sqrt(-1)

Pictures, or it didn't happen...

SHIFT+F1, F2, F3, F4

Clearly, you have your priorities in order. Do what you need to do. Given your work so far, the wait will be worth it.

If the clean demo (with no addons whatsoever) acts exactly the same, the installation must either be compromised or the system has some ownership of it. I have an almost identical system configuration as yours, yet have no issues running 32-bit or 64-bit modes.

So why not verify the basic X-Plane demo installation first by removing all the addons? We need a control condition.

With or without addons?

I don't see anything unusual in your log file. My first question would be if the XP10 demo ran in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes without any addons installed yet. This would verify the installation is not somehow compromised. I am assuming drive D: is a separate drive not owned by the system.

Perhaps posting your log file would help us figure it out.

LXGB anyone?

The links I sent you took that into account.

It's CPU heavy only from the standpoint of single-thread performance. X-Plane is not as thread intensive as one may think. The i7 will only help if you intend to have a lot of AI aircraft. Read this.

If you're going for a GTX 660 for the time being, make sure it's a GTX 660Ti.

Take a look at the relative performance of your selections for CPU and GPU compared to other hardware at similar price points.

With X-Plane experience since v8, I beg to differ.

That would first depend on the GPU driver provided in OS X. That said, Ben Supnik has already indicated there will be OpenGL revisions to the X-Plane code beginning in the 10.30 run.

Your time must be really valuable.... That's very generous of you. No, he is suggesting that Carenado products in your log will not help us diagnose SAAB problems. Frankly, that should have been obvious.

It sure would be interesting to hear the backstory leading to this. What a terrible shame. It looked so incredible!

Two GTX 780s may be a coincidence. If a third or more shows up, there could be something to this. I regularly monitor nVidia's support forums and it appears quite a few of the recently reported driver issues involve the GTX 700 series GPUs. The driver in this case may be a contributing factor. The GTX 680 in my machine performs in a fashion consistent with your comparison of 1.0 and the update in development. I would be long CPU-bound before seeing anything close to single-digit frame rates, given my pansy of a CPU. That said, I hesitate to think the GPUs are bound unless driving multiple monitors at high resolutions. CPU binding might be a possibility. Without more "forensic" evidence, this is little more than speculation.

Typically, when the frame rate drops that low, it's because you are out of VRAM. The VRAM usage indication on the rendering settings dialog is not all inclusive. The GPU-Z utility will give a more accurate reading. Without a log file to examine, however, there is still missing information.

Given the GPU, there must be something else causing the problem. Still, no log file?

1. You have posted incomplete information, which is why I repeatedly asked for the screenshot of the rendering settings dialog (which also happens to indicate VRAM usage). The log file provides a comprehensive look at the real state of X-Plane for diagnostic purposes. Contrary to what any typical user provides to help diagnose and solve a problem, you choose to "accept" help on your terms only. This is much like going to the hospital fearing you have a fracture, but refusing to allow x-rays to be taken and examinations to be made. 2. The issues described in the update description by Cameron are not consistent with single-digit fps. EDIT: Upon reading the above posts, I guess I'll quit here as well.

I don't understand your hesitation. As we don't know the exact release date of the update, I thought you might at least want to get the same performance other Saab users are getting. It may not be optimal, but it is certainly usable compared to your slideshow.

Is there a framerate issue with the Saab? Yes. That was never in dispute. However, please, point me to another post(s) where "so many reports" indicate single-digit "slideshows" as you have here. It is one thing to have a large group reporting much lower than average framerates for a complex model and quite another for the situation you are talking about. The large group is being addressed with the upcoming update. I'm asking for the third time: please post screenshots (complete rendering settings dialog, X-Plane fps indication) and your log file. Also, please indicate how much VRAM your GPU card has. Then we'll have something substantive to discuss and possibly get you at least to the same point everyone else is at. Let's start with a clean slate, shall we?

AMD does indeed offer a bargain when building a machine. But the single-threaded handicap is more than I care to tolerate anymore. Also. bear in mind the memory controller on the Intel CPU offers much better bandwidth as well. I've been using AMDs for some time now, both stock clocked and radically overclocked (liquid-cooled). Henceforth, for my next machine built to primarily run X-Plane, I will only use an Intel. Personally, I would save the $225 to get an SSD for your new machine's system drive. Good luck.

Both Windows 7 and 8.x are fine. Should you decide to spring for a new GPU as well, nVidia has traditionally had better OpenGL driver performance for Windows than AMD. However for the Mac crowd, AMD has been the better choice. It's all about the drivers.