CRJ-200 Framerates

[dancemad57]

Perhaps you could have your CPU tester somehow warn clients of bad performance. As my CPU test results said that the CRJ200 would run on my system, but it really doesn't.

Just saying,

Michael O

[Japo32]

Dancemad... we said that the tester didn't test the performance.. just that if you were going to have problems with opengl.. But it really works, because you are running it.

To make a performance tester we then had to load all the systems inside the CRJ and load the polygons and textures of the CRJ.... and that is the CRJ. But we cannot release a demo of it, because we didn't have any time limit program.

Also I published 3 different configurations to clarify everyone what they could find, and told that usually you loose 50% of performance once systems are running inside x-plane.

You have the plane for always, so maybe today you cannot fly it correctly but as soon as you change your computer to a better one then you will be able to fly it.

This is something very well known by PC gamers. Latest games are made for good systems, so they always know that if they have a computer 2 years older than the released game, they will have probably bad performance.

If you have really nice performance on x-plane, that doesn't mean everything you are going to load in it, it is going to go well.

If somebody has 24 frames on normal default planes, then he/she, cannot prettend new planes with full systems go the same way.

well, as said, you have the plane for always, and you will be able to use it perfectly when you have a new system (and it hasn't to be the most high end one. Of course the more power, the better).

[mjoppich]

Actually I ran the CRJ quite well on my E8500@3GHz, 4GB, Hac OS X, NV8800GTS@640MB rig. Of course i had to set graphics a bit lower, but still it looked wonderful!

Maybe you want to try a unix system :-)

I once again have to say that I really like that CRJ very much though I haven't yet used its full magic :-)

[cmemory]

I configured the graphics settings as suggested in the pdf manual and only ever see 50% total cpu usage and 19 fps even after FPS-saving fog rolled in (see pic). The screenshot was taken while buzzing around KPWM.

Japo32 indicated there were 3 versions of this plane? Does this mean frame rate optimized models? I couldn't see any mention of this in the manuals. Did I misunderstand that statement?

Haven't tried it on linux yet. Seems like pretty low fps to me for a system like this, given other user reports. Any suggestions?

i7 950 3.06 Ghz

6 gig corsair RAM

ATI 5850 1 GB

OCZ vertex2 SSD

Win 7 64 bit

Xplane 9.67

Catalyst 11.4

[Japo32]

Ok. Pixel shaders to off. Antialising to none. Water reflection to none. Textures to high. Objects to less than that.

Go to flight model calculations and leave it in 1.

Even iyou can go to mcpu menu button in fms and in plane menu displays to low.

There aren't 3 models only one. I meaned 3 configurations of computers, sorry. Maybe i will put a model withot pilots and cabin for low performance computers

[Splash]

Also I published 3 different configurations to clarify everyone what they could find, and told that usually you loose 50% of performance once systems are running inside x-plane.

Very true, exactly how the CRJ behaved on my system. In other words, the statements were quite accurate, doesn't get more accurate than that.

In regards to improve your performance do what Javier suggested video card wise.

I am affraid but CPU-wise if you are having problems there's not much you can do but over'clock and even then depending on the CPU you may have still lag.

[Urbanex]

I personally have a

MBP late 2009, 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM DDR3, NVIDIA 9400M

And I think I am around 30fps (less if anti aliasing max)...

Could anyone suggest me a graphics configuration for my system?

Thank youuuuuu!

Carlos

[Splash]

I personally have a

MBP late 2009, 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM DDR3, NVIDIA 9400M

And I think I am around 30fps (less if anti aliasing max)...

Could anyone suggest me a graphics configuration for my system?

Thank youuuuuu!

Carlos

Carlos,

I am afraid, that's is probably all you can squeeze out of the hardware. The CRJ was developed for high-end systems, because of systems the aircraft has to offer which in turn affects the frame rate., there's unfortunately no default basic systems from X-Plane for the CRJ.

My suggestion to you is turn you video down and start increasing sliders that are easy on the video card, the anti-aliasing and pixel shading is more demanding. You're looking to see where your video card tops out. In regards to the CPU overclocking will definitely help if you can.

[StormyPilot]

I'm reposting my system performance details here from another thread as i noticed it is being collected here, also I added a little more detail.

System:

i5-2500K (quad 3.3 GHz), 8GB corsair ram, GTX460 1 GB ram, Windows Vista 64-bit

Settings and add-ons:

UK photographic scenery, converted FS9 airport scenery (including Heathrow/Gatwick Xtreme), no roads/traffic, pixel shading off, x4 anti-aliasing/antisotropic, culuminous clouds allowed, everything else more or less maxed, full screen (1920x1080).

Results:

FPS=30-60 FPS on airfield depending on weather during the day, drops very little with night lights. (tested on various medium airfields and Heathrow and Gatwick which are probably the most demanding airport sceneries available atm)

Exceptions to the results:

Sometimes when flying at high altitudes in bad weather some frame rate hit can be experienced, but that is possibly on account of the extreme texture resolution, photographic scenery and the detail range being large.

Summary:

In most cases I'm experiencing a very smooth experience and have nothing but good to say about this jet so far.  

[radhat]

Windows XP SP3

256MB ATI Radeon 2.0.5885

Dual Core 3GB RAM

I get 19 FPS regardless of what I turn on or off, graphically.

Other planes run in the mid 30s. with middle of road graphically.

Lack of VRAM hurts me, I know this.

Cold and dark starts at around 70 fps and drops slowly to 19 as systems come on line.

I spent ALL of yesterday getting this plane to even load (conflicting plugin), so I guess I should be happy to at least get to see this.

I did note that if I turned off the Avionics plugin and left the Embeded VasCore plugin on, framerates jumped into Mid 30s.

The other way around with Avionics on and VasCore off resulted in bottomed out frame rates.

So if you want to explore the cabin of this pretty thing, turn OFF the plugins and crank up the graphics, because although I can afford to own her, I can't afford to fly her.  Pretty to look at, but no fun in the sack.

I look forward to flying this when you figure out what's taking all the framerates in your plugins and patch it.  Until than, like some of the other guys in this forum, I'll just have to wait for a new video card, and go back to the other planes and fly them.  They, at least, I can have some fun with..

[dpny]

I look forward to flying this when you figure out what's taking all the framerates in your plugins and patch it.   

Nothing is "taking all the framerates". If you read the development threads you'll see the plane is very CPU intensive. It's optimized for multi-core, and each display will run on its own core. If you have a dual core machine, as you do, you're not going to see very high frame rates.