduce the coverage, then the performance is ok, but there is no cloud coverage. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I doubt it. The clouds are lovely to look at - the best you can get in X-Plane - but that's it. Good if you're flying below FL150. I'm afraid I need to stay with default clouds and according texture modifications. I've attached some screenshots, so you see what I mean. Please note the fps and altitude.