Nouknitouk

I forgot to mention I am using XP10.31 64 bit. thanks Patrick

I am experiencing the exact same problem. As soon as the plane takes off it abruptely banks right. this is with or without autopilot on and with or without icing conditions. I have to use heavy trim to compensate for this. any solution ? thank you Patrick Bureau

OK. I tried it again <_< . This post will be an optimistic one, contrary to the previous ones I made. I noticed a few things that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet on the forums. A few more observations that I hope will get to the developers: - The sim seems to perform BETTER when NOT using the CEssna 172. For example, sitting in KSEA in a B747 gets me 19fps. In same conditions, loading up the C172 gets me 15 fps. Very strange. IN flight the different is even worse. - The sim is not constant in the fps. Something changes as the simulation advances in time. I can takeoff at 20 fps, climb and as the sim goes and goes, and as my flight advances, the frame rate drops as if something was stucked in some kind of loop. - Changing the 3D view to look at my seat only (no external view at all), DOES NOT IMPROVE THE FRAME RATE at all. It seems that currently, there is no link in the code to actually NOT process what the pilot does NOT see. Very strange and you probably have a point of optimization right there. Version 9 would increase the frame rate by a lot when the view changes to just inside the plane vs. external. THis is very strange because the frame rate does go from 19fps to 60fps in clouds. - The F-sim and F-ACT is very confusing. The F-SIM is constantly sitting at 19.90 fps. However, I've seen it climb by stutters to 20 and even 23, only to drop back to 19.90 again, stable for 10 minutes or so. What causes the F-sim to go up like that??? Even with F-ACT being 24 fps, the F-sim stayed at 19.90. There is some loops that are not working properly. I have looked at the log.txt after. FULL OF ERRORS. errors all over the place. Error finding this, error finding that, etc. - Flying faster seems to be getting more fps. Strange, completely the opposite of FSX. FSX, the faster you got, the more the computer struggled to display the same amount of things in less time. In X-plane 10, flying faster provided me with faster fps. - I'm repeating myself here but, something is blocking the fps from going up, even if the GPU is not used to its maximum and the CPU either. - However, I did get a grasp of realism last night. A brief 5 minutes of excitement, the first one for me in X-plane 10 after hours and hours of playing with rendering options. Clouds set to 25% , flying at night with volumetric fog, and seeing the night lights below from 12 000 feet in the B747, and the reflections in the cockpit. It felt really real. I was astonished at the new cirrus clouds. The cloud effects are amazing. The runway lights from the distance also are huge. HDR is great. Truly beautiful. Knowing that there are loops in the code that are not working properly for sure, I think the developing team will certainly be able to make us gain 100% to 200% performance that we are getting right now. (getting from 12 fps to 24 fps would be a huge step). :0 Patrick

I decided to wait, and went ahead and deleted the demo from my disk. Here's what I posted on the developer blog, after they posted the "tips for better framerate" post. thanks for this post. I did exactly as described. However, I still think there is a problem with X-plane 10. I am running the latest version 10.03b. I have 8 cores all running below 50% average, and GPU never exceeds 75% usage with HDR on. I get 30 fps at KSEA sitting on ground blue skies. As soon as I reach 4000-5000 feet, FPS descent to 10!!!! 10-12 fps. GPU is the same as well as CPU. there is definitely something wrong. I can’t be out of RAM for sure.. I have WAY more than 4 gb. If I put everything to default, and HDR on, and 40% clouds, I still can’t MAX the GPU Activity, nor the CPU activity, nor the memory ? How am I supposed to find the “bottleneck” ????? It has to be Bus speed. Anyone here knows how I could check that ??? Here's the response I got back on the blog: Chris Serio says: December 9, 2011 at 6:32 pm No one’s denying that there may be something that can/should/will be improved in the sim. You did exactly what you’re supposed to and you now know that your bottleneck is not your CPU or GPU or RAM…so perhaps it’s bus bandwidth. You can try to reduce things that consume bus bandwidth. This also means you can INCREASE your settings so that you consumer more CPU/GPU and make the sim “prettier” without hurting performance so long as you don’t increase bus traffic. We’ll be getting to performance tuning soon where we can talk in more specifics and we’ll have tools to help figure out what’s going on. In any case, I have to let go. I spent too much frustrating time trying to improve for flyable sim. TO me, having to reduce the number of roads to improve FPS is ridiculous. Less roads mean a lot of houses, line up in the green environment with no roads leading to them, which to me.. is not PLAUSIBLE at all. Until 10.XY comes out, when they fix this, I will certainly not spend any money on X-plane 10. I switched back to version 9 now, flying high in the sky :-) at 50-55 fps at 3840x1024, all maxed out settings. what a deception Patrick

yes. About the same here. Some settings are affecting Big time the fps, some seems to be just ignored. For example, chaning the anisotropic filtering to 16X from 2X AND , at the same time, increasing the amount of roads, treees and objects, affected the whole fps by... 1.5 to 2. TWO!!! wtf. However, turning off HDR made a big difference... until there were clouds. I think its easy to summarize..... there is a problem with Clouds AND/OR HDR. If GPU and CPU are not the bottleneck... what is ???? certainly not RAM ??(coughing 64 BIt) For me, turn HDR off, I get at least 18-20 fps. NO CLOUDS.. turn clouds on, go back to 12-13 fps. Turn clouds off and turn HDR on, same... 10-12 fps. Both on.... its slideshow and maybe its worth repeating my specs i7 core Windows 7 64 Bit 24 Gb of RAM (useless in 32 Bit environment) ATI Radeon HD 5870 PCI 16x I'm still pretty disappointed. I find myself flying XP10 for 10 minutes and switching back happily to X-plane 9 to fly happily with maxed out settings, at 250 knots in a mix of sun and clouds..........at 35-40 fps Oh and should I mention the few bugs too ? Like my plane loads at KSEA and move backward slooowly until I apply throttle no cars on the roads for the first 30 seconds of every flight. and yes... I have the latest catalyst drivers I think they've got some homework to do. I'll certainly let them do the homework before I even think of purchasing it.

have a look on the blog guys! http://www.x-plane.com/blog/

Andrzej, I just read on the .org that upgrading the drivers to the latest catalyst, can make a difference of up to 15-20 fps MORE. I think we should do that and report back

lol Andrzej... yes.. the sound is fantastic. I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one with the HD5870 having performance issues and not seeing much impact in turning HDR on or off. If others could post what their performance is that'd be great. I'm thinking this X-plane 10 is for MAC only lOL

Hi Graham this is strange cause I've downloaded the whole thing via Torrent yesterday evening in about 2h30. It was flying at almost 500-600 kb/s you should check Utorrent settings for the number of connections you're allowing To come back to the fps issue, I've read on CAX airline forum that if FXAA is turned on, that we should turn off regular anti-aliasing, because they counter-act and this could decrease performance. That's what I was doing (using both), so I will definitely give that a try!

Benny. Nice shots!!! However, I also get 23 fps when in Chase view like that, just overlooking the scenery. The performance decreases dramatically in cockpit mode and when actually doing what the sim is made for : flying I don't see how you can have those settings and simply not kill the sim like me. I will definitely update the ATI Drivers. I'm anxious to see if it makes any difference!

Thanks for the advice Goran My AA is 16X in X-plane 9 with no issues, so that is why I have set it to 16X in version 10. What does the Shadowing to 3D aircraft means ? WHat is the difference between OVERLAY, STATIC, 3D Aircrafts, and GLOBAL??? anyone knows what 3d Bump maps means ???? I have a pretty decent system I think , and I'm disappointed that I have to turn off all the new features like HDR and clouds. I will give it a try. I've sticked to my ATI drivers because everytime I tried updating them, it became a mess of reconfiguring Eyefinity!! I even had to roll back once because I could not configure the 3 monitors like I used to. SO I probably have a 2 years old ATI driver installed at the moment. anyway, thanks for the feedback. I will start with low settings and upgrade them one by one, to see which one is the fps killer thanks and hopefully the driver update helps a lot Patrick

I will as soon as I'm back home I recall the following settings as I played with them for more than 30 minutes. Texture Resolution: High Resolution: 1920x1080x16 bit - HDR: Enabled with FXAA 4X - Atmospheric Scattering: Enabled. - Anisotropic filtering: 16X (but tried different settings , even none... did not make a difference on the fps) - Anti-Aliasing: 16X - Shadowing: tried, Static, Global Low, and 3D Aircraft. (By the way, there is no explanation in the demo as to what do those settings means) - Trees: Sparse - Road Traffic: Siberia Winter - Airport Detail: Default - Number of OBjects: Default - Water reflection: Complete (tried different settings but, did not really affect the fps) - Clouds were about 50% of each settings, which were default. However, I had to set to blue skies or put those to zero to be able to get more than 10 fps, in the country-side. I don't even want to think about KSEA - Compress VRAM to save textures: Enabled - 3D Bump Maps: Enabled or not enabled did not make a difference - Volumetric Fog: Enabled - Other Aircrafts: 0 That's all I can remember. I would like to have more time playing with the settings, but obviously something is wrong as I could set more things to HIGH or even EXTREME HIGH in X-plane 9 no problem, at a resolution of 3840x1024 (3 monitors). The more I think, the more I believe it might be my display drivers. The shadowing was really staggered, as if the anti-aliasing was set to MINUS 4x lol. Anyway guys, sorry about the rant this morning. I've seen many BEAUTIFUL videos of X-plane 10. I just don't see how they could have been taken so smoothly. Maybe iMAC do makes a huge difference. I'm depressed

I am not happy Hello and good morning everyone X-plane 10 demo was downloading last night while flying a couple legs from the Caribean tour. Once downloaded, I realized that no installation was required, which is cool. SO I launch the thing. Now, before I go any further, let me provide you with the specs of my computer: :( :( - Intel i7 core - 24 Gb of RAM (yes, 24) - ATI Radeon HD5870 With almost everything turned on to medium and high in X-plane 9, I get easily 40 fps. In X-plane 10, I spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to NOT have a slideshow. OK, I don't understand how people can actually run the sim. I had to turn down the texture res to Medium. With BLUE SKIES, I can NEVER get more than 18 fps, with settings at medium-low, and with HDR, which does not seem to affect a lot at the FPS level, which is good news. Shadowing is horrible. I tried every setting, and again, removing the shadowing, I gained about 1-2 fps. TRees to sparse, AIrport detail and all other settings to default. "what the hell" is what I'm thinking. I was reading the posts on the internet on the X_plane developer blog, and they said many times that if good performance on X-plane 9, then X-plane 10 would be similar or even better!!!! Let's just say that, to even REACH 20 fps, I had to remove traffic completely, and set everything to blue skies. Setting clouds in there, I go below the mark of 10 fps. I just don't get it. I tried different resolution, because I thought that maybe my three monitors configuration was the problem, so I set it to 1 monitor in 1980x1080-16 bit. Same thing. Gainned about 1 fps overall. I am REAAALLY Disapointed. Now, I have not updated my display drivers for a looooong time, but I can't believe that this could actually be the solution. How would display drivers suddently give me the missing 20fps to reach 30fps ? OH I forgot to mention something, this is not even in KSEA, this is at a nearby airport in the coutry side near KSEA, cause KSEA... forget it. Slideshow. and there are bugs all over the thing. I flew over the coutry side.. there are houses line up in the middle of the forest... with no roads (I"ll take screengrabs when I can). Weather looks good....but to me, it is unusable the sun looks amazing when it reflects in the water. I will update my display drivers tonight and report back. In the meantime, id be interested to see what people have been getting as fps, WITH and WITHOUT HDR enabled. OK guys, If you are going to run XP-10 without clouds and without HDR... might as well stay with XP9 ???? that's what I think. Slideshow, even with a new system so they better improve... I don't even want to think of using the CRJ at the moment. Thank you and most importantly... good luck ??? here's the post I'm referring to, only 2 months old, and with the same card that I have: the performance he states are definitely far from what I am getting: http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/10/x-plane-10-and-gpu-power/ Patrick

thank you Leglaude great explanation i wanted to know that for a long time. I also think that the angle of the sun have something to do as well with how blue gets the water. gulf of mexico in summer vs winter, at the same beach, looks VERY DIFFERENT!

@uwespeed I talked about Tropical water, and corals. Not all the water. I don't get your answer and your rant about real pilots vs non pilots. X-plane does not even have those tropical beach blues... And for having spent some time in the keys two years ago, I can tell you that its not ONLY cloud coverage that affect water color. I have amazing shots of the gulf of Mexico during a thunderstorm and no, the water did not suddenly switched to black, more to vibrant light green, so it definitely has something to do with whats in the water as well...