What kind of performance are ya'll getting and on what system specs?

[Jacoba]

Curious about this as I have a mediocre system at best right now...  

iMac (27-inch, Late 2013)

3.4 GHz Intel Core i5

24 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M 2048 MB

[fsjoe]

This exactly my question as well! Either someone tells us soon or I,ll give it a try. Although my iMac is is from 2017, I still have my old one (probably a 2013 as well) somewehre and I may test on this one as well but it would take me a while.

[Goran_M]

Jacoba, with those specs, you will definitely have to dial it down on the TBM graphics.

Performance is very hard to determine due to different factors.  Someone with an OC'ed i9 9900K, 2080ti and 32GB RAM with a ton of ortho, countless plug ins, could easily get equal or worse performance than someone with an i7 7700K, 980ti and 32GB RAM with little to no plug ins and ortho.  It's a combination of things.  We had several testers, with a wide array of installations, have very few problems, with the exception of a few bugs during development, and all had a very smooth run when it came to performance.  So MAYBE we underestimated just how much ortho and 3rd party plug ins people have.  Just today, I saw someone with an incredible amount of plug ins.  Couldn't believe how many plug ins some people have.  Felt like I was way behind the times.
In saying all that, I'm working on reducing texture size and possibly making a separate texture set for slower computers.  I'll get that done asap and run a few tests, then take a meeting with toto.

[fsjoe]

Sorry Goran, I could not wait for your answer and just bought the aircraft ;-)

I can confirm your statement. My spec is clearly above a 2013 iMac and I had to set down the graphic settings, just to get around 22-24 fps (most plugins disabled, on Aerosoft LSZH scenery).

Here is my spec: Model: iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017), CUP: 4.2 GHz Intel Core i7, Memory: 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR4, GPU: Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB

Here my graphics settings:

Just consider this a quick and dirty benchmark. From this quick check and based on my experience with other aircraft I can say that TBM 900 should work fine for me even though it is on the low end of fps and depending on scenery and weather settings/plugins I may have to fiddle with the graphics settings from time to time.

this is how beautiful the aircraft looks like, even with these mediocre settings ;-)

 

 

[Schorle]

Running with pretty low settings at 4k on I7-6700k at 4.6GHz, 980ti

I barely reach 30 FPS (which I locked my FPS at for smoothness), even in the least demanding scenarios (eg. TXKF), this plane is by far the worst perfoming plane I own. Even FF320 runs at about 30-40% better FPS.

I hope there will be performance increases in coming versions. As it is now, it sadly has to stay in the hangar.

[Goran_M]

59 minutes ago, fsjoe said:

Sorry Goran, I could not wait for your answer and just bought the aircraft ;-)

I can confirm your statement. My spec is clearly above a 2013 iMac and I had to set down the graphic settings, just to get around 22-24 fps (most plugins disabled, on Aerosoft LSZH scenery).

Here is my spec: Model: iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017), CUP: 4.2 GHz Intel Core i7, Memory: 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR4, GPU: Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB

Here my graphics settings:

Just consider this a quick and dirty benchmark. From this quick check and based on my experience with other aircraft I can say that TBM 900 should work fine for me even though it is on the low end of fps and depending on scenery and weather settings/plugins I may have to fiddle with the graphics settings from time to time.

this is how beautiful the aircraft looks like, even with these mediocre settings ;-)

 

 

 

I would make a few adjustments.  Turn down reflection detail to zero.  You'll still get reflections.  This is pretty much, across the board in recommendations for performance increase.
Experiment with AA.

I'm not too familiar with 5K retina screens and how they perform, but I understand with such a high resolution, it'll tax the GPU pretty aggressively, with that many pixels.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would love to make a lower res texture set, and I will discuss with toto about this, and then upload as a separate option for people with performance issues.  I'm currently in the middle of doing so, and will run some tests.  I'm also reducing the poly count of the mesh.  
We'll get there.  
 

39 minutes ago, Schorle said:

Running with pretty low settings at 4k on I7-6700k at 4.6GHz, 980ti

I barely reach 30 FPS (which I locked my FPS at for smoothness), even in the least demanding scenarios (eg. TXKF), this plane is by far the worst perfoming plane I own. Even FF320 runs at about 30-40% better FPS.

I hope there will be performance increases in coming versions. As it is now, it sadly has to stay in the hangar.

I'll address each point:

I have the exact same set up.  CPU, screen size and GPU.  The lowest fps I get is high 20's-low 30's, in built up areas.

What I would like to address is the higher the quality, the more power needed to pump out that quality.  I wanted to make textures that were very clear and sharp, while still maintaining performance.  And for that, I used our computers as well as the testers and streamers computers for a benchmark.  All of them had smooth running TBM's on their rigs.  Not meaning to appear "confronting" but comparing 1 add on to another is kind of futile.  We don't really sit there and say "We have to make this run as fast as X add on".  We make it according to what we can run, and what our testers and streamers can run.  

In saying all that, as was mentioned above, I'm working on performance increases by rescaling the textures and combining meshes.  Also reducing the number of polygons in the mesh.  Performance increase is definitely getting done.  It just might take a couple of days.

[Schorle]

52 minutes ago, Goran_M said:

In saying all that, as was mentioned above, I'm working on performance increases by rescaling the textures and combining meshes.  Also reducing the number of polygons in the mesh.  Performance increase is definitely getting done.  It just might take a couple of days.

Thumbs up! I believe in you and your work!

[SPADtrap]

I'm getting good performance with an GTX680 and i7-3820 with settings similar to those used in the pre release streams, no issues at all for me on this older system and never have been subject to the Nvidia driver issues often cropping up with 1080Ti. Makes me reluctant to upgrade.

[fsjoe]

Good points. Reflection and AA to zero gives still an acceptable look and a frame rate of 30-35. A hefty resolution reduction (2048x1152) provides another 5 fps. Quite good for me so far even-though and further improvement as you mentioned is highly welcome. I first need to finish a tour on the Saab before I can fully devote myself to the TBM. 

[fireone]

Can I put the question in a different way ?

If, say , you ran a completely clean version of Xplane 11.25 , no added scenery , no plugins , no modifications of any kind , no VR ,

what would you estimate is the required cpu &gpu to run the TBM with visual settings in the mid range to run at >30fps .

 

In other words the Q . is not : this is my hardware will it run ? 

The  Q.  this is my software , this is how I'd like it to run , what's required to make this possible ? Thanks

[Goran_M]

3 hours ago, fireone said:

Can I put the question in a different way ?

If, say , you ran a completely clean version of Xplane 11.25 , no added scenery , no plugins , no modifications of any kind , no VR ,

what would you estimate is the required cpu &gpu to run the TBM with visual settings in the mid range to run at >30fps .

 

In other words the Q . is not : this is my hardware will it run ? 

The  Q.  this is my software , this is how I'd like it to run , what's required to make this possible ? Thanks

Difficult question to answer.  But I do have 3 installs of X Plane on my PC.  non-beta with plug ins.  Non beta vanilla install and beta with plug ins.  What I found was, if you can run a clean X Plane comfortably, you will have no problems running the TBM.  There are some plug ins out there that can drag performance down significantly.  That's why it's sometimes a good idea to remove them all, and put them back, 1 at a time, to see what plug in is causing the performance hit.

[NeoPyro]

Alienware Aurora R4

Intel Core i7-8700K

11GB GTX 1080 Ti

16GB 2933MHz DDR4

Initially, I was getting right around 40 fps with dips in the 20's but since 1.0.5 I'm getting a solid 60.

[fireone]

23 minutes ago, Goran_M said:

 What I found was, if you can run a clean X Plane comfortably, you will have no problems running the TBM. 

Understood.

Just to pin you down a bit more precisely   Goran :

if I can run the Laminar Cessna 172  or Baron B58 at a  low  detail airport (one  provided by Laminar's installation ) and this runs consistently at around 60 fps , one can reasonably expect the TBM  to run >30 fps ? 

If you are able to share your system specs that might give me some perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

[Goran_M]

You're pretty much spot on there.  

My specs:  i7 6700K 

GTX980ti

32GB RAM

 

[fireone]

Thanks NeoPyro  ,very good info there. Aside from reflections and a bit of AA , those are very respectable  settings.

[fireone]

Thanks also Goran . Very useful info.

[NeoPyro]

35 minutes ago, fireone said:

Thanks NeoPyro  ,very good info there. Aside from reflections and a bit of AA , those are very respectable  settings.

Thanks, I've noticed with X-Plane, setting the anti-aliasing higher than 2x SSAA+FXAA has next to no effect on image quality and that setting reflection detail to anything other than "minimal" adversely affects my framerate by a good 15 fps or more regardless of add-ons.

Edited October 24, 2018 by NeoPyro

[Francois_]

My Specs are:

• Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.4GHz
• 12GB GTX Titan X
• 16GB 3200MHz DDR4
• Oculus Rift
• Ortho4XP ZL 17 (ZL 18 for a few airports, ZL 16 for the Midwest, and Eastern U.S)

My frame rates are between 43fps and 80fps, but I use 3jFPS-wizard11 to keep it between 45 fps and 55 fps.