Render Settings

[rddaos]

I'd love if some of you guys out there would post screenshots of the render settings you use, maybe even include your system specs. I have tried to optimize my render settings, but I am not sure if the settings that I have come up with are reasonable given my hardware specs. I have what I think is a decent gaming machine, yet when I run the simulator, the graphics don't look too great (to put it mildly), even though I've cranked up the render settings high enough to drop my fps to about 25-30. Maybe I'm getting reasonable performance relative to my hardware and should not be complaining, maybe my render settings could be optimized further, I don't know. My hardware specs. are as follow:

Windows 7

Intel Core i7 CPU 960 @ 3.2 GHz

Memory: 6.00 GB RAM

64 bit operating system

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (1280 MB GDDR5)

Attached is a screenshot of my render settings. Any comments would be appreciated.

[chris k]

I have 2 different settings I use for testing my scenery in XP10:

1. XP10 "Demo" Install (no terrain, so it loads fast and I only see my scenery overlays):

2. XP10 "Full" Install (with full terrain, roads, forests, etc...):

Note how the full XP10 sucks a ton of VRAM for Terrain/Auto-Gen Objects/Forests/etc; so I turn off HDR, crank down the # of objects, the world rendering distance, roads, etc..

System Specs:

OSX 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard)

Core i7 Dual Core (i.e. non-sandy Bridge) @2.66 Ghz

6 Gb DDR3-1066 Mhz RAM

64-bit operating system =)

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M (512 MB VRAM)

- CK.

Edited February 6, 2012 by chris k

[karingka]

Here are my rendering options. I can actually run v10 how I like it. It runs real well with these settings, between 25- 100 fps depending where I am, what acf I use, and the scenery of the area. Sometimes, when it drops too low, I use the world detail distance as my bottleneck. I find adjusting it to medium increases fps by 10, which is excellent.

Specs:

Intel i7 2600 3.4 GHz Quad core

AMD Radeon HD 6970 2GB VRAM

4GB RAM

Windows 7 64 bit

[dpny]

Per Ben's advice for 32-bit X-Plane, I'm going for the more objects/fewer textures approach for now.

Mac Pro six core 3.33 GHz (W3680)

1 GB Radeon 5870

10.7.3

[rddaos]

Thanks guys. It seems like many of you are not bothering with HDRI. I frankly am not impressed with the graphics I get out of xplane 10. I have other games that have beautiful graphics, for example Wings of Prey, DCS A10C. My machine runs these games no problem. I can only theorize that x plane the flight model physics consumes so much computing power that not much is left over for graphics. I'm going to try dispensing with HDRI and see how I like it.

[dpny]

Thanks guys. It seems like many of you are not bothering with HDRI. I frankly am not impressed with the graphics I get out of xplane 10. I have other games that have beautiful graphics, for example Wings of Prey, DCS A10C. My machine runs these games no problem. I can only theorize that x plane the flight model physics consumes so much computing power that not much is left over for graphics. I'm going to try dispensing with HDRI and see how I like it.

Nope: those games are modeling tiny worlds compared to X-Plane, which is rendering thousands, or tens of thousands, of square miles of scenery at any one time. If you like, you can search Ben Supnik's blog for the posts he's made on the subject.

Nothing wrong with HDR: it's looks great. But, until X-Plane goes 64-bit I'm saving my texture budget.