kneighbour

"I was really happy with SkyMaxx Pro until version 3.1. That version is killing my framerates -30 fps with clear skies. " Well, there is at least one other user that I know of that seems to have the same problem. That is from a user on the org that is using a GTX680 4g VRAM. My system is brand new - a total upgrade. So brand new Windows 7 and all new hardware. I was getting pretty poor framerates in XP in general for several days after the update. I disabled SMP 3 and that seemed to fix my problem. Was getting general XP framerates of 20+ most of the time (with everything maxxed out). Then turned off SMP 3 and got 30+. Not too happy with that though - so there could be something else going on. SMP 3.1 is a different ball game. Pretty much unusable unless I 'trigger' it. If it is a hardware issue I think I would have a hard time convincing my retailer. I have done benchmarks on the system and the video card (ie Cinebench and the like) and they come out as per normal for my hardware. I am a programmer myself, so can fully understand that if you cannot duplicate the problem, then it is hard to fix.

I decided it might be the video driver also. So went back to 353.50, 358.50, 361.43 and currently 364.72, the same as yours. It seemed to make a difference, although not sure what. SMP did not make as much difference after each reinstall. I did not restart the computer after each install, if that makes any difference. But today I fire up the computer and it is back to 'normal'. SMP On => 27. I went through all the Render settings and set everything either to off or to their lowest setting. All except Texture Resolution, which is on Extreme. This needs a restart. Fps is unchanged at 27. Turn OFF SMP, and fps =100. I dropped Texture Resolution and restarted XP. The same. XP reports the texture size as 301 megs. SMP reports 4979 mb of video and 25981 mb of system RAM free. I am using the Demo version with no scenery as it starts up pretty quickly (for XP). The fps are not that important, the point being that SMP makes a HUGE difference. So - nothing on the Render screen seems to make any difference at all in this test situation. I suspect it wouldn't as there is nothing to draw. I am sitting on a basic runway, in a lake of water. No scenery, no roads, no trees. You would think that if changing Cloud Reflections was resetting the fragmentation settings, then so would turning SMP off and on again. Cloud Reflections, Cloud Shadows, Crepuscular Rays, Sky Colors, Cloud Blend Softness seem to be the only settings that triggers the 'reset'. The other settings do not. ie I can set Cirrus Layer Resolution from Med to High, and it takes ages to reload. The screen blacks out at one point. Then reloads with the same 17 fps. This looked like a pretty good video reset as it blacked out and all. These adjustments make no difference (to the framerate) Fast/Soft/Crisp, Stratus/Overcast Representation, Lens Flare, Cirrus Layer resolution. If I move the Cloud Blend Softness even the slightest bit - good framerates! I moved the slider from 500 (the Default) to 503, and I get 60 fps! Hard to move the slider any less than that. The Cloud Details and Cloud Size sliders do not have this immediate effect. I can set the slider to max (1000) and still get 60fps. And it is pretty instant - no long pause and full redrawing the screen for this one. If I set the Cloud Blend to 1000, Apply the Changes, then press the Reset button, the value displayed goes back to 500, but the slider still stays at 1,000. It does not have to be 1000, you can set the slider anywhere - when you press the Reset it does not move to the correct value. This seems to be a bug. Cloud Details - never makes any difference, even at min Min Cloud Size slider - make no difference Max Cloud Size slider - come good at minimum (3100m) Cloud Area - come good at around 2900 sq km The thing with the slider 'come good' - it is not permanent. If I set the sliders back to normal again, the frame rates die again. With the trigger switches and Cloud blend, once SMP switches to normal speed, it stays there no matter what you do. Until you restart SMP again, of course. And please note - I can get the framerates pretty good (currently 60), then all I have to do is turn SMP off, then on again. Framerates 17. Every time. Do nothing else. I have done it dozens of times. Perhaps when you start up SMP, do what you do when you set one of the 'trigger' conditions mentioned above? I don't do anything on the NVidia Control Panel. Just install drivers and leave it at whatever is default. I am not installing NVidia Experience.

Ok - running up the Demo version - and in fact sitting at a location where there is no scenery. Should be the fastest possible. All plugins (only X-Camera installed) disabled. Render settings same as in the full version. Set SMP to Default. Getting fps of 19. cpu=0.050, gpu=0.05. SMP says 4250 mb video free, and 24068mb system ram free. All settings are set to Default. ie Cloud Detail=350m and Cloud Area covered=4900sqkm. Cloud Reflections OFF. I am sitting at YBBN (a lake of water) and in the default Cessna 172. Cannot get much of a lower load than that! I loaded in real weather, which is a fairly overcast day. Quite a typical cloud cover. If I go into Plugin Admin and disable SMP, fps=170. Turn ON SMP, fps=30. Quite a large fps drop! If I slowly drop the Cloud Area covered down to around 2900 sq km, instantly the fps will rise to 130. It is not a linear increase from 30 - 130. It is around 30...40...then...130. It then seems fairly linear as I drop the distance from 2900 -> 1200. At around 1200 sq km, we are getting 170 fps. Back to Default (ie Reset) - Crisp => 30 fps - Soft => 28 fps - Fast => 30 fps Back to Default (ie Reset) Cloud Reflections OFF => 30 fps Cloud Reflections ON => 100 fps This seems weird - common sense seems to indicate that this is back to front? The particular fps readings are based on the weather selected, of course. I tried a few other fixed weather situations and the figures varied a fair bit, but the ratios were about the same. Currently got the weather set to VFR. The framerate range is from 75 (SMP on) - 180 (SMP off). Here is a clue for you - if I disable SMP, fps=170.Enable SMP, fps=45. I then turn Cloud Reflections OF (it was off, as that is the Default). fps=170. Turn reflections back OFF - and fps stays at 170. So now we are sitting at the default situation with normal fps (ie 170). Toggling the Cloud Reflections seemed to fix whatever problem I had. I can press the Reset/Apply button now, and it stays at 170fps. Then I turn OFF SMP. Then back ON again. fps=45. repeat.... I have done this several times. When I first turn on SMP (as in loading XP normally) or using Plugin admin., I get the 45 fps. If I then turn ON Cloud Reflections, fps is 170 and it will stay pretty much around that no matter what I do. I tried turning SMP OFF/ON with the Cloud Reflections ON. No good either. All I have to do is CHANGE the Cloud Reflections, whether ON or OFF does not matter. The fact that I change the Cloud Reflections is enough to fix the framerate. Until I restart SMP again. I hope all of this has been some help. am looking forward keenly to the weather injector...

Well, I am running pretty much the same thing as a Titan, and I cannot run with the Default settings. But like everything with X-Plane, there are so many interacting elements, it is hard to juggle them all. I can see why people just give up. I have just upgraded my system, and I have been spending nearly all of my XP time playing with settings, not actually flying. That is how things got with FSX in the end - I recall not having flown for several months, but still spent a lot of time playing with new aircraft, settings, etc. That is why I gave it away.

Well, I did try a reinstall (via the installer). No difference. If I turn OFF Cloud Reflections also get a big increase in fps. >>but I still suspect fill rate if your bottleneck. But the resolution is only 2560x1440. Will try at 1920x1080 tonight, but cannot see that making much difference. Even running at full 4K I only lose about 7fps with XP running pretty much everything at max. I am not particularly focused on image quality here, so I tried the Soft quality setting. Did not seem to make any difference. I would rather have a wide circle of clouds around the plane of average quality than what I have now - a tiny circle of clouds that follow me around like a cloud over my head. It looks pretty weird.

I really enjoy these videos. I learn a lot of real operation.

Nope - only 1 display (2560x1440) for X-Plane. And it is the ONLY monitor sitting on the GTX-980 TI. All the other monitors are on the integrated video or the additional GTX-460 I also use.

My problem seems similar to rokisk8 in that the Cloud Draw distance is my primary issue. No - only the main monitor is 4K. The one I run XP on. And it is not even running at 4K resolution, only 2560x1440.

>>Lower your cloud draw area then. You're probably tight on VRAM, as explained above. This is understood. I am a bit puzzled in my situation - I open SkyMaxx and see that I have 2750 video RAM free, and still cannot run at Default. How much video RAM does SkyMaxx need to run with the Default settings? On my last flight had the distance set to around 2900 sq km, and while that sounds a lot, in actual flight it looked rather weird. I was flying in this small circle of clouds that followed me as I flew along. I could see the ring of clouds around me very clearly.

New XP reload. FPS 15 again. Check SkyMaxx again. Says 2750 video ram free, but Cloud Area covered is back to default again. Wound Cloud Area back to 2916 sq km and frame rates come back to 37+. So, settings were not saved. Also why would running with the default settings be so bad? Should the default settings be dropped drastically? Bit weird that even though I have heaps of video ram free (2750 it seems), and a lot of CPU left over (running at 0.027), why are the framerates so low?

I run the system at 2560x1440. Full 4K is a bit too small for my aged eyeballs! The other problem is that I run 5 monitors (XP is only on 1 monitor), and when I move from screen to screen, it does not run as smooth with one monitor being at 1920x1080 and the next monitor is at 4K. Running at 1440 gives a much smoother transition between monitors. And running X-Plane at 4K does not look as good as I thought it would. Can barely tell the difference to 2560x1440, so that is where I leave it. The 40" screen is the BIG thing!! Can recommend that to everyone. The bigger the better...

Found the main culprit. When I open the SkyMaxx settings screen, it is reporting that I have about 300 megs of Video RAM free. Bit weird as I am hoping it is more than that! XP reports that I am using around 4000 megs of textures, so that should leave a fair bit to get to 6000 megs. It might be under reporting though. Anyway, I had the thing set to defaults, but slowly moved the Distance down from the default of around 4900 sq miles to around 2900 sq miles. That fixed the problem. In this particular situation, went from 15 fps to 45 fps as soon as I hit the sweet spot. Currently running at around 2900 sq miles and seems ok flying around. Still getting the odd pause as it loads in weather, but so far only done one flight, so hard to tell.

You are right - pretty useless on my part! CPU - 6700K OC to 4.6GHz GTX-980 TI (6 gig VRAM). Latest video driver 364.72 32 gigs RAM 40" 4K monitor running at 2560x1440 XP 10.45 And yes, did set SkyMaxx back to Default settings. Could not find any message by Frank.

Installed 3.1 today and had to remove it. With my "normal" startup scenario (at my base airport with my usual aircraft) I went from 60 fps to 17 fps instantly. I used the Plugin Admin tool in XP to do this, so you can see the instant response. I repeated this several times - and yes, SkyMaxx just kills my X-Plane. I have a new system, so I do not have any history to fall back on with this hard ware. But with the same setup (and my old hardware), with V3 there was usually very little difference in fps, perhaps even being better with SkyMaxx on than off. My base is YBBN and the aircraft is the SAAB 340.

I wish you were correct - but if you check the NVidia forums, this is quite a common problem. It is also on their Knowledge base. I finally gave up trying the fixes touted around, and have put in a Support TIcket. Will see what they come up with, >>Also anyone using two graphic cards in either crossfire (amd) or sli (Nvidia) modes you are just wasting my ey as xplane will only use one, they are fighting each other. I said nothing about crossfire or anything else. I simply have 2 video cards and 5 monitors. XP just runs on the main monitor. >>FF767 running fsgrw, skymaxx pro v3, UK photo scenery I see fps between 50/70. Very impressive - will go through your settings and will see what I can achieve. I am currently thrilled if I can get 30 out of the system.

I am indeed - Windows 7. And no, it does NOT come up. Very common problem - have spent a lot of time on the NVidia type forums trying to fix this. A real pain. To be more specific - the NVidia Control Panel does come up - but there are no video cards displayed (I have 2 fitted).

I am one of those that cannot load the NVidia control panel. Seems a common problem on the forums. So while I would like to tweak the NVidia settings, for me it is not possible.

I think the only time I have crashed (in recent memory) is when the engines cutout, particularly on takeoff. This happened to me once in the CRJ-200 - just got to about 500' and the engines died. Had no time to restart. I have not flown the CRJ-200 again for this reason - seemed totally unrealistic. Almost ran out of fuel once (PC-12). Had to divert and just made it. Totally my fault.

Staggering! If I was in my 20's again, I would probably take on a project like this. Or would save up and buy something! Very impressive setup and kudos to you and your kids for joining n.

I happened across a video on Youtube that was of a fellow flight simulator pilot going for a flight on a Flight Training Device. ie a non moving full cockpit simulator. Companies like Jet Flight Simulator and Flight Experience (and others, I guess) provide this service. This latter seems to be a franchise as it is all over the place. Even here in Australia there is at least one (or more) in each capital city. I mention this as I have been using flight simulators on a home computer since they came out (1978 or so), but have never given these commercial ventures a thought. This Youtube video was amazing - so I looked around for a comparable local business here in Brisbane - and as it turns out, there are heaps. I was very surprised. The price is not all that bad either - I don't think I would go on one all that often, but it is cheap enough that a couple of times a year is not out of the question. About $100/hr roughly. My intention is to practice a certain flight (or a few flights) on the PC, then go to the simulator and then fly it there. One of my 'problems' is that all of these companies fly the 737-800, and there is no such aircraft in X-Plane. Well, I am wrong there - the x737, I guess, but until the virtual cockpit comes out, I cannot fly that. In the meantime I am flying the 732 as much as I can, and of course will be onto the IXEG 737-300 when it comes out. The 737-300 seems fairly similar in switch layout to the -800, the main differences being the glass screens (as far as I can see). I mention all this here as I am sure there are a lot of people out there like me - never giving these simulators a passing thought.

I am far more interested in the current (very annoying) transition that XP has, where you are flying along in Weather #1, then it instantly switches to Weather #2. Very unrealistic and disconcerting. If you have fixed that, then you have another customer!

My best is the SAAB 340. Their latest update made it one of the best looking and best operating planes around. Definitely NOT the MD80, which was a big disappointment. Perhaps when the update comes out it will be a contender.

what a good idea!

No - two whole 'families' apart. The x60 series are 'Low end enthusiast cards', while the x80 series are 'Flagship enthusiast cards' - much, much better. The 9 at the front merely indicates the series, generally 9 is more recent and 8, etc.

Failure to start one engine seems pretty common. I get it quite frequently. In my experience, the only fix it to reload the aircraft. On a slightly different note, I understand it is normal to start the left engine first. This is because the GPU is on the right. So you start the left engine with the GPU, then remove the GPU, then start the right engine.