iMac or PC?

[tsedge]

Hi,

I'm new to X-Plane and am enjoying it a lot, but my 2008 MacBook isn't really up to the job of running it.

So, I am weighing up whether to invest in a new dual-core iMac with ATI4850 card or to go for a quad-core i7 PC.  I really don't want to buy a PC if I can avoid it as I am not keen at all on Windows.

My question is: would a new iMac/4850 be able to run X-Plane at 1920x1200 with very high detail textures at a decent frame rate?  I have the MU-2 and expect to buy some scenery/airport packages.

Thanks for any advice,

Tom.

[JBalsa]

Yes, the 4850 card would work splendid with X-Plane. I can run X-Plane with my 2600 pro just fine on my iMac from 2007, so I couldn't imagine why you couldn't? Unfortunately, driver support isn't the best on OSX, but I'm not sure about your card, it may have new drivers.

Happy landings - Jason

[gilbenl]

I hate PC's...so Im prejudiced. That being said, if you go with the iMac, you're going to spend close to the cost of a new MacPro before you get an adequate graphics card (256MB or 512MB). If I were you, I would save up, and buy even the lowest end MacPro. This will allow you to progressively update the unit as your needs/funds permit. If you go the PC route, you'll get similar power for less money...but at the end of the day, its a PC *YUCK*. Also, keep in mind, if you are a student, you get a nice discount on Apple stuff ($200-300 USD depending on what you buy).

Here is a system I would reccomend, should you go the mac route:

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB871LL/A?mco=NDE4NDIwNA

That's one baaad mamma jamma!

[GlowWorm]

HIya tsedge,

You may want to consider X-Plane with Linux and keep your current Mac next to it for non-flying stuff.

My 5 year old PMG5 didn't perform for me so I found the setup below. For easy comparing, XP has a built-in frame rate tester. Based on this test, the Linux setup is almost 9x faster than the PMG5. Though I think anything higher than 25~30 FPS isn't visually going to affect the experience. Perhaps higher FPS will help rolls performed at 100 deg/sec... Practically I get between 60 to 200 with the FPS counter in cockpit view with all settings maxxed out - but milage varies dependng where I am at that moment. For further info about my setup, you may want to check my little X-Plane blog section @ http://x-plane.push-point.net

See: Command line options for X-Plane:

http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2006/10/howto-use-command-line-options-in-x.html

Below my results using:

--fps_test=[x]

x=1, 2, 3

Setup" i7 920 2.66GHz, GTX 295, 6GB ram, Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit

XP 9.22 @ 1920 x 1200

Test 1

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=6241 fps=208

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=7097 fps=237

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=8158 fps=272

Test 2

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=5361 fps=179

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=6080 fps=203

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=6638 fps=221

Test 3

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=4396 fps=147

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=4930 fps=164

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=5068 fps=169

And here my previous setup:

Apple PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5, 4GB ram, nVidia 6800Ultra 256MB, MacOS X 10.5.6

XP 9.22 @ 1920 x 1200

Test 1

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=810fps=27

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=967fps=32

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=970fps=32

Test 2

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=694fps=23

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=783fps=26

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=786fps=26

Test 3

phase 1 was not recorded

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=204fps=7

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=221fps=7

Hi,

I'm new to X-Plane and am enjoying it a lot, but my 2008 MacBook isn't really up to the job of running it.

So, I am weighing up whether to invest in a new dual-core iMac with ATI4850 card or to go for a quad-core i7 PC.  I really don't want to buy a PC if I can avoid it as I am not keen at all on Windows.

My question is: would a new iMac/4850 be able to run X-Plane at 1920x1200 with very high detail textures at a decent frame rate?  I have the MU-2 and expect to buy some scenery/airport packages.

Thanks for any advice,

Tom.

[Ben Russell]

25-30 FPS is a MYTH. It's based on bullshit.

TV runs interlaced, giving you 30 full frames of data but 50-60 half frames of data.

Movie film has exposure and motion blur to help smooth things over.

OpenGL renders CRISP harsh shapes. You NEED 60+fps.

</rant>

[JBalsa]

Yeah, Indi's right. Scientists did an experiment, and for a sim, 60 fps are required to fool your subcontious mind. Today's <standard> movie's are based at 29.97 fps, but as Indi said, the frames are smoothed. It is with a TV that you don't notice higher than 30 fps, but not so with computers.

Personally, I aim for at least 35 fps, and most of the time, my '07 iMac can keep those frames running pretty fast at very high res and 65 degrees FOV.

Happy landings - Jason

[tsedge]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I think the iMac is probably the way to go with the 512MB 4850 card.  I'll check out the driver support.   I simply can't stretch to a Mac Pro, especially as I'd then need to buy a display on top (I have no existing monitor).  The Linux/i7 route sounds like a possible alternative.

Thanks again,

Tom.

[GlowWorm]

You got link to that experiment?

Yeah, Indi's right. Scientists did an experiment, and for a sim, 60 fps are required to fool your subcontious mind. Today's <standard> movie's are based at 29.97 fps, but as Indi said, the frames are smoothed. It is with a TV that you don't notice higher than 30 fps, but not so with computers.

Personally, I aim for at least 35 fps, and most of the time, my '07 iMac can keep those frames running pretty fast at very high res and 65 degrees FOV.

Happy landings - Jason

[jenoma]

Low fps on Mac with Nvidia is due to the video drivers.

I had a Mac Pro 2008 with an Nvidia 8800GT, i got poor framerates with X-Plane and the FPS test was embarassing. I read a Ben post on his blog in wich he posted his tests with an Nvidia and an ATI 3870: the ATI card resulted in a better framerate (the post is here and the results with Nvidia 8800GT are the same i had).

Today i've finally recived an ATI 4870 for my Mac Pro, and the tests results are:

Test 1

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=3900fps=130

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=4372fps=146

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=4934fps=164

Test 2

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=3338fps=111

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=3697fps=123

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=4088fps=136

Test 3

FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=2238fps=75

FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=2372fps=79

FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=2524fps=84

As you can see i get more than double FPS than i had with the Nvidia 8800GT.

Anyway, i reccomend tsedge to get a iMac with an ATI inside and i think he will be good with the performances using X-Plane.

Regards.

Alessandro

[JBalsa]

You got link to that experiment?

Yeah, Indi's right. Scientists did an experiment, and for a sim, 60 fps are required to fool your subcontious mind. Today's <standard> movie's are based at 29.97 fps, but as Indi said, the frames are smoothed. It is with a TV that you don't notice higher than 30 fps, but not so with computers.

Personally, I aim for at least 35 fps, and most of the time, my '07 iMac can keep those frames running pretty fast at very high res and 65 degrees FOV.

Happy landings - Jason

Actually glowworm,

That came right off of Austin Meyers FPS Tuning guide.  ;D

[GlowWorm]

Link?

You got link to that experiment?

Yeah, Indi's right. Scientists did an experiment, and for a sim, 60 fps are required to fool your subcontious mind. Today's <standard> movie's are based at 29.97 fps, but as Indi said, the frames are smoothed. It is with a TV that you don't notice higher than 30 fps, but not so with computers.

Personally, I aim for at least 35 fps, and most of the time, my '07 iMac can keep those frames running pretty fast at very high res and 65 degrees FOV.

Happy landings - Jason

Actually glowworm,

That came right off of Austin Meyers FPS Tuning guide.  ;D

[jenoma]

It's inside your X-Plane folder, X-Plane manual charapter 8.

Studies show that at 60 fps or above, your SUB-CONCIOUS MIND forgets that you are looking at a simulator, and thinks you are flying.

Regards.

Alessandro

[GlowWorm]

Thanks!

I didn't expect a useful manual after having read the one for XP6 that was outdated already. The one in XP8 seems to have some handy info.

However, no useful links to "the studies". I am curious about that aspect.

It's inside your X-Plane folder, X-Plane manual charapter 8.

Studies show that at 60 fps or above, your SUB-CONCIOUS MIND forgets that you are looking at a simulator, and thinks you are flying.

Regards.

Alessandro

[jenoma]

Well GlowWorm, i can tell you that i've followed in the past years the FPS debate and 30Fps are enough most of the times, depends in what you want to achive, or can achive, with your hardware. I've flown FS9/FSX for 4 years and i usually locked the Fps to 30, that in my opinion was enough for my tastes. I usually have flown in X-Plane with 30 Fps, thanks to the problems with Nvidia drivers, of course 60 are better, but i can live with stable 30 in any conditions.

I can see very well differences between 30 and 60 Fps, and i bet you can too, but if you need more useful and interesting informations, i suggest you, when you have some spare time, to do some researches on internet, you will find plenty of interesting things about the differences between 25 cinema FPS and 25 FPS on games, and how many FPS a human being can see. Just google for those informations.

Have a good day!

Alessandro

[GlowWorm]

Ciao Alessandro,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look for if if I got spare time. Right now, exploring the XP world at 150 fps (@ 3600x1200) is too much fun for me. (I've grown up flight simming with 4 fps on the Atari 800XL 8-bit - Anything higher than that is cool for me.)

If you are refering to the nvidia driver issues for Mac - yes that's exactly why I had enough of that and created my own rig using Linux (also to get rid of the overhead of XP and especially Vista).

Well GlowWorm, i can tell you that i've followed in the past years the FPS debate and 30Fps are enough most of the times, depends in what you want to achive, or can achive, with your hardware. I've flown FS9/FSX for 4 years and i usually locked the Fps to 30, that in my opinion was enough for my tastes. I usually have flown in X-Plane with 30 Fps, thanks to the problems with Nvidia drivers, of course 60 are better, but i can live with stable 30 in any conditions.

I can see very well differences between 30 and 60 Fps, and i bet you can too, but if you need more useful and interesting informations, i suggest you, when you have some spare time, to do some researches on internet, you will find plenty of interesting things about the differences between 25 cinema FPS and 25 FPS on games, and how many FPS a human being can see. Just google for those informations.

Have a good day!

Alessandro