Skymaxx/RWC FPS cost in XP11.50

[oldflyguy]

I've been using SMP/RWC for quite some time and like it very much.  My only issue has been with the cloud altitudes and the latest update(s) has fixed that.  However, now that XP11.50b1 has added the plug-in "viewer" I see that if I'm using the SMP/RWC combo the FPS cost in any kind of significant cloud visuals is around 10%.  That's just too much (for me) with heavy 3rd party scenery and aircraft.  The same conditions with XP default clouds are indeed at least 10+ FPS higher.  No, the XP clouds don't look as good but they are acceptable.  I still plan to use the SMP/RWC combo in less demanding situations.  Is it possible to have less impact using the combo or is that just the way it is?  In any case, thank you for the updates!

[Cameron]

You can certainly lower cloud draw distance, but at the end of the day, expecting addons to have little or no cost is silly. 

Theoretically Vulkan should have given you some extra FPS anyhow. Obsessing over these numbers may be a bit overkill, as the values are really meant for developers to look at things to optimize if possible. To each their own though!

[oldflyguy]

Nope, don't expect "extras" at no cost.  Too old and experienced for that.  The 10 FPS at 1/2 "cover" in scattered conditions did surprise me, though.  No worries...

[sundog]

Keep in mind that the true FPS cost of SkyMaxx Pro is its FPS cost MINUS the FPS cost of the default clouds that it disabled. The FPS number in the plugin admin window is a bit misleading in our case. Yes, we consume resources to draw clouds - but this is taking the place of the resources X-Plane was using with its default clouds.

[oldflyguy]

That is a good point!  Hadn't thought of it that way