zoltron_rulez Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 I just found out that MS Flight is looking for Beta testers. More details:http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-flight-beta-registration-opens-6347026?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B3I think I will sign up. As for X-Plane X I'll wait unitl the performance is improved.lk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo W Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 That is such a useful post in our forums, thank YOU!Send me a pm when you see it, I'd love to hear what Hawaii is like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmbrak Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 I have signed up for the MS Flight:Hawaii beta as well, but I am more excited about my XP 10 disks shipping today! Performance on my rig is not too bad. Maybe your expectations are unrealistically high, or your hardware cannot cut it anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglewing7 Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Alright, you guys ought to read the rules handed down by Microsoft regarding the use of the beta.There is a rather serious non-disclosure agreement laid out, and there could be serious consequences to breaking any of the rules...Actually I find it interesting that they are asking for public support and feedback but they are really strangling any information about it. Seems like a bad PR move, but that is there problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltron_rulez Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Alright, you guys ought to read the rules handed down by Microsoft regarding the use of the beta.There is a rather serious non-disclosure agreement laid out, and there could be serious consequences to breaking any of the rules...Actually I find it interesting that they are asking for public support and feedback but they are really strangling any information about it. Seems like a bad PR move, but that is there problem.Yes, that's correct, non-disclosure unfortunately. If you would like to find out first hand, you need to sign up. I am sorry for this news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltron_rulez Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Maybe your expectations are unrealistically high, or your hardware cannot cut it anymore?My expectations are very reasonable.Simply stated:- 19/20 FPS is a poor experience. You should be flying at min. of 30 FPS.- I will not go into specific graphics settings that I have set (tuned based on my hardware; set just below average, no HDR) the sim under-performs on my machine (ATI 5870, overclocked i920 3.8 GHz, 6 GB of RAM, Win 7-64 bit, running of SSD - solid state drive, defintely a higher end system). The sim barely renders 15 FPS, avg 13 FPS.I`d like to mention that yes I am running at 3870x1050 and that`s why I have ATI card because it handles well high res.In window mode (1650x1050) I can hit 20-25 FPS, that`s still below the bare minimum.Main reason why I went with X-Plane 9 originally because of its good frame rates. X-Plane 10 tuned down may even look worse than X-Plane 9 with lower frame rates. Edited December 5, 2011 by zoltron_rulez 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglewing7 Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 My expectations are very reasonable.Simply stated:- 19/20 FPS is a poor experience. You should be flying at min. of 30 FPS.- I will not go into specific graphics settings that I have set (tuned based on my hardware; set just below average, no HDR) the sim under-performs on my machine (ATI 5870, overclocked i920 3.8 GHz, 6 GB of RAM, Win 7-64 bit, running of SSD - solid state drive, defintely a higher end system). The sim barely renders 15 FPS, avg 13 FPS.I`d like to mention that yes I am running at 3870x1050 and that`s why I have ATI card because it handles well high res.In window mode (1650x1050) I can hit 20-25 FPS, that`s still below the bare minimum.Main reason why I went with X-Plane 9 originally because of its good frame rates. X-Plane 10 tuned down may even look worse than X-Plane 9 with lower frame rates.You do realize that this is still a public beta of X-Plane? You've certainly got high expectations for something that is still a beta, wait until an actual release, and then you can make up your mind.We've all experienced the weirdness of Austin's release schedule, performance changes, etc, it does and will get better.Also, X-Plane can only use four gigabytes of RAM because it is a 32 bit program, but I know extra RAM is nice for other programs. Also, an SSD will not affect performance in anyway. As a matter of fact all it will do is improve the start up load time, and possibly help a bit with intermittent loads, but your only going to get maybe two frames per second from it...The main issue is that people keep trying to set up X-Plane 10 as if it was version 9, we've been told numerous times that this is a different animal, and it will tax your system much more than 9... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglewing7 Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Yes, that's correct, non-disclosure unfortunately. If you would like to find out first hand, you need to sign up. I am sorry for this news.To be quite honest I couldn't care less about Flight.Just me, but I can't even bother paying for a windoze licence then have to partition a drive, etc, just to run something that will not live up to the hype that surrounds it. Besides, the way Microsoft has been selling this is not as a sim, but as some sort of mission oriented, glorified X-Box game, with a totally ad hoc free flight mode. So much for a serious sim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltron_rulez Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) You do realize that this is still a public beta of X-Plane? You've certainly got high expectations for something that is still a beta, wait until an actual release, and then you can make up your mind.We've all experienced the weirdness of Austin's release schedule, performance changes, etc, it does and will get better.Also, X-Plane can only use four gigabytes of RAM because it is a 32 bit program, but I know extra RAM is nice for other programs. Also, an SSD will not affect performance in anyway. As a matter of fact all it will do is improve the start up load time, and possibly help a bit with intermittent loads, but your only going to get maybe two frames per second from it...The main issue is that people keep trying to set up X-Plane 10 as if it was version 9, we've been told numerous times that this is a different animal, and it will tax your system much more than 9...Definetly I agree with your comments and all comments hence as I stated in my original post, I will wait until things get better. I do admit though that I expected a bit better performance for a beta though. I am software developer myself so obviously I have certain expectations based on my professional occupation. Nevertheless, I am not upset and I understand difficulties releasing games on various platforms. Time will tell.Reason why I was making the above commets is you do realize the software is released now and I think it will come with same performance as the demo. Release of the software is not beta. Edited December 5, 2011 by zoltron_rulez 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmbrak Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 It sounds like you should be getting better fps, but it will also depend on your level of detail. I run a Nvidia GT 590 (dual gpu), which unfortunately is seen by X-Plane as a single gpu. It will kick the crap out of any other game, but not where I need it. Oh well, we can have everything, but we don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlaHaldor Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I find that the GPU isn't the bottleneck, really. I have a GTX560ti 1GB RAM. With most of the settings turned up pretty high, the render settings window shows me I'm using only about 800mb RAM.The CPU and GPU load isn't more than about 70-80%I'm not sure why I'm not seeing more use of them though. Hopefully it's a demo thing, and it will get better when they start crunching bugs and stuff for the full installation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.