Hi,As a constant FS9 user im ready for a follow up. Microsoft totally missed the boat with FSX cause of the rediculous hardware requirements. It will be playable somewere in 2020. So time to try the XP 10 demo. Hardware:I7-860 quad core (With HT on 8 cores but due to my OC i had to disable HT) @ 4,0 stable (stock = 2,4)2 x 4GB Corsair Venegeance 1600 (9,9,9,24)1 x Asus GTX 580 DCII (1,5 GB Vram!)1 x SSD OCZ Vertex 3 120 GBThe first thing i noticed was the long loading time. It took about three full minutes before i had a look at the runway. The demo runs from my SSD.Directly i went over to the rendering options. Set my res to 1920 x 1080 and a lot of option on or high. Back in the cockpit of the default 747 i opened up the throttles and...nothing happend. Parking brake was off, engine sound is ginving me the spooling up sound and...hey, wait a minute i saw movement. Aaahhhh....bad frames. I scored about 2 frames i think.Okay, back to the rendering settings. I really had to go back to allmost basic to have a smooth 60 fps. And i must admit that at those settings Flightsimulator 98 looks better.Is this due to the demo or is this a big brother of FSX when it comes to hardware requirements. As i see it now we need about 12 cores at 6 GHZ. Tripple SLI GTX590 and about 24 GB ram.

Hi,As a constant FS9 user im ready for a follow up. Microsoft totally missed the boat with FSX cause of the rediculous hardware requirements. It will be playable somewere in 2020.So time to try the XP 10 demo. Hardware:I7-860 quad core (With HT on 8 cores but due to my OC i had to disable HT) @ 4,0 stable (stock = 2,4)2 x 4GB Corsair Venegeance 1600 (9,9,9,24)1 x Asus GTX 580 DCII (1,5 GB Vram!)1 x SSD OCZ Vertex 3 120 GBThe first thing i noticed was the long loading time. It took about three full minutes before i had a look at the runway. The demo runs from my SSD.Directly i went over to the rendering options. Set my res to 1920 x 1080 and a lot of option on or high. Back in the cockpit of the default 747 i opened up the throttles and...nothing happend. Parking brake was off, engine sound is ginving me the spooling up sound and...hey, wait a minute i saw movement. Aaahhhh....bad frames. I scored about 2 frames i think.Okay, back to the rendering settings. I really had to go back to allmost basic to have a smooth 60 fps. And i must admit that at those settings Flightsimulator 98 looks better.Is this due to the demo or is this a big brother of FSX when it comes to hardware requirements. As i see it now we need about 12 cores at 6 GHZ. Tripple SLI GTX590 and about 24 GB ram.

http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/12/tips-for-better-frame-rates-pt-1/

This sim really takes a high-end PC to work well. I also made the mistake of turning up a lot of options and ended up getting about 0.7 FPS. At default-ish settings (the way the sim is set when you install it) the framerate is in the mid-teens. Guess I have to wait until I can afford dual GTX580's and an i7 overclocked to 4.5 GHz before I can really enjoy the sim. The disappointing thing is it doesn't look very good at those settings. The scenery is very sparse (Seattle looks very green) and the textures are kind of blurry. Also the loading times, as you said, are absolutely brutal.

That is strange chaps, u sound like you have better pcs than me, yet get much worse performance. Avoid HDR until u are more confident. AA does not need to be more than 4. Keep cloud size quite High and no's low. I find texture res any higher than high shunts my pc.RTFM that comes with the demo, settings explanations are great.My i7 920 gtx560 gives me this, with 20 planes!

Nice vid,That low lying fog effect is pretty cool.

There's apparently a bug in the latest version that is causing single digit framerates on some systems, almost as if X-Plane is bypassing the video card and rendering on the CPU. Prior to the update I was getting a steady 15FPS; after I'm down to around 5 with the exact same settings. I emailed Laminar about it and they said they're working on a fix. I was hoping it would be out before the weekend because the demo is unplayable at the moment for me. It's a little frustrating actually.

There's apparently a bug in the latest version that is causing single digit framerates on some systems, almost as if X-Plane is bypassing the video card and rendering on the CPU. Prior to the update I was getting a steady 15FPS; after I'm down to around 5 with the exact same settings. I emailed Laminar about it and they said they're working on a fix. I was hoping it would be out before the weekend because the demo is unplayable at the moment for me. It's a little frustrating actually.

Screenshot of your settings?

I've got the settings up fairly high, but like I said, prior to the latest update I was humming along just fine. It was only with the release of version 10.02b2 that my framerates took a dive, and reducing rendering options doesn't change anything. Also, Laminar confirmed in an email that they're working to resolve this issue. It might be specific to the Linux version.

I STILL can't figure out installing X Plane on Linux. Reminds me of C++... A complete mystery

Running smooth as silk on my AMD 945 / 4GB / OLD SKOOL HDD / 460GTX 768MB .... Like Simmo's great video shows - amazing weather effects, aircraft handling, AI... just a fun, realistic flight simulator - kudos to Austin, Ben and all the X-Plane Team.Its not 110% perfect but with the amount of hard work (and patients) by X-Plane Team to iron out some of the perf. issues being experienced by some - its going to get better and better with each update...Here's hoping the devs get on board - this is a great platform to start from.

I've got a really strong system but left all the special effects off, set shadows to overlay, and set 16xaf and 8x aa, clouds set to 50% helped too. Mine look pretty good as far as image quality goes. Frames-wise I get about 30 over KSEA in the King air VC and 40-60 outside of ksea.

Well, maybe its because of the demo. At least i know that X-plane will be suported when it comes to patches and updates, which microsoft did not. Well, they produced two updates for FSX which brought a huge amount of CTD's with them. From what i have seen in X-plane 10 it truly looks good. The ATC sounds well. The integrated tcas system in the boeing is a nice tough. And i hope some third party dev's (like PMDG for FS), will make some beautiful planes with corresponding cockpits. I'll keep my eyes open for the release.

Well, maybe its because of the demo. At least i know that X-plane will be suported when it comes to patches and updates, which microsoft did not. Well, they produced two updates for FSX which brought a huge amount of CTD's with them. From what i have seen in X-plane 10 it truly looks good. The ATC sounds well. The integrated tcas system in the boeing is a nice tough. And i hope some third party dev's (like PMDG for FS), will make some beautiful planes with corresponding cockpits. I'll keep my eyes open for the release.

On the otherhand, I completely disagree with your assement of FS9 versus FSX. I much preferred FSX over FS9 on day one, and haven't changed my mind......in all these years. I still run 9 though, just for a few certain addons.L.Adamson

On the otherhand, I completely disagree with your assement of FS9 versus FSX. I much preferred FSX over FS9 on day one, and haven't changed my mind......in all these years. I still run 9 though, just for a few certain addons.L.Adamson

Apparently, you're not the only one who disagrees. The debate of 9 vs 10 has been going on for ages. There is no right or wrong, the sim suited to individual needs wins every time, at least for me it does.

Nice vid,That low lying fog effect is pretty cool.

Thanks. I feel guilty now, hearing some ppl struggle. Maybe the first gen i7's will become a collectors item! For this great fog, set clouds to 0-2000ft, cirrus. Mystical.