If XP could have terrain and atmosphere like this...

[OlaHaldor]

[alpilotx]

Entirely and totally different league with a little bit different "budget" ... I could only find things like this ... 100 million spent on marketing ONLY for BF3 :

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/711624/ea-to-spend-more-than-100-million-on-battlefield-3-marketing-campaign/

 

Or see the 265 million spent on GTA5 ....

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-5-Cost-265-Million-Develop-Market-58922.html

 

BUT ... it doesn't mean  that the X-Plane engine is not capable of creating some nice visuals too   ... quite a lot of what you see is about content (not just engine).

Examples:

http://asn-xp.aerosoft.com/?page_id=4554

[Toby Rice]

That's awesome graphics, only problem is that you would need like 100gb of ram and an i7 processer just to keep your PC from blowing up!

[Jim Kallinen]

 

BUT ... it doesn't mean  that the X-Plane engine is not capable of creating some nice visuals too   ... quite a lot of what you see is about content (not just engine).

Examples:

http://asn-xp.aerosoft.com/?page_id=4554

Oh yes, sign me up, SOLD, my Titan will  love  this and so will I.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jim Kallinen

[Hueyman]

Hey Kallinen, I would love you make a head up about your Titan results in the sim, we seems to be the only two Titan owners over here and I personally thing the results I have in sim are a bit disappointing.

 

I'm selling my Titan OC to the brand new 780Ti oc, which is faster than the Titan for less bucks. I'm just curious. And convinced X-Plane engine has a room of improvement regarding optimization by the size of a football field

[Airbus]

Olah; now I honestly thought that was real. Had to put on the ole spectacles and take a second look there!

Alpilotx, now that makes me want to upgrade this old PC and dig out some time to reinvest into X-Plane! That Beti-X looks impressive!

Edited November 16, 2013 by Airbus

[Jim Kallinen]

Can`t believe you are giving up your Titan. Then again, never saw any photo`s of it. Did your really have one.  And mine has worked fantastic since

giving up Windows 8 and going back to 7. Latest drivers work fantastic. I never run X-Plane at extreme res either. Run it at very high and I see no

difference in res. And this is with everything else cranked up.

Hey Kallinen, I would love you make a head up about your Titan results in the sim, we seems to be the only two Titan owners over here and I personally thing the results I have in sim are a bit disappointing.

 

I'm selling my Titan OC to the brand new 780Ti oc, which is faster than the Titan for less bucks. I'm just curious. And convinced X-Plane engine has a room of improvement regarding optimization by the size of a football field

[Hueyman]

He he you are really disappointing me.

 

Yes I have the fastest CPU on earth ( not any more with the 4960... ) and the fastest GPU too ( not any more too because of the 780Ti ... but ! ) SO WHAT ?

 

What do you conclude I say false things ?

 

I had the ZOTAC Titan AMP! Edition and I saw the Gigabyte OC Windforce 3X version was a tad more powerful so I exchanged it and now I have that Gigabyte OverClocked 6GO version with the super Windforce cooling fans http://videocardz.com/images/2013/06/GIGABYTE-GTX-TITAN-WindForce-450W.jpg and now I'm about to swap it for a 780Ti soon and my i7 3970X for the latest i7 4960X ... I will never let my top config get old

 

Here is the actual Titan mounted on my rig, and if you still don't believe me, here two photos of the package and the default nVidia bad cooling system un-mounted

 

 

 

Regarding X-Plane settings now, I have everything maxed up, extreme res etc... the only two parameters that are causing me UN-satisfaction is not global shadow and not full AA, everything else is up to max, and 35FPS average, 85 over normal areas and high 20 over NYC

 

Cheers

[Hueyman]

Oh yeah, and just in case you wish to see my first Titan, the ZOTAC one, here is the pic I took back in July when I received the big package

 

Can`t believe you are giving up your Titan. Then again, never saw any photo`s of it. Did your really have one

 

I hope I solved your interrogations now

[Jim Kallinen]

Sorry if I came off the way I did. Its just we all have our own ways to make X-Plane work for them selves.  Not a pissing contest.

[Jim Kallinen]

BTW, this is a solid discussion over at the Org and a response by Andy Goldstein.

 

 

Lotsa confusion here.

1. Monitor resolution has only a minor impact on VRAM requirement. A 1080p monitor takes an 8MB frame buffer; 2560x1600 is twice that. Anti-aliasing multiplies the frame buffer requirement, but the lion's share of VRAM is taken up by textures, secondarily by objects and scenery mesh. Frame buffers are a distant third. If you're running out of VRAM the biggest and most effective step you can take is to turn on texture compression. (If you don't like how it looks, drop the texture res instead.)
2. Perversely, a 2560x1600 monitor does load the GPU more. Not because of modest increase in VRAM requirement, but because all the pixel shaders have to be run for twice as many pixels. (A pixel shader is a program that X-Plane loads into the graphics card and is run for each pixel to compute lighting, reflections, etc. XP10 is all built on pixel shaders.) Once again, in fitting the graphics card to the load, VRAM is space, not speed.
3. You may have put your money in the wrong place in going with the 4770k over a better video card. If you're only running a single copy of X-Plane on the machine, half the cores and all the hyperthreads in that i7 are going to waste. XP10 uses at most 2 cores in normal operation. The best bang for the buck in a cpu is single thread performance - get the fastest Core i5 you can find, and put the difference into the graphics card. No doubt you need a fast cpu to shovel all the objects and textures out to the graphics card. But the cpu knows from nothing about how many pixels there are on the display. All the pixel-dependent stuff (i.e., pixel count vs pixel shaders - lighting, shadows, haze, etc.) happens in the GPU.

- Andy

Edited November 19, 2013 by Jim Kallinen

[Hueyman]

Yes Jim, but without entering into details, X-Plane has a huge problem regarding optimisation etc...

 

Please see that

 

 

No comments ...

[alpilotx]

Yes Jim, but without entering into details, X-Plane has a huge problem regarding optimisation etc...

 

Please see that

Which is a very bold statement when you only look at a fey counters ... Assessing hardware / software performance issues is far more complex (and I know it all too well from my other work which has nothing to do with X-Plane but complex databases etc.). You have to know a lot about different factors (beginning from different hardware components ... buss bandwidths, memory bandwidth, number of cores etc. ... going trough drivers and "limitation" posed by a given OS  ... up to the possible algorithmic solutions of the many problems you face in a flight simulator) before you can make an "educated guess" like this.

 

I would never say, that Ben and Austin do everything perfectly ... but from my understanding (and working with Ben for many years), I know, that they usually have a very good understanding of problems and also of possible solutions (which they implement when possible, and don't implement if they are not possible or too "expensive" ... but in the latter case they at least know WHY its not possible).

[Hueyman]

Yes Andras, I have much respect for what you are producing for the community, and I have in no way the pretention to say I have knowledge in that area ... I just show the facts here, and it is a bit hard to realise you have put a lot of hard work into a machine that was meant to run this sim flawlessly while it isn't ... Other apps in comparison never runs below 90FPS average ( I mean simulators here like DCS, IL-2 etc... which have a much older engine than X-Plane 10 ) Am I wrong ?

[alpilotx]

I think this brings this thread quite a bit "off topic" ... neither do I have the time to discuss performance issues / optimization here (on the other hand, there are more than enough discussions about this out there).

 

And just saying "the other sim is always over 90FPS" leaves out a very very big pile of information (about scenery detail ... how much data is shown on screen ... what rendering settings one uses ... which rendering tech is used ... etc. etc. etc. ... thats why I say, that with just a few counters one should never try to asses performance).

[Hueyman]

Off topic ... yeah, BF4 isn't really an X-Plane related thing, I thought it was more related to engine/computers and configurations than the game itself.

 

Anyway, of course as a true expert in the matter, you would need that pile of details, which I am not able to give you

 

It is just this sim for example, max settings, AA etc, over big city with a very detailed model. I don't know what happens behind the scenes but in this situation ( not a screenshot of mine but same ), I got around 93 FPS :

 

http://www.gamersglobal.de/sites/gamersglobal.de/files/galerie/7178/DCS%20UH-1%20Huey-13.jpg

 

And my CPU and GPU both runs around 77%, which is more plausible that why I saw in XP. I just noticed I can reach the high 60FPS in XP10 with everything maxed out except AA and Shadows... with those to max I drop like above to around 7 FPS, this is why I said ( yes maybe a pretty naive comment ) that there was room for optimization here

[alpilotx]

And my CPU and GPU both runs around 77%, which is more plausible that why I saw in XP. I just noticed I can reach the high 60FPS in XP10 with everything maxed out except AA and Shadows... with those to max I drop like above to around 7 FPS, this is why I said ( yes maybe a pretty naive comment ) that there was room for optimization here

Or not ... because - as you admitted - you don't know what amount of other work/data is thrown at the given moment at your GPU (and if I look at your DCS screenshot ... well, it seems to have quite a bit less detail than the XP10 shots you posted above).

 

Anyway, of course as a true expert in the matter, you would need that pile of details, which I am not able to give you

I might know quite a bit about XP10 (and computer graphics in general), but I am not the biggest expert in the sense that I am not coding it (thats Ben, Austin etc. job) ...

[Hueyman]

Ok thanks for your answers Andras. So according to you, what XP really needs ? VRAM ? when in rendering options, total texture size is around 1400 Meg I think, is it related to the total VRAM of the GPU ?

[alpilotx]

Sorry, but I don't want to go further in this discussion here (neither is this my specialty, where I can give anyone of you THE perfect answer - I can only tell you, that this topic is much more complex than just pointing at a few counters ... just a hint: maxing out AA always costs a lot !!).

[Hueyman]

Ok thanks though, have a good day

[Cameron]

Hueyman,

Your images suggest that perhaps your CPU is "bored" and constantly waiting for your GPU to catch up, thus you are in some form or fashion GPU bound. This could be for various reasons, chief among them resolution. The data that X-Plane shows in the rendering settings menu for VRAM is not a good indicator at all as to how your card is performing or if it's even struggling.

What is your monitor resolution here?

[Hueyman]

Hello Cameron,

 

Okay I hear you

 

My screen setup is native resolution, nothing to die for, just 1920X1080, 144 Hz

[Tom Knudsen]

Maxed out sliders do not equal best graphics, only a fool would think so.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ben Russell]

Running your refresh rate at 144hz will eat some performance.

 

Are you using 3D glasses?

[pryoski]

.. only a fool would think so.

 

Jumping jehosaphat Tom ... you furriners shore do like puttin' folk down some.